What's the point of AR-15 pistols?


PDA






steam.atomic
March 27, 2012, 12:39 AM
http://home.comcast.net/~gunspotz/pistols/ar15pistol/arp2.jpg


What possible benefit is this? Why does it even exist? An AR-15 is a rifle and has no business being a handgun even for legal reasons.

If you enjoyed reading about "What's the point of AR-15 pistols?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tex4426
March 27, 2012, 12:41 AM
i am right there with you...i think its completely pointless..i guess the only thing it would be good for is maneuverability inside a vehicle for body gaurds but idk

Route2
March 27, 2012, 12:56 AM
I didn't even realize that an AR-15 had become available as a handgun. Of course, the AR-15 has been made in so many versions that I am not surprised. Other than being an interesting conversation piece, wouldn't think it very practical.

Pietro Beretta
March 27, 2012, 01:06 AM
Its tactical and cool... :evil:


(that was a poor attempt at a joke)

Robert
March 27, 2012, 01:07 AM
Not everything in this world needs a point. If someone has the money to spend and wants one why not? No better reason than, because I can.

Pietro Beretta
March 27, 2012, 01:47 AM
I must agree with Robert; Ferrari, Lamborghini, Lotus --Bentley Rolls Royce ... all I can think is why not have any of this ridiculousness ? In my case, I don't have the money. :banghead:

I am sure everyone has something they want but don't need and is impractical.

Unless your Amish/Mennonite, but then again if you were Amish/Mennonite, why are you here? Again, that was my poor attempt at a joke, :o :confused: :eek: :uhoh:

Dimis
March 27, 2012, 01:49 AM
I can honestly say I personally dont like the AR pistols with the buffer tube for any practical purpose

the RIA piston version on the other hand does look like it could be good for those that live in a state where SBR's are prohibited and could serve the same role as a SMG but with the better ballistic properties of a rifle cartridge

honestly the oddity factor and the "because we can" mentality is enough justification for me

firesky101
March 27, 2012, 03:11 AM
+1 for because I can. I personally would opt for the plr-16 though.

jackpinesavages
March 27, 2012, 06:40 AM
Well, imagine a scenario where you need the magazine capacity and velocity levels of that and get yourseld a decent bull pup or a 5.7x28 pistola!? :D

Seriously, I'm not sure either, as it actually looks longer than some with collapsible stocks.

mcdonl
March 27, 2012, 06:48 AM
Why an AR long gun? I am a 43 year old professional living in Southern Maine in a quite neighborhood... Other than my hunting and trap line guns there is no real "point" to anything else I own.

Plan2Live
March 27, 2012, 06:58 AM
I had the displeasure of having a guy with one of these take the empty lane to my left on the pistol range one day. This is an outdoor range that does not have any "walls" or brass barriers in between lanes. Needless to say, I was pelted with hot, spent cartridges and quickly packed up and left. Not to mention, the guy could barely hit a body outline target at 10 yards. So I echo the sentiment of what's the point?

Odd Job
March 27, 2012, 07:04 AM
I guess if you were doing some work with a ladder and you found it had a busted rung, you could use that AR-15 pistol and a few cable ties to replace the broken rung, but other than that I don't know.

The Lone Haranguer
March 27, 2012, 07:45 AM
I am going along with the majority here. The protruding buffer tube makes it as long as if it had a buttstock. :confused: This takes away the compactness factor. The three-foot muzzle flash (Dude, major wow factor!) might be fun for a few shots, but I think it would get old very quickly. I don't think I would want to fire it indoors. :uhoh: Put a buttstock and a suppressor on it (following all laws, of course) and you might have something.

Sport45
March 27, 2012, 07:46 AM
Is it true that once you've configured a lower like that you can never make a rifle out of it? Or is it the other way around?

The Lone Haranguer
March 27, 2012, 07:49 AM
If my understanding is correct, you can convert the pistol to the rifle, but it must always remain a rifle from then on.

CajunBass
March 27, 2012, 07:53 AM
I really don't know, but not long ago, I happened upon a Thompson pistol. Picture a Thompson Submachine gun with no buttstock (semi-auto only of course). Man that thing was COOL. I was so tempted to buy it. With a 30 round stick magazine and short (10-12" barrel?) it looked more like a real Thompson than the full stock ones with a 16" barrel. It weighed more than a good sized dog. There was no way to shoot it as a pistol. About all I could imagine doing with it was spraying lead from the hip. I still wanted it...but that darned ol' practical side of me took over.

I suspect most pistol AR's are bought for the same reason.

tdstout
March 27, 2012, 08:15 AM
To those of you who are asking "what's the point", does everything you own have a specific purpose? You have never bought anything just because you thought it looked cool?

Do you have more than one deer rifle or varmit rifle? What's the point of that? I have a buddy that owns a .243, 30-30, 308, and one more that I can't think of right now, all for deer hunting.

I guess what i'm trying to say is, some people just like to buy guns, whether or not they have any REAL purpose.

pockets
March 27, 2012, 08:41 AM
One might ask, "What's the point of everything needing a point?".
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar......and sometimes the entire 'point' is spelled F-U-N.
What's the point of a Slinky? What's the point of a hairless cat? What's the point of Lady Gaga? I don't really want any of these personally, including AR pistols, but some people absolutely love them...including Gaga.
Thankfully, we live in a land where we are able to choose.

.

Mainsail
March 27, 2012, 09:03 AM
Maybe it has no other purpose but to give you something about which to complain.

DesertFox
March 27, 2012, 09:10 AM
While I do not have an AR pistol in 5.56x45, I do have a M&P15-22P and I've got to say that it is very handy and fun to shoot. With no recoil, I can brace it against my cheek. Makes for a very compact walk about unit for gophers and other target/plinking needs.

Heck, the flyers lately seem to be full of PTR-91 pistols in 7.62x51! Wait till that one shows up in the lane next to you at the pistol range...

Capybara
March 27, 2012, 09:32 AM
Keep in mind that I live in **********. Two simple purposes...

1. In **********, an AR pistol is the closest thing I can get to any kind of SBR. That's the way it is here.

I am building one with an 11" barrel and the OAL will be >26". This means that I an legally add a VFG. So I will have four points of contact, handgrip, VFG, cheek weld on the foam covering the buffer tube and a single point sling. With four points of contact and bracing, you can actually shoot fairly accurately, much better than an AR "pistol".

Overall, it is a range toy, it is for fun, not for competitive shooting or HD.

2. In this ridiculous state, an AR pistol is a political statement. Is it practical? Not really. Is it easy to shoot well? No. Is it fun? Yes, they are. But best of all, the anti-gun forces that run Sacramento don't want me to have one of these. In **********, our off-list AR type rifles are considered to have "evil" features so an AR pistol is even more "evil".

Same with my Uzi. The original IMI Uzi is a banned AW here, so I have a Vector. Granted, it is a neutered 16" barrel, permanently stocked, semi-auto version, that is all we are permitted here so that is what I have. I plan on obtaining an AOW for the same reason. I have these guns because I can, because it is an irritant to the powers that be. None of the three weapons are highly practical and I have practical guns as well.

It must be hard to understand if you live in a free state but here, that is the way things are here. AR pistols are kind of cool, they are fun to shoot and they are interesting to build. They definitely serve a purpose, especially here in **********.

BTW, Franklin Arms in California makes an AR pistol in .450 BM, that thing is crazy. Makes a 5.56 AR seem "normal" so it is all relative.

sirsloop
March 27, 2012, 10:05 AM
The point is to make people why there's an ar15 pistol.

Show me another traditional pistol that shoots 3000+fps bullets!

CoRoMo
March 27, 2012, 10:23 AM
Is it true that once you've configured a lower like that you can never make a rifle out of it? Or is it the other way around?
If my understanding is correct, you can convert the pistol to the rifle, but it must always remain a rifle from then on.
Not so. You can go back and forth: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=606813

M2 Carbine
March 27, 2012, 10:25 AM
While I have a AR 15 pistol I like the Kel Tec PLR a lot more.
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/KTPLRhand-1.jpg

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/PLRCarbinesling-1.jpg


The "point" is it's a smaller size gun than a the AR rifle. It is a high capacity very powerful "pistol". They are accurate. In the hands of someone that's practiced in it's use it would be a very deadly gun to go up against, no matter what you are armed with.
But the most important "point" of all is they are interesting and fun to shoot.



If it wasn't for one major problem with the rifle caliber pistols I would use them for many things, like car guns, HD guns, etc.
The problem is they have a ear shattering muzzle blast. They are very loud outside, but would be a ear wrecker in a car or indoors.
So pretty much I use them as range guns.
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/PLRwithoutflashhider-1.jpg

dcarch
March 27, 2012, 10:25 AM
The point of pistol ARs is to counter the anti-gunners blood pressure medication. :evil:

RhinoDefense
March 27, 2012, 10:28 AM
A lot of people build an AR15 pistol to work out the kinks of a short barreled AR type weapon while they are waiting on their SBR paperwork. This allows them to legally have a short barrel on their weapon. They can test and evaluate ammunition and buffer weights to get reliability and accuracy they want. When the SBR paperwork is approved, they attach a buttstock and go on with life.

CraigC
March 27, 2012, 10:28 AM
Why does it even exist?
To make noise and little else.

M2 Carbine
March 27, 2012, 10:32 AM
The point of pistol ARs is to counter the anti-gunners blood pressure medication.
That alone is worth the price of the gun.:D

M2 Carbine
March 27, 2012, 10:37 AM
Quote:
Why does it even exist?

To make noise and little else.
It's also good for punching holes in steel.
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/KT223onsteelfront.jpg

BTW the chipped paint is from 45ACP, 9mm, 38, etc.

allaroundhunter
March 27, 2012, 11:23 AM
Why an AR long gun?

These actually serve many viable purposes

cpirtle
March 27, 2012, 12:03 PM
I use to feel the same way About AR pistols as most of you on this thread. Then I had a chance to pick one up for a great price so I figured what the heck.

Let me start by saying once you know how to shoot one these are not "spray and pray" rifles made into pistols.

The reason they have a pad on the buffer tube is because when you fire the pistol you plant your cheek bone into the pad and it acts like a stock. This method provides for perfect sight alignment and excellent accuracy. No, it doesn't hurt - feels about the same as a shoulder fired AR with maybe a little more felt recoil.

I have two AR pistols now and every time I have them out at the club I let people shoot them and they always walk away with a different opionon of them afterwards. At 100 yards I can sit and ring a 6" steel plate all day long with open sights, they are as accurate as any SBR/AR.

Yes, ultimately they are toys because you'll never achieve the full capabilities of the round with such a short barrel but inside 50 yards I certainly wouldn't discount them as a viable alternative to a full size AR.

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 27, 2012, 12:05 PM
For fun and annoying anti gunners

/endthread :)

jmorris
March 27, 2012, 12:42 PM
As above I built one before I sent off the SBR paperwork.

sirsloop
March 27, 2012, 12:57 PM
Ask why not! Compared to other pistols it's got impressive firepower.

cougar1717
March 27, 2012, 01:34 PM
What else would you use when the zombies attack??? It's a gun that swings well, accurate, uses Z-max ammo, and a better conversation piece than a mare's leg or a .410 revolver. Aluminum cans at 50 yds don't stand a chance either.

CraigC
March 27, 2012, 01:46 PM
Compared to other pistols it's got impressive firepower.
Firepower with no practical way to apply it is useless. A rifle without a buttstock is FAR less useful than a rifle and no better than a real pistol but much more cumbersome.

It is nothing more than a range toy. Which is fine, if that's what you want.

HDCamel
March 27, 2012, 02:04 PM
What's the point of AR-15 pistols?

So you can get a Beta C-Mag and re-enact MGS3.

Loosedhorse
March 27, 2012, 02:16 PM
I can think of three:

1. Niche. Some may argue that the AR-15 pistol is a great (for example) anti-carjack gun. That's fine with me.

2. Challenge. Think of it the same as bolt action pistols--why get one when you can have a bolt action rifle instead? Precisely because hunting or long-range shooting is more challenging with a pistol than a rifle.

3. Fun. Kinda looks cool, a real YEE-HAW at the range.

The mechanisms have gotten better, too. I remember some of the older versions often had a clunky spring tube above the gas-tube (so you didn't need one behind the grip):

http://www.gun-tests.com/newspics/16_9/AR.jpg

Now, most makers like Kel-Tec have of course done away with all that.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/gallery/159/2021Kel_Tec_PLR-16.jpg

John Taffin tried the Kel-Tec (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_189_31/ai_n27319929/), and liked it--and for more than making noise.It may look like an ugly duckling but it transforms into a beautiful swan when actually fired. It's totally functional, with no regard to form, and its major attribute is superb accuracy. Any question of its practicality is answered in the affirmative on the firing range.Emphasis added.

Mainsail
March 27, 2012, 02:28 PM
For practical purposes in some states. Here in WA we cannot carry a long gun loaded in a vehicle. The AR pistol allows you to have a 30 round high power handgun locked and loaded in the car. True, you can have your long gun unloaded with the full magazine sitting right next to it, but if you want L&L, it has to be a handgun.

DPris
March 27, 2012, 03:24 PM
It's an awkward toy, but if you like awkward toys it's your choice.

As far as "power" goes, I chronographed one last year.
Through the shorter barrel it loses a LOT of velocity.
Typically from 400-900 feet per second, depending on the bullet. And that's in a caliber many feel is already marginal for defensive uses.

Show me an AR pistol in .223 that can put out a bullet at 3000 FPS.

Get an AR pistol if you want to, by all means, but make no unrealistic claims about it.
Denis

Loosedhorse
March 27, 2012, 03:58 PM
Typically from 400-900 feet per second, depending on the bullet. And that's in a caliber many feel is already marginal for defensive uses.Well, still not bad.

Taffin listed velocities between 2200 and 2500; Jeff Quinn (http://www.gunblast.com/Kel-Tec_PLR-16.htm) mentioned 2670--both for the PLR-16.

Make those bullets HPs so they fragment, and I think we might have a viable SD tool.

rjrivero
March 27, 2012, 05:18 PM
Is it true that once you've configured a lower like that you can never make a rifle out of it? Or is it the other way around?
If my understanding is correct, you can convert the pistol to the rifle, but it must always remain a rifle from then on.

That's old thinking. The ATF Wrote Ruling 2011-4 (http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf) last year. Essentially, you can take a pistol and build/reconfigure it into a LEGAL RIFLE, and then convert it back into a pistol all you want to without fear of violating the NFA.

Therefore, you can build any AR Lower into an AR Pistol, and then build it into a complete RILFE, and back into a Pistol as much as you would like to without violating the NFA.

I wasn't really a big fan of them until I did some poking around with them. Turns out a Nosler Partition 60gr will keep fragmenting velocity out past 100 yards with a 7.5" barrel. That's pretty potent. Swat Magazine did an article on the 7.5" barreled SBR and showed it penetrating Level IIIa body armor at 50 yards.

The .223/5.56 is a POTENT PDW round. The concussion is deafening though. An Ops Inc M4S does a nice job keeping that "reasonable."

For states that allow the carry of loaded pistols in cars but not loaded rifles, this is a better alternative than most. When I go to 3 gun matches, I'd rather not load magazines at the venue. But, I can't carry loaded magazines in my car with the rifle. Solution: Rifle in the trunk, mags and AR pistol in the front seat with me. Loaded pistol is fine. Loaded rifle is no-no.

Dnaltrop
March 27, 2012, 05:44 PM
Because of long-term joint damage, I can't take much recoil on my shoulder capsules without a lot of pain. Even a Red Ryder hurts more than I can properly explain after a few shots.

I wouldn't mind a .223 pistol for my lone entry into the AR field, but I'd prefer a Calico 9mm pistol first.

MtnCreek
March 27, 2012, 05:50 PM
Point? Equal distribution of bullet impact over the entire berm. If everyone at the range had an accurate weapon, all the impacts would be concentrated directly behind the target. The AR and similar pistols dramatically increase the number of bullet impacts a berm can withstand prior to needing maintenance.

DPris
March 27, 2012, 07:21 PM
Last year I ran five different loads through a 16-inch AR as a control & a Rock River PDS pistol with 9-inch barrel.

Win 45 Grain Frangible Trainer 3204 FPS vs 2295 FPS
Hornady 53 Grain V-Max Varmint 3174 FPS vs 2448 FPS
Win USA 55 Grain FMJ 3168 FPS vs 2479 FPS
Win 64 Grain Power Point 2740 FPS vs 1965 FPS
Black Hills 77 Grain OTM 2701 FPS vs 2200 FPS

Loss:
909 FPD
725 FPS
698 FPS
775 FPS
501 FPS

I personally see no advantage in losing so much velocity on top of an ungainly & awkward platform as an AR pistol & there are so many better choices there's no way I'd go that route.
Not a knock on RR, and you'd gain slightly with a 10-inch barrel on another pistol, but my personal opinion is that most people who adopt such a critter for SD are doing so despite the platform's faults, and because of the perceived Cool Factor, not because of any actual superiority.

Yes, it can kill, but....

My opinion, you're welcome to yours. :)
Denis

jrumsey
March 27, 2012, 07:28 PM
AR 15 pistols what's the point .

The point is this and it is called the second amendment " The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." If you don't like them or see no use for them that is your decision and should end there. They are a legal firearm under our current laws just like any other handgun. If you think they have no legitimate use then who among you will decide which firearm is next on the whats the point list. I hope that it is not one of the firearms that you think is acceptable for everyone to use.

M2 Carbine
March 27, 2012, 10:08 PM
The .223 does 2500+ FPS from a 9 inch barrel Kel Tec PLR (Winchester White Box). Faster from a 11 inch AR pistol.
By any measure 2500 FPS from a pistol is fast.


A Remington 55 grain JSP from a 9 inch barrel Kel Tec. On the bottom is a Speer 45ACP Gold Dot.

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/PLRRemJSPand45GD.jpg

sirsloop
March 27, 2012, 10:20 PM
Why do you need to run such a short barrel on a AR pistol anyways? Run a 14-16" barrel on a pistol grip... it'll do over 3000fps. Heck, run .204 and ramp it up to 3700+fps outta a 16" barrel!

wrc
March 27, 2012, 10:27 PM
An AR pistol is a matter of law and the buffer tube. Plenty of people have 10.5 or 11" AR pistols. That's a MK18 without a stock.

It is especially useful if you are testing upper/buffer combos while waiting on a Form 1.

jbr
March 27, 2012, 10:28 PM
Crap - now i have to come up with a "point" for all my guns.

sirsloop
March 27, 2012, 10:36 PM
HAHAH

point is they shoot stuff

M2 Carbine
March 27, 2012, 11:17 PM
Point? Equal distribution of bullet impact over the entire berm. If everyone at the range had an accurate weapon, all the impacts would be concentrated directly behind the target. The AR and similar pistols dramatically increase the number of bullet impacts a berm can withstand prior to needing maintenance.
Like most guns the .223 pistol is only as good as the person shooting it. If they can't hit anything with the .223 pistol they are probably poor shots with anything else.

For instance. (I use the Kel Tec because I like it better than my AR pistol)
At 100 yards the PLR is more accurate than most pistols and as accurate as a lot of AR rifles.
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/PLR95ydsPMCmatch3226.jpg

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/PLR95ydssierramatch32206.jpg


Standing at 100 yards while fast firing a 30 round mag into the old Texas concealed carry qualification target. (the Red pasters are from some light loaded test rounds)
Doesn't look like the bullets are spread all over the berm from the .223 pistol.:D
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/100yardsPLR1.jpg

bbuddtec
March 28, 2012, 07:27 AM
Wow, haters.... first off, if a rude and lousy shooter made the gun bad, there's a HUGE list of bad guns... :|

As far as accuracy goes, from what I've seen, barrel length makes little difference for .223 , it's certainly not night and day.

ah well, as you were...

MtnCreek
March 28, 2012, 08:08 AM
M2,

That is some really impressive shooting! My very limited experience with such pistols made me doubt their usefulness. Iíve fired an AK type pistol once and just intended to make noise with it. Every other AR or AK type pistol Iíve seen shot resulted in bullets all over the place from 20 yds and have even seen guys at a formal range cut the target stands down. Maybe not my cup of tea, but I do have a new respect for them, at least in your hands. Thanks for the photos.

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 08:19 AM
Win USA 55 Grain FMJ 3168 FPS vs 2479 FPS

...698 FPSNot sure about the math, there--typo I think. Or maybe the losses weren't supposed to be in order. Either way, that's fine--doesn't matter.

Guess you're a "the glass is 22% empty" type of guy!Yes, it can kill, but....The implication seems to be that "killing" with a round going over 3100 is the right way to do it, but using a 2400 fps round, well, that's just bad form--not quite cricket!

Definitely, it's true: anyone can have any opinion, and personal preference requires no clear reason at all.

M2 Carbine
March 28, 2012, 09:13 AM
That is some really impressive shooting! My very limited experience with such pistols made me doubt their usefulness.
Thanks, but I'm just a decent shooter, nothing special and at my age (74) I'm getting worse all the time. :(


Individuals may not like or have a use for a particular gun, but that doesn't necessarily mean the gun is useless or ineffective.

I also have the Rossi .357 and Henry 22LR "Mare's Leg", that some call useless and difficult to shoot. In fact, a person can get quite good with the gun with a little practice.
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/RossiRH-1.jpg

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/RossiRHshooting38SWCtwohandsstandingcheekweld-1.jpg

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/HenryML.jpg

Recently, a lady I taught to shoot, shot my Henry 22. She took to the gun right away and liked shooting it. She liked ringing a steel plate.
About every 10 shots I'd have her move back a few yards. Shortly she was shooting the gun at 52 yards and seldom missed the target.
Before this time the only thing she had shot at 50 yards was a AR rifle.
She immediately bought a Henry Mare's Leg.:)


.

1911austin
March 28, 2012, 09:26 AM
Pay your $200 tax, slap on a new buffer tube and stock.

Nakanokalronin
March 28, 2012, 12:50 PM
It's an easier/cheaper way to have a SBR without the stamp (or the stock) or the only way to obtain one in a ban/nanny state. Some are for fun but even those can be used in a defensive role if need be.

Mine was made for fun but I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it. ;)

gotigers
March 28, 2012, 01:16 PM
Some build a pistol lower to keep them legal for owning an AR upper with a barrel shorter than 16". It is about the same price as a NFA stamp, but takes less time.

DPris
March 28, 2012, 01:49 PM
Loose,
Typo, shoulda been 2470 FPS.

Your inference is erroneous. I don't demand any particular speed.
However, a 22% velocity loss in a caliber that many in combat are raising serious questions about is a concern to me.
Aside from the Placement Is All argument, I see no point whatever in reducing the effectiveness of a defensive caliber, and that's what you're doing with a short-barreled handgun AR variant.

Something most don't take into consideration in going with such a platform is the effect on terminal performance with such a velocity loss.
Those bullets are generally designed to perform (ie expand) at certain speeds. When you reduce those speeds, you tend to also affect what the bullets do on impact.

Buy one if you want one.
I've not said otherwise. I just don't find the AR pistol to have any overriding benefit as a defensive proposition.
If you do, it's your life.
I won't bet mine on one.

M2 is quite a proponent of the Mare's Leg.
I own two as toys, and in the scenarios he mentions for his (sporting, slowfire, close, etc.) they have some utility.
For defensive uses, they also fall short in relation to far better choices.

No amount of fascination with the coolness thereof can change that.
Denis

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 02:23 PM
However, a 22% velocity loss in a caliber that many in combat are raising serious questions about is a concern to me.How many in combat are raising questions about HP loads? I understand that you are not giving a "threshold" velocity for effectiveness, but you do seem to be implying that a 3000 fps load would clearly have more effectiveness than a 2470 load; and perhaps that the effectiveness of the 2470 load would cross some "unacceptable" point that the 3000 load is above. If you're not implying that, then I'm not sure why you think the lost velocity is important; if you are, the reasons for neither of your assumptions is is clear to me.

As to shorter barrels, we could make the same point about .357 snubbies; heck, even 9mm rounds are probably better out of longer carbine barrels than out of pistol barrels, so I'm not sure why your idea that "I see no point whatever in reducing the effectiveness of a defensive caliber" wouldn't also apply to them. And yet .357 snubbies and 9mm pistols are very much standard and accepted: despite their "faults," people do indeed bet their lives on them every day.

I think that .223 pistols may be analogous. But, I could be wrong.For defensive uses, they also fall short in relation to far better choices.Well, no matter what we choose, there will always be "far better choices"; even if one is "carrying" a division of Marines, I think carrying two divisions would be "far better."Buy one if you want one.Careful, Dennis! This is after all MA, and we're talking about a pistol--you wouldn't want me to do anything illegal, would you? ;):D

DPris
March 28, 2012, 02:54 PM
Loose,
It's not the 3000 FPS IN ITSELF that I'm advocating.
And I'm very much aware that the military is not using HPs. In fact, thereby you make another point for me.

IF the resulting velocities from a 10-inch (or so) AR pistol barrel are reduced sufficiently to also reduce their ability to expand as they were designed to do at "normal" velocities, those bullets are much more likely NOT TO EXPAND, which in effect transforms them into the equivalent of an FMJ.
An FMJ in the .223 is far from the best way to go, defensively.

Your handgun analogies don't necessarily apply in handgun calibers.
By definition, handgun calibers are designed to be used in handguns. They CAN achieve a velocity boost, and an effectiveness boost, through a carbine-length barrel. Some, like the .357, can gain as much as 500-600 FPS through a carbine. In such cases, you're achieving exactly the opposite result: you're GAINING effectiveness by shooting a handgun caliber through a "rifle" barrel, rather than losing effectiveness in shooting a rifle caliber through a handgun barrel.

.223 pistols are certainly not analogous.

A 9mm or .357 Mag runs at certain velocities through handguns, using bullets designed to expand at typical minimum handgun velocities. That can still provide reasonable power & effectiveness levels in dropping down to a 2-inch snub from a 4-inch "standard" handgun barrel length. Most good modern bullet designs built for a .38 or .357 Mag will still achieve a decent percentage of the expansion parameters designed into them if fired through a snub.

Even in the marginally reduced velocities inherent to a snub, you do not lose 500-900 FPS in dropping down from a 4-inch barrel to a 2-inch barrel.

To me, there's no correlation whatever in your analogy.

My comment on buying one was directed at those who may simply want one.
As with the Mare's Leg, toys are fun & need no justification.
In choosing one as defensive hardware, if you insist just make your choice concurrent with reality as an informed choice.

There's a good reason why you don't see professional instructors advocating a pistol AR or an ML for serious purposes. And why you don't see police using an AR pistol.
The concept simply doesn't hold up in real life.
Denis

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 03:13 PM
IF the resulting velocities from a 10-inch (or so) AR pistol barrel are reduced sufficiently to also reduce their ability to expand as they were designed to do at "normal" velocities, those bullets are much more likely NOT TO EXPAND, which in effect transforms them into the equivalent of an FMJ.Agreed. However, many .223 HPs fragment, rather than expand. If they still fragment at 2470 (not an unreasonable assumption), then why should we suppose their effectiveness is reduced? If rather than fragment, they now simply expand (and so penetrate more), perhaps that's more effective? you're GAINING effectiveness by shooting a handgun caliber through a "rifle" barrel, rather than losing effectiveness in shooting a rifle caliber through a handgun barrel.Exactly. So if you're giving us the old "shoot .223s out of a short barrel if you want, but there are far more effective choices", shouldn't you be saying the same thing about anyone who chooses to use a pistol, rather than carbine, barrel for .357?using bullets designed to expand at typical minimum handgun velocitiesAh, so your objection is about .223 bullet design? As I said above, many .223 HPs fragment. Also, until quite recently, very few if any ammo manufacturers were worried about "short-barrel ballistics", so it could well be expected that your .357 bullet wouldn't work as well out of a 2 inch barrel compared to a 4 or 5.you do not lose 500-900 FPS in dropping down from a 4-inch barrel to a 2-inch barrel.That's a little disingenuous, isn't it? Given that the .357 isn't starting at 3000+ fps, of course it will show lower numeric losses. And even so, yes, some .357 loads do lose 500 fps in that scenario.

According to Ballistics by the Inch (http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html), a typical .357 load may travel 1465 fps out of a 6 inch barrel, and 1293 out of a 4 inch; out a 2 inch, 858. That's a 34% velocity loss compared to the 4 inch--and I'm supposed to be concerned about a 22% loss for a .223?There's a good reason why you don't see professional instructors advocating a pistol AR or an ML for serious purposes.Sure: market forces. Most of their students, whether LE or not, don't use them.And why you don't see police using an AR pistol.
The concept simply doesn't hold up in real life.Well, that might be the reason. If so, that doesn't mean it wouldn't hold up in someone else's "real life." LE has no trouble getting short-barrel rifles (if they want them), and mounting them visibly, cruiser-ready, in their cars. For those who don't really have that option, AR pistols might serve a similar role.

In real life. ;)My comment on buying oneUnderstood. I was just whining a little about our stupid laws! :(:o My apologies.

Bovice
March 28, 2012, 03:49 PM
I'd like to get an AR pistol one day. I know it isn't as practical as the rifle variant, but I don't want to have to jump through all the hoops for a SBR either. The buffer tubes have that pad on them, press it to your cheek and put a nice red dot on it. For short range shooting, someone familiar with a rifle pattern AR should do fine.

For defensive use, any AR in general is going to ring your bell. They are LOUD. Even the 16 inch ones. I wouldn't want to use one indoors without earmuffs. For that reason, I would not use any AR in that role.

DPris
March 28, 2012, 04:00 PM
Loose,

A .223 bullet designed to expand OR fragment is still very much dependent on velocity to perform at the levels intended by the factory, and a 500-900 FPS loss can & does impact that performance.
Severely, in some cases.

Choosing to use a .357 carbine instead of a pistol because the carbine has better ballistics? Huh?
I don't follow at all.

The REAL handgun (not your AR pistol) is chosen for applications where a larger gun (rifle or carbine) can't be carried, concealed, or used effectively.
In the case of the .357 Mag, it was designed for handguns, to produce performance levels inherent to handguns, and where a carbine can't be used. It's nowhere near the same thing as your .223 pistol, and the example you attempt to use here is meaningless.

I have a .357 Marlin, it boosts the .357 Mag cartidge velocity considerably.
That is far from the only criteria for selecting whether I carry it in hand or one of the .357 revolvers on the belt.
Can't hardly tote the Marlin into WalMart, can very easily with any of the .357 handguns.
Marlin won't fit in the glovebox.
Marlin doesn't work a house in the middle of the night as well as the revolvers can.
And so on.

Nothing disingenuous at all.
Comparing a lightweight high-velocity .223 rifle round to a much heavier and slower handgun round is apples & oranges.
The .223 depends much more on velocity and bullet construction to achieve its best results.

If it remains a solid or FMJ, it will most likely punch a .22-caliber hole through a target.
A .357 or .38 snub is RELATIVELY less dependent on velocity, and will be less affected by a 34% velocity loss than the .223 will be, IN GENERAL, by a 22% velocity loss.

The typical modern premium .38 & .357 Mag JHPs remain more likely to offer at least SOME expansion in losing 200+ FPS between barrel lengths, and even if they don't expand, they'll still penetrate and punch a .357-inch hole as opposed to your 22-caliber hole.

Also, context is important, and you're playing a misleading numbers game with your percentages.
In comparing the .357 handgun with the 10-inch AR pistol, forget the percentages. Those are important for purposes of discussion in comparing shorter & longer barrels in a .223 AR platform only.

Stick with the velocities, which are more relevant in comparing a .357 handgun in two barrel lengths against the .223 ARs in shorter and longer barrels.

A 200-400 FPS loss (not always exact, varies from gun to gun & load to load) in a typical .357 will have much less effect on terminal performance than a 500-900 FPS loss in a typical .223.

Market forces have nothing to do with a competent professional instructor not advocationg an AR pistol for any serious defensive uses.
They understand full well, if they have any real background in the subject at all, that the things just don't cut it.
Same with police.
And, "most of their students" not using them is a commentary in a different direction than you intended.

You take an AR pistol to a good training course & see how well it does not stack up. :)

AR pistols CAN serve a purpose.
They CAN fire a bullet.
They just don't do it efficiently, either ballistically or in hand.
Denis

DPris
March 28, 2012, 04:04 PM
Bovice,
Define "short range". :)
And I never had to fire one indoors, but after working a few houses with a 16-incher I decided the handgun was far more convenient. Quit taking the AR in unless it was a bigger building.

Today it's still a handgun when things go bump in the middle of the night. :)
Denis

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 04:51 PM
A .223 bullet designed to expand OR fragment is still very much dependent on velocity to perform at the levels intended by the factory, and a 500-900 FPS loss can & does impact that performance.Evidence? Citation? I mean, you are free to assume that's true, just as I am free to assume that any impact of that velocity loss on SD effectivenss is trivial using the right loads, unless there is evidence to the contrary for those loads. So far, we have your assumption that a .223 HP is either unable to expand or fragment at 2470 fps; and/or your assumption that such a bullet expanding and maybe fragmenting at 2470 will do little defensively (except make an attacker laugh?).

;):D Again, I see no reason for either assumption, and you have presented none.The REAL handgun (not your AR pistol) is chosen for applications where a larger gun (rifle or carbine) can't be carried, concealed, or used effectively.And these may be the situations where an AR pistol would also work. Unless there would never be any category between concealable pistol and carbine; but I think that there are roles (maybe car gun, maybe bedroom gun, maybe given certain legal or disability considerations) where it might fit.

And, again, that's not even talking about target and hunting use, for those so inclined.Also, context is important, and you're playing a misleading numbers game with your percentages.On what basis do you claim percentages are misleading--why aren't your straight fps numbers misleading?A 200-400 FPS loss (not always exact, varies from gun to gun & load to load) in a typical .357 will have much less effect on terminal performance than a 500-900 FPS loss in a typical .223.Why? Just your say-so? You've given no evidence except, "See, the number is bigger! Don't worry about percentages!" And again, both .223 and .357s apparently can lose 500 fps.And, "most of their students" not using them is a commentary in a different direction than you intended.Not at all. If you check back at my first post in this thread, I stated upfront that it was a niche pistol.

Just like a .38 snub, only a different niche. :D If you go to a typically Glock-and-1911-dominated class with your .38 snub, you will discover its disadvantages...and likely keep using it anyway.They understand full well, if they have any real background in the subject at all, that the things just don't cut it.They may (as you insist) "understand" that; but if they are anything like you, they apparently don't have any articulable reason for that "understanding"--except of course the pedantic, unconvincing "That's just the way it is in real life."

Reality to me consists of evidence. You either have none to provide on this topic of .223s at 2470 being a poor choice for SD; or you have it and just don't want to share.

Guess which way I'm betting? :D

Denis, you have your opinon, I have mine. Fine. If you have some evidence about the .223's ineffectiveness using the ammo that I'd use out of such a pistol, then please: don't hold out. Show me.

If, instead, you're just going to respond with more unsupported personal opinon about what "real life" is like, thanks--please have the last word, and I won't disturb you again on this topic. I've know what cards I'm holding, and you've (I think) shown me all yours, too. Be well, thanks for the discussion.

ny32182
March 28, 2012, 05:21 PM
They exist because of the SBR laws in this country, period. If you didn't need a tax stamp for an SBR, they would all be gone by tomorrow morning.

They may be fun to make noise with, but there is nothing you can try to do with an AR pistol that can't be accomplished better with something else, be it an AR SBR or regular format pistol, depending on the situation.

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 06:22 PM
They exist because of the SBR laws in this country, period.Could be. I note, however, that some submachineguns like the MP5, or even machineguns like the HK 51 or 53, have collapsible stocks, again making them awkward, large "inefficient" pistols. Perhaps the stocks are meant to be in the collapsed position for storage only, never for use. But my guess is if those were legally available for sale, some folks would buy them.

Maybe even this folk. ;)

ny32182
March 28, 2012, 06:25 PM
They collapse for storage/transport/ and/or LOP adjustment, same as on an AR carbine.

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 06:34 PM
LOP adjustmentThat hasn't been my experience for the older HKs; for others, I'm sure your right. And of course, stockless "PDW" versions exist for guns like the MP5 and XM8.

Again, my point is that even in environments (military) where SBRs are easy to get, these odd stockless pistols are nevertheless made for some reason. And, I would guess, used.

ny32182
March 28, 2012, 06:38 PM
In what military environment do they use a stockless MP5?

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 06:40 PM
How would I know? But HK makes/made it. Your point therefore that such awkward pistols are only made because of SBR laws seems wrong--they do in fact exist in settings where such laws don't apply. I would assume therefore that someone thinks they have a purpose.

fastbolt
March 28, 2012, 06:55 PM
What's the point of AR-15 pistols?

I'd guess that somewhere along the line, someone had a couple of thoughts occur them.

Can I(we) make one that actually functions?

Will someone pay money for it?

There's an old saying from the car business. Revised for polite company, it's that there's a butt for every seat made. :neener:

BTW, the velocity threshold for fragmentation to occur in .223 & 5.56 loads, and how shorter barrels might diminish the effectiveness when it comes to terminal ballistic effect ... as well as getting short gas tubed guns to run well with different loads ... isn't exactly a new consideration.

Bullet design & weight, and barrel twist rate, can be revised to help try to mitigate these issues, to some extent.

Nothing really new.

gfpd707
March 28, 2012, 09:13 PM
Easy answer. Its cool. If we had to have a reason for every gun we would be seriously limited in selection. Asking for a reason is kind of and "anti" way of looking at firearms.

M2 Carbine
March 28, 2012, 09:21 PM
In case anyone has forgotten the subject gun is a PISTOL.
Therefore, compare it to other pistols, not rifles.
Comparing it to rifles is comparing Apples and Oranges, a waste of time, and proves nothing.
I believe everyone agrees that there is a difference in bullet velocity between a 7-11 inch PISTOL barrel and a 16+ inch RIFLE barrel.

So what speed does the .223 bullet do out of a 7-11 inch pistol barrel? 2,500+ FPS.

What does a JSP .233 bullet do from a PISTOL barrel? It expands out to about 40 cal. size.

What does a 2500+ .223 JSP bullet do when it hits a person COM? I suspect it mostly kills them.

Now there are probably internet tough guys that can laugh off a 2500 FPS, expanding JHP bullet tearing through their chest but they are rare individuals.

So, here is the AR/PLR .223 pistol.
It's a powerful, high capacity, accurate and deadly pistol in the hands of an experienced user.


Now, how does it compare to other PISTOLS?

ritepath
March 28, 2012, 09:30 PM
Nice Jeep gun....legal to carry here in VA with my CHP.

BP44
March 28, 2012, 09:37 PM
To have as a host for your SBR upper until you get your stamp back:rolleyes:

DPris
March 28, 2012, 09:39 PM
Loose,
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
If you think a .223 bullet will perform the same through a 10-inch barrel as it will through a 16 incher, have at it.
We haven't even addressed the loss of velocity in a 16 as opposed to a 20-inch barrel.
The varmint rifles the 223 was designed for originally had longer barrels, and the military 5.56 was designed for a 20-inch barrel initially.
New ammunition developments for military use have come about largely because of the M4's shorter barrel.

There's a drop between 20 and 16 inches & much more so in going lower than 16inches.
Besides the velocity loss, the shorter you go the greater muzzle flash can be with some rounds, because the powder charge intended to burn completely in a 20-inch or so barrel simply can't burn as much of its powder in the shorter barrel, which means more of it'll burn out in front of the muzzle. That doesn't help if you need to use the gun in the dark.

The military is now swinging in the direction of heavier bullets for the 16-inch M4s that are widely issued, at least partially because of stopping failures with the lighter projectiles in those shorter barrels.
You may notice the heavier Black Hills OTM had the least velocity loss in my chronograph testing, but still showed a 500 FPS drop.

Percentage figures can be useless, taken out of context.
A percentage can be very deceptive.
If I said I shot two rounds out of a given gun & one misfired, I could say that round produced a 50% failure rate, which would be true. Taken out of context, with no mention of the actual numbers used, the 50% failure statement is highly misleading, in this case because of the limited sampling used.

Closer to the point here, if a small bullet is designed to perform (expand, fragment, etc.) at a certain high velocity rate, a 22% loss of velocity can be very significant, IF the initial velocity is relatively high.
If a larger bullet that's designed to travel at less than half that speed loses 34% of its velocity, the percentages do not translate directly & do not have the same significance.

In comparing the .357 & the .223 in handguns, percentages are meaningless. The actual velocity figures are more useful.

Your sarcasm is also less than helpful. Nowhere did I say being struck by a .223 at 2470 FPS would make an attacker laugh.
I'm saying I see no reason to further dilute the ballistics of the caliber by robbing it of the velocity that it depends on for maximum effectivness.

The 2470 FPS figure is only part of the reason why I say an AR pistol is a poor choice.
You render a defensive caliber weaker, you try to make a large & ungainly platform into something it does a poor job at, and you handicap yourself in the entire process.

No articulable reason for understanding why the pistol AR doesn't cut it in the real world?
It is:
Heavy, requiring two hands for most uses.
Bulky.
Harder than a real handgun to move around dynamically in engaging targets, work around corners, hold steady on target, and so on.
It suffers from the same problem a stockless pump shotgun has- harder to aim, harder to control.
Even with a pad & using the buffer housing against the cheek, it's not as accurate or controllable as a stocked carbine.
It can't be holstered or concealed without going to great lengths to dress for it.
In a car, it can't be utilized as quickly against close threats as a conventional handgun.
There's the muzzle blast & flash to deal with.

And so on.
As I said- you try taking one of those things to a good shooting school & see for yourself just how much of a handicap you create.
Can you complete the course?
Yes.
Will you keep up with the rest of the class?
No.
Is that relevant?
Most certainly.
Every year students show up at carbine classes, as an example, with all sorts of cool stuff bolted on. By the end, much of it's removed.
The students find out directly what's actually useful & what only looks cool.

I spent an entire career clearing buildings for a living.
I've been through excellent training classes & I've been an instructor for my last PD.
Again- there's a reason why these things are not recommended by instructors or used by PDs, and I've already told you what it is.

If you want to bet your life on one, it's your life.

On the submachineguns with collapsible stocks- yes, those are for storage & transport, not for firing in a collapsed position, unless there's a reason to.
ARs with sliders are not intended to be fired with the stocks in their shortest position, unless its shooter is small enough or bulkily armored enough to make it necessary.
My semi-auto Polish AK underfolders are CAPABLE of firing with the stocks folded, but not intended to be.

Submachineguns also tend to be in a class by themselves in certain areas.
They are employed a bit differently than semi-auto handguns of any type.

Why do these AR pistols really exist?
Partly because somebody thought it might be fun to do, which is fine.
Mostly because there's a certain market segment that'll buy 'em because they THINK they're something they're not.

Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it's a good idea, or worth using to defend your life. As a toy, again there's no justification needed.
The overriding motivation for manufacture in this case is that if a maker makes it, enough of you will buy it to put money in the maker's pocket, which is the true bottom line.

Fast,
You're right in that cartridges can be tweaked to offset the velocity problem, but most people who buy an AR pistol just buy the same ammunition they'd normally buy & expect it to work the same in a 10-inch barrel as in a 16 or 20-incher.
Which it doesn't do.
Fortunately, most will never have to find out the hard way in an actual life-threatening situation.

I've talked to a federal agent who was shot by a .223. Even through a full-length rifle with a "good" torso strike, it can be survivable, as battlefield reports are showing today. Weaken it and it can be even more so.

I've also seen the news footage of him being brought to the ER. He was conscious, not real happy, but appeared to be fully capable of continuing the fight at least briefly after he was hit, if he'd needed or wanted to.
Luckily his fellow agents carried on for him. :)
Denis

M2, it compares poorly to a real handgun, as I said above. :)

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 09:54 PM
I'm not going to do your homework for you.Most likely because you haven't done your own, on the effects of reduced velocity on .223 HP terminal ballistics and effectiveness.

As for the rest of your post, I said you can have the last word on that subject--and so you do. You just don't have the last word on who's done his homework.I spent an entire career clearing buildings for a living.Well, that could certainly explain such a distorted perspective! Guess what: I have never cleared a building (except as a fun exercise), and I will earnestly try to avoid ever clearing a buildling. How surprising is it then that you and I might evaluate firearms from a different perspective?

Clearly, spending a career clearing buildings makes you an expert in that. Great. It does not give you expertise in all things peripherally related--as you have unfortunately demonstrated.

I have already said you are welcome to your opinion. You just don't seem to believe I am welcome to mine. Ah, well.

DPris
March 28, 2012, 10:15 PM
Loose,
No matter how many qualifications I may list or how much of my experience I could mention, you'll discount it.
If you have no experience in the field, have no realistic training, live in a state that won't even allow you to try an AR pistol, and have never fired one, I find your opinions hold less value to me than mine.
You & others are free to feel differently, but that's where I stand.
You mention fun, I talk about the real world.

Yes, I view the gun differently from the way you view it.
I don't consider it a practical defensive proposition, based on four decades of making my living with guns, including behind various badges & in various uniforms and working with 20 or so different types yearly nowdays.
I don't mean that as a boast in any way, just a basis for my opinion.
You & I won't agree, you go ahead & have the last word between us. :)
Denis

Loosedhorse
March 28, 2012, 10:23 PM
No matter how many qualifications I may list or how much of my experience I could mention, you'll discount it.I'll discount it as evidence, because it is not evidence.I find your opinions hold less value to me than mine.I am shocked.You mention fun, I talk about the real world.No. You refuse to believe that those thinking differently than yourself live in reality. That's sad; that you refuse to recongnize that other people's life and professional experience might have some bearing on the subject at hand, even if it is quite different than yours.

Fortunately, yes, fun IS part (but only a part) of my reality, and it is true that my reality needs no validation from you. And I have already recognized that your reality is yours, and needs no vaildation from me.

My last word: thanks for your years of service protecting us.

Tex4426
March 28, 2012, 11:01 PM
It compairs poorly to other pistols from a practicality stand point...if your gonna use it for HD then you might as well throw a stock on it or just use a regular pistol that cost half as much...the only thing its good for is it looks fun to play with

DPris
March 28, 2012, 11:08 PM
And a cigar to the man from Boonville. :)
Denis

Txhillbilly
March 28, 2012, 11:45 PM
Damn,Some of you guy's will argue why the sun comes up!

AR pistols and the Kel-tec PLR-16 are just plain fun to shoot,and I even carry it on the 4 wheeler when we hog hunt sometimes.They are pretty accurate with a little practice.

http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af113/1Txhillbilly/Pistols/001-21.jpg

http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af113/1Txhillbilly/AR15s%20and%20Targets/013-4.jpg

DPris
March 28, 2012, 11:58 PM
I seldom argue with fun. :)
Fun I got no problem with.
Hog away!
Denis

dcarch
March 29, 2012, 12:27 AM
In the same vein, I have a friend up in Maine who uses a Draco as a HD pistol for his wife. She loves it, and they're happy, so I guess that's good... My philosophy is if you find a woman who wants a gun, just buy her whatever she wants. Then everybody's good.

steam.atomic
March 29, 2012, 01:36 AM
Thanks for the information everyone. The thing that gets me about the AR-15 pistols is the buffer tube. Its necessary but really ruins the form of the weapon without a butt stock covering it. The PLR 16 doesn't suffer from that problem. While SBR's are cool and all I can't justify owning one for myself.

The Draco's are cool though. I'd get one of those.

GLOOB
March 29, 2012, 03:27 AM
A .223 bullet designed to expand OR fragment is still very much dependent on velocity to perform at the levels intended by the factory, and a 500-900 FPS loss can & does impact that performance.
Severely, in some cases.
1. A .223 rifle is effective at fairly long range. At those ranges, you will lose more than 22%. I think you're overly worried about this velocity loss for SD use out to 50 or even 100 yards.

2. There are plenty of 22 cal varmint bullets designed to rapidly expand in ground squirrels at 200+ yards. Do you really think it's hard to find a .223 bullet that will expand in a 200 lb 2 legged mammal at similar velocities, up close and personal? I think you'd have a whole range of choices, from those that still expand/fragment too fast, all the way through FMJ. There are plenty of options in this caliber.

GCMkc
March 29, 2012, 10:58 AM
Easy way to get a rifle caliber, shorter barrel "pistol", without having to pay a $200 tax stamp. I've shot both SBR AR's and pistol AR's. A pistol AR can be shot without a stock just fine but it isn't that comfortable.

+1 for just because I can own it. Why does anyone need full auto, short barrels, or grenade launchers? America, that's why. Land of excess. I love it.

If you want a REAL pistol. You have to go all out. :evil:

Carne Frio
March 29, 2012, 12:04 PM
Hey, steam atomic:

" The thing that gets me about the AR-15 pistols is the buffer tube. Its necessary but really ruins the form of the weapon without a butt stock covering it. "

The buffer works like a stock and allows for a very steady hold.

460Kodiak
March 29, 2012, 08:53 PM
For fun. Does it need to be more than that?

fastbolt
March 29, 2012, 09:20 PM
Fast,
You're right in that cartridges can be tweaked to offset the velocity problem, but most people who buy an AR pistol just buy the same ammunition they'd normally buy & expect it to work the same in a 10-inch barrel as in a 16 or 20-incher.
Which it doesn't do.
Fortunately, most will never have to find out the hard way in an actual life-threatening situation.

As you said, there's a reason we (as instructors & armorers) usually don't recommend issuing these sort of pistols to any degree for dedicated defensive roles in LE/Gov work. Trying to make a small rifle caliber run well in a pistol length barrel, and perform effectively (as intended out of longer barrels), sort of puts you at a disadvantage under the best of conditions.

They do, however, seem to provide a "cool factor" for some folks, and probably generate a "fun" factor for other folks who are just looking for a unique range enjoyment firearm.

I also wouldn't bet against you in that most owners probably wouldn't have the interest in trying to get ammunition to try and make the best of the really short AR pistol barrels. (Then again, we've also had the opportunity to see even an occasional LE user who doesn't consider how changing barrel lengths might adversely affect & compromise desired terminal performance when they're looking to add 14.5", 11", & even shorter AR's to their armories, huh? ;) ) A hole punched by a .223 bullet which yaws enough to flip halfway and exit backwards is how much more effective than a 9mm? :scrutiny:

Makes for a good prop gun for Movies, too. ;)

Loosedhorse
March 29, 2012, 09:54 PM
I also wouldn't bet against you in that most owners probably wouldn't have the interest in trying to get ammunition to try and make the best of the really short AR pistol barrels.If I understand you, then, the proper course for cognescenti ("instructors & armorers") is to assume most owners are of such pistols are ignoramuses; and that therefore the proper thing to do is to tell them to discard such pistols, rather than to be careful about ammo selection, for the purpose of self-defense.

And yet, the cognescenti should also leave the actual degree of disadvantage in SD effectiveness of a .223 pistol with optimal ammo (compared to a .223 with a longer--what: 14 inch? 16? 20?--barrel, or compared to a 9mm pistol) completely undefined. Simply assume that difference to be a whole lot.

Mad Machinist
March 29, 2012, 10:10 PM
Actually BATF has recently ruled that if it was a pistol and converted to a rifle it CAN be converted back to a pistol.....

Swing
March 29, 2012, 11:19 PM
Fireballs. Delicious fireballs. ;)

chevyforlife21
March 29, 2012, 11:22 PM
Good question

fastbolt
March 30, 2012, 04:57 AM
If I understand you, then, the proper course for cognescenti ("instructors & armorers") is to assume most owners are of such pistols are ignoramuses; and that therefore the proper thing to do is to tell them to discard such pistols, rather than to be careful about ammo selection, for the purpose of self-defense.

Uh, no. That's not what I meant (or said).

I said that I wouldn't bet against the other poster's comments regarding how most owners would probably run the same loads through the pistol barrel length configuration as they would their rifle models.

It wouldn't surprise me to be told that they wouldn't have the interest in trying to get ammunition to try and make the best of the really short AR pistol barrels for dedicated defensive purpose. Why would they if their interest revolves around the "fun factor"?

It wouldn't be surprising if they'd simply run the same loads/bullet weights through the shorter pistol barrel length models as they would through their rifles. Either as a matter of convenience, if they were only using them for range enjoyment, or because the cost of some of the loads that might help them make the best of the short barrels is probably going to be more costly, and/or harder to find (compared to the usual 55gr loads).

The same info that's been developed by LE/Gov users to try and optimize ballistic performance in the really short carbine barrels (and functional reliability in the shortened gas system) seems easily enough found among groups of both professional users and seriously interested private owners & firearms enthusiasts.

However, how many folks that buy these pistols are more likely to be folks who simply enjoy the uniqueness of the AR pistols (where legal to buy, of course), as well as the "fun factor" that's often expressed? Will they feel compelled to educate themselves in the differences in the ammunition (such as the compromise inherent in reduced velocities realized through pistol length barrels)? Or, will they simply look for the most affordable "bang for their buck" so they can enjoy their range sessions?

No assumptions being made, though. After all, there's that segment of private AR owners & aficionados who take the time to really learn more about internal & external ballistics of the .223 rem & 5.56 cartridges than the average LE user/shooter (or firearms instructor) ... but when I've found myself discussing AR's among any number of private owners & enthusiasts I seldom hear them express much interest in the pistol configurations.

It seems to be more of a rather specialized market segment.

It certainly wouldn't be among my choices for dedicated defensive weapons, but then I'm not in the business of shilling either firearms or ammunition when it comes to what other folks like to spend their disposable income on, either.

Now, when it comes to the training, practice & maintenance of owners/users, sure, as an instructor & armorer I have some level of interest. ;)

M2 Carbine
March 30, 2012, 10:39 AM
The local gun store manager is a life long hunter, so is a BIG rifle fan. He eats and sleeps hunting deer and critters.
He also owns handguns and shotguns but seldom shoots them
He had no interest at all in the .223 pistols and actually thought they were pretty useless.

Several weeks ago he got interested in the .223 pistol (Kel Tec, he didn't like the looks of the AR pistol and in the past he saw my Kel Tec targets).
He wanted something smaller than a rifle but more powerful than the average handgun he carried, and small enough to just grab as he left the car, especially after dark.

I sold one of my Kel Tec PLR pistols to him.
To my surprise the man praises the gun every time I see him. "Handiest gun he's ever owned".
He's shot several critters with it, a few at night (light on the gun).


I guess you can teach a old dog new tricks.:D

M1C
March 30, 2012, 11:46 AM
MGs are allowed SBRs without registering the short barrel.

It's probably been mentioned already but if you have a registered auto sear or full auto trigger group you've installed in a regular receiver you can install a short barrel on the receiver without registering a receiver. You can remove the SBR and the rifle remains a rifle as long as the auto stuff isn't removed before the barrel. You probably don't want an AR short barrel hanging around the safe without being on the auto setup or without a registered receiver.

mnhntr
March 30, 2012, 12:09 PM
What is the point of the Marlin Camp Carbine? What is the point of a pistol that shoots 410 shells? Who cares why people enjoy the guns they do, just because you do not like them does not mean they are not liked by someone else. I do not own one but can think of several uses for it.

M1C
March 30, 2012, 12:44 PM
A Camp has always interested me. If you have a pistol and a Camp in the same caliber ad weren't in need of something capable of long distances...

sawdeanz
March 30, 2012, 01:56 PM
This thread really makes me want an AR pistol now...
Oh well my bud just got a sub 2000 so that will hold me over till then

Loosedhorse
March 30, 2012, 02:07 PM
However, how many folks that buy these pistols are more likely to be folks who simply enjoy the uniqueness of the AR pistols (where legal to buy, of course), as well as the "fun factor" that's often expressed?I'm not sure. I would just suppose that if someone buys such a pistol for SD, he would probably be no more or less likely than any other pistol buyer to try to load it with ammo appropriate for SD use.

I see no reason to assume that a .223 pistol user interested in SD use would go for the cheapie ball ammo any more than a 9mm pistol user would do the same. Yet I don't hear anyone warning folks away from 9mm pistols in the way that we are hearing warnings against .223s.

If it matters: I'm an instructor, too. Since I'm not LE, the student chooses what pistol I instruct him on; therefore, I've tried to acquaint myself with many different kinds. If I were warning a student against a .223 pistol, I might have many reasons (muzzle blast for one); but potential terminal effectiveness is not one of my concerns.

I might even suggest some ammo for SD purposes.That's not what I meant (or said).Sorry.

fastbolt
March 30, 2012, 03:39 PM
Yeah, it can be a bit difficult to try and read between the lines when it comes to narrative postings in online forums (versus being able to benefit from body language and vocal inflection).

I can understand your experience as a firearms instructor when it comes to working with what students have selected and brought to training.

While my primary focus and responsibility has been serving as a LE firearms instructor, I've also taught, or helped teach, a fair number of classes that were made up on non-LE. In those instances the students had already chosen and acquired their weapons. I was just there to work with them and the equipment they possessed, not to make judgments on their choices and equipment.

Of course, I feel pretty much the same way when it comes to working with LE and authorized secondary & off-duty weapons. In those circumstances, as long as it's approved, somebody's choice isn't really my business. It's not me that's going to have to use it they decide to invoke their peace officer status to take an official action on their own time, or protect themselves or their families. I don't make the rules. I just deal with trying to help them possess the requisite knowledge, training, skills and (hopefully) mindset to enable them to perform as necessary. ;)

Sure, occasionally a student might discover they'd chosen something that was less than ideal for them, and might want to change to something else, but it wasn't at my prompting, or because I denigrated their choice. I was there to teach, not sell. ;)

Of course, there were any number of times I'd wonder privately why some non-LE citizen owner might have chosen a .22 or .25 pistol as their dedicated defensive weapon, but in the long run it wasn't my business (or life that was ultimately going to be at stake, or the lives of my family). Sometimes you could see such folks compare their range performance against that of folks shooting centerfire calibers, or other handguns which were easier to use under stress, but then it would seem they'd somehow shrug off any concerns and express how it would work "good enough" for what they envisioned requiring.

I see no reason to assume that a .223 pistol user interested in SD use would go for the cheapie ball ammo any more than a 9mm pistol user would do the same. Yet I don't hear anyone warning folks away from 9mm pistols in the way that we are hearing warnings against .223s.

And yet it's not hard to encounter a surprising (dismaying?) number of folks who feel 9mm ball isn't really going to be any "less effective" than some hollowpoint. Probably a more common perception among some .45 users ("a .45 never shrinks!"), granted. ;)

Like you, I'd be more concerned with the inherent muzzle blast & flash signature issues for most average owners who tried to employ an AR handgun outside a range, especially within an enclosed environment. I've had a .357 Magnum fired next to my head inside a dwelling (no hearing loss/damage, miraculously), and it was an attention-getter, but a .223 (or especially a 5.56) going off close to me, especially inside a small room or hallway, is NOT something to which I'd wish to subject myself (or my family members).

In another vein, though, how hard is it to find folks who, for some reason, seem to equate muzzle blast/flash with "power" & "effectiveness"? :scrutiny: :neener:

Those are the folks who might not realize the diminished potential for the type of yaw/destabilization to occur (that's connected with violent fragmentation) when velocity is lost in really short AR barrels. I remember it being an eye opener for some folks many years ago when we were testing some different loads/bullet weights out of an 14.5" AR. The rounds that were ordinarily pretty effective when fired out of longer barrels didn't do so well in the shorter barrel (denim/gel & windshield glass/denim/gel testing). One of the heavier bullets did surprisingly well, though.

In subsequent years, when there was talk of adding some AR models with even shorter barrels, I didn't get involved in further testing, but I remember a couple of the other instructors interested in the subject were considering potential loads and bullet weights that wouldn't be as likely to compromise actual terminal effectiveness when really short barrels were used. We're talking barrels down in the 10.3" length, and with 1/7 twist rates (which creates another concern affecting bullet weights used).

Of course, using such a unique pistol for a critter or varmint gun might suit some folks just fine.

Then again, the Remington XP-100 & XP-100R seemed to have attracted enough interested owners. ;) Probably not for a dedicated self defense weapon, though. ;)

Best regards. :)

brickeyee
March 30, 2012, 04:11 PM
Should I ditch my XP-100 in .221 Fireball also?

With a scope it is a tack driving pistol.

And it is even a single shot.

A pistol with nearly rifle velocity.

What would that even be useful for?:banghead:

GLOOB
March 30, 2012, 07:10 PM
If you want a REAL pistol. You have to go all out.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version Name: 100_0136.jpg Views: 14 Size: 98.3 KB ID: 161874

(From post #90)
Now there's a unique pistol. It looks a heck of a lot like the laser "rifles" they use in Star Wars.

hariph creek
March 30, 2012, 07:32 PM
Beats me? Doesn't scratch my itch?
But if it does somebody elses? Go for it.

fastbolt
March 30, 2012, 07:40 PM
Should I ditch my XP-100 in .221 Fireball also?

With a scope it is a tack driving pistol.

And it is even a single shot.

A pistol with nearly rifle velocity.

What would that even be useful for?

I'd imagine it's probably useful for its intended role, meaning long range target/silhouette or varminting.

Cool that you own one. Is yours one of the early XP-100's or the 100R? 10 3/4" or 14 1/2" barrel.

The stock must be beautiful.

DesertFox
March 30, 2012, 08:14 PM
Maybe someone already brought this to light:

The M231 Firing Port Weapon is a stripped-down, bare-bones carbine designed for U.S. Army soldiers riding in the M2 & M3 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. The FPW was designed to allow soldiers being transported to protect the vulnerable flanks and rear of the IFV while still under armor. The weapon is only capable of full-auto fire with no semi-auto mode. Later upgrades to the Bradley blocked the firing ports on the sides of the hull with extra armor, though FPWs are still carried for the two rear ports covering the loading ramp.

So I guess it ain't no AR-15 pistol - it is a M231 Firing Port Weapon! That's what one does with such...

sirsloop
March 31, 2012, 11:33 AM
whats the point of this thread?

brickeyee
March 31, 2012, 01:28 PM
fastbolt,
very early XP100.

4 digit serial number.

I even have a clipping from Playboy magazine about the recall on it.

Also have the zipper case, and most of the original box of .221 fireball it came with.

Original owner only fired it about 5 times, and the empties are in the ammo box.

sirsloop
March 31, 2012, 03:40 PM
trying to come up with a point for a .204 ruger encore pistol with a 18" MGM barrel and a 8.5-25x50 scope on it :neener::neener:

http://photos.tallmanphoto.com/photos/i-GGz6dzk/0/L/i-GGz6dzk-L.jpg

fastbolt
April 1, 2012, 01:34 PM
Very cool brickeyee. ;)

TXSWFAN
April 2, 2012, 12:39 PM
Set up for "Rollin to Dallas" mode.

http://i44.tinypic.com/f237ux.jpg

SkyFreek60
April 2, 2012, 04:32 PM
The "point" is it's a smaller size gun than a the AR rifle. It is a high capacity very powerful "pistol". They are accurate. In the hands of someone that's practiced in it's use it would be a very deadly gun to go up against, no matter what you are armed with.
But the most important "point" of all is they are interesting and fun to shoot.


I own one and agree with the above quote from an earlier post. People buy semi auto uzis which i see as pointless, but who cares its's their money and their gun. My ar pistol has put a lot of smiles on a lot of faces... makes a great range gun, blows up water jugs better than traditional pistols (velocity), big fireball at night, accurate, and all the fun of a full size in a small footprint and is thus easier to transport and maneuver. Why does anyone NEED anything different than cookie cutter? Or why do you need more than 1 handgun? I like options and having and shooting different things (also have 2 other ars and 2 more lowers to build on). If i needed a car gun then it would be my go to... 30rds of high velocity fun and the mags are cheaper and easier to find than any other. (30 rd mags for $7 vs glock mags $20-35)

parkerdude
May 10, 2012, 01:22 AM
I'd like to build a 9" or 10" barreled AR pistol in 300 Blackout, so I can tune, and do load development while I await my Federal Tax stamps for the SBR status and suppressor that I'd like to add.

I've heard that it can take upwards of 6 months for the papers to be processed.

Might as well have a legal gun to play with until time to finish the conversion. Having parts around, some of which are illegal, if you own an AR15, until the paperwork returns.

Just a dream so far...

Stevie-Ray
May 11, 2012, 10:39 PM
I too, opted for the PLR-16 for several reasons, some of which are: Far cheaper than an AR-15 but every bit as much fun. Have actually carried it concealed once when needing to venture into a known seedy area to pick somebody up-it's a bit handier than an AR-15. It's a major thorn in the side of practically every anti-gunner that even knows it exists. I thought it extremely ripe for banning and wanted to make sure I had mine.;)

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/GitchiManitou/100_0483.jpg?t=1255040499

seeker_two
May 12, 2012, 08:04 PM
You know....the AR pistols come in more chamberings than .223.....and a 10+" barreled AR pistol chambered in 9mm, .45ACP, or 10mm is nothing to sneeze at....

flyskater
May 13, 2012, 01:50 AM
Love my Plr16. 30 rounds x 2 mags of Barnes 53gr tsx hauling at 2500fps at 750 ft/lbs of energy with very little recoil that fits in my backpack to supplement my pocket 9mm. That's more powerful than most pistols rounds.

http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u400/flyskater/plr2.jpg

youngda9
May 13, 2012, 08:43 AM
Expending ammunition indiscrimently.

Rexster
May 13, 2012, 01:45 PM
An AR15 pistol is indeed useful in some legal niches that come to mind. The biggest niche is for folks who cannot legally have a loaded long gun inside a vehicle, but can legally have a loaded handgun. My home state allows loaded long guns inside vehicles, but out of state, I must play by their rules.

From within a vehicle, an AR 15 pistol is a formidable short-range weapon. I am considering building one for myself, with a quite long barrel, probably 11" or more, a nice red dot optic, and with a buffer tube. My wife's preferred personal defense weapon is an AR15 built around a BCM Lightweight Middy upper. It makes logistical sense for me to have a AR pistol that can use the same cache of mags.

I agree that a conventional handgun is better for most purposes. Because I normally have a 3" or 4" .357 revolver, a P229, and/or a 1911 with me, and work for a PD that wants me to only use specified handguns on or off the clock, I have not yet prioritized building an AR pistol. My impending retirement, and desire to travel much by large van or SUV, has me looking into the subject.

Rexster
May 13, 2012, 02:08 PM
I want to add something here: As an LEO, I have participated in no small amount of training in felony vehicle stops, and made plenty of high-risk stops in real life. When one is inside one's vehicle, aiming at an adversary, the longer one's barrel, the less likely one is to blast a spotlight or mirror mounted on one's own vehicle, or something like a support pillar or door frame. Long-barreled handguns, whether based on an AR or not, seem to me to be a good idea when one's vehicle is not only cover, but can serve as a rest for the weapon.

How is a felony stop relevant to the private citizen? Well, road rage incidents come to mind, as do carjackings/kidnappings involving multiple bad guys in multiple vehicles boxing-in the complainant's vehicle. These happen often enough, and near enough, to be a concern for me. (southwest Houston TX metropolitan area) I will not fault anyone who sees an AR pistol as suitable for these scenarios. While driving away is the most desirable option, resourceful bad guys can make that difficult or impossible.

Moreover, an AR pistol offers more potential points of contact with the shooter's body. If this helps an individual shooter's accuracy, why not?

waidmann
May 13, 2012, 07:57 PM
1. To side step the Short Barreled Rifle thing

2. Compactness

3. Because its there.

jhco50
May 13, 2012, 08:31 PM
It is a way for the manufacturers to make a buck. Think about this. How many new guns are really new? Are they new or a rehash of one of their others with a few modifications? Look at all of the accessories they sell and how wild they have gotten. Pink guns? Blue plastic grips? Anything to make a quick buck.

Why do we need scopes on a shotgun? How about that single-action, scope it? Why do we need everything tactical or self-defense? Don't we hunt anymore or is it only about shooting a burglar who may or not ever show up? The manufacturing community has just gone nuts with their products. What amazes me is they are selling this stuff.

NMGonzo
May 13, 2012, 08:34 PM
I wanted one so badly ... but then I want a lot of silly things.

I think they are cool factor = gazzillion. But I don't know about the terminal ballistics out of the barrel being worth the bother.

SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE
May 13, 2012, 08:41 PM
An AR pistol or PLR16 type would be an excellent home defense weapon ! High capacity ,low recoil , small highly frangible high velocity projectile that will stop a man at close range yet is less likely to over penetrate an intended target ! The biggest drawback is the noise ! Kevin

justice06rr
May 13, 2012, 09:46 PM
Because they are fun!!!

Have you ever shot one?? If not, they are a bit different than your normal 16-inch or longer rifles. It also allows you to have a shorter firearm that is more maneuverable in close quarters or inside vehicles while still having the firepower of a conventional rifle.

This goes with the mentality of putting scopes on pistols.... because you can. I always thought that was weird. Scopes are typically for rifles right? but you still see people put them on their handguns.

C0untZer0
May 13, 2012, 10:11 PM
What is the point of the Marlin Camp Carbine? - mnhntr

I recall a recent story where NYPD fired 84 rounds from their pistols at a suspect and only hit him a half dozen times or so = something about 7 entry and 7 exits wounds... but whatever.

It seems that when DEA switched out their 9mm carbines or sub-guns for .223 a lot of police departments did too. I'm not sure if NYPD ever had long guns in their squad cars.

But a carbine in general gives you easier target aquisition, steadier sight picture / more accuracy. Not a lot of LEAs are using them but I don't see why not - they fill a need.

The 9mm is starting to drop at around 110 yards and the .223 is obviously still sailing... This may count for something if your officers are going to miss a lot.

Jacob L Freeman
May 14, 2012, 08:17 AM
The same reason Taurus considered making a .223 revolver. I think they exist for the same reason AR rifles exist.... because they're cool. Are they practical? Do I need one? Does my wallet need to lose any more weight? No, no and no. I don't need a lot of things, some of the things I own have no reason to exist, yet I have them anyway.

A Kel-Tec PLR16 is on my wishlist.

If you enjoyed reading about "What's the point of AR-15 pistols?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!