9MM "SMG" for Home Defense?

[TITAN308]

...or .45ACP as an alternative. I'll use the term "SMG" just for the sake of commonality, we all know these are semi-automatic.

Seriously considering building a HD SMG. Does anyone here own one, or something similar?

Something similar to below, cept I would probably use a MOE butt stock and rig a Magpul AFG more forward. You can get up to 50 round 9MM mags too.

 

[dogtown tom]

TITAN308 ... I'll use the term "SMG" just for the sake of commonality, we all know these are semi-automatic.

How about "carbine"? (since that's what they are)

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I think a .223 would be better for being able to fire a more powerful round that penetrates less especially with frangible ammo. I personally use an AK 74 loaded with Hornady V-Max. The 9mm would do the job for sure but over penetration could be a serious issue.

 

[TITAN308]

How about "carbine"? (since that's what they are)

Fair enough, the manufacturer lists them as a rifle, but that just sounded funny.

 

[Ramone]

I think a 9mm carbine, loaded with sub-sonic ammo is about the ideal HD weapon.

Short and handy, but still long enough to control well if you have to grapple for it.

Short enough to work doors/corners, but far more 'pointable' than a pistol.

Low recoil, and with Sub sonic loadings, very quiet with minimal muzzle flash, making it ideal for enclosed spaces and low light.

Even with SS loadings, acceptable 'stopping power' at close quarters.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

PCC pistol caliber carbine

 

[-v-]

Would certainly work, and I am sure there's quite a few people who do that. 9mm subsonic is your standard 147gr ammo - which is hardly anemic by any standards.

An other option is a KelTek Sub-2000, especially since it can take the 33rnd glock mags.

And not to steer this in an other direction, one of those 10" or 7.5" AOW ($5 stamp!) shotguns is not a bad idea either. Just have to contend with it being a bird's head or pistol grip. At across the room distance, I doubt it'd be too much a hinderence.

 

[Skribs]

I'm with fivetwoseven. Since the invention of the small, fast rifle cartridges (like .223), SMGs are becoming much less common than rifles for police teams and special forces. Unless you're using subsonic ammunition with a silencer, I don't really see the advantage of a 9mm over a .223. The rifle round creates a bigger wound channel and overpenetrates less, and is has very little recoil to begin with.

The only reasons to use a PCC are: with a silencer, if the rifle rounds are illegal or hard to come by where you are, or if you're going to be training at a location with a FPS limit on their range. You can get 100 round magazines in both 9mm and .223 from beta products.

Now that I think about it, I guess (especially with the magazine in the pistol grip) you could get a slightly shorter weapon while remaining legal. But I think the power of the .223 is worth a couple of inches.

 

[Fremmer]

So are you basing your hd round on "over penetration"?

And doesn't every sufficiently powerful round over penetrate?

 

[Snowdog]

I've long considered something similar for HD but more along the lines of a Beretta CX4 Storm with some can attached.

That's been put on the back burner since I already have an M1 Carbine and 16" mid-length AR15 for the HD role, but I still see a suppressed 9mm carbine as something very desirable for indoor use.

Maybe someday....

 

[-v-]

An other value of the PCC is they can be much more dimensionally compact then an AR15. In a situation where space is at a premium this can be a big plus. Also, if you want total ammo commonality among all your small arms they make sense, since you only need 1 caliber of ammunition versus having both pistol and rifle caliber ammo. Accuracy wise, these little buggers can shoot out to 100 yards just fine and still get it done, especially with JHPs

 

[browningguy]

I have a KT Sub 2000 with the G17 magwell, for a HD firearm I think it is quite useful. I keep mine loaded with the Glock 33 round mags. I also have an HK USC in .45, and although it only takes 10 round mags it would also work quite well.

 

[HankB]

For HD, an HKMP5SD would be very close to an "ideal" firearm . . . the last one I saw on the open market went for, IIRC, around $18,500.

So I don't have one, nor am I likely to ever have one.

The next best would be a semi-auto SBR ($200 tax) with a suppressor (another $200 tax) which isn't out of the realm of possibility.

The short barrel means it would be handy, the suppressor means it won't blow out my ears. For caliber, 300 Whisper rates serious consideration.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If you're at home, the best defense weapon is a shotgun, bar none.

Consider the location of your safe room and the likely sector of fire. Test various loads on "walls" made of scrap 2X4s and sheet rock and see how your chosen load penetrates.

 

[mgregg85]

You'd likely be better served by an AR-15 in 5.56 instead of a semi-auto MAC clone dressed up like an AR-15.

 

[sgtstryker]

You might want to try the new Israeli Uzi Pro. Uses polymers with a six inch barrel and weighs about five pounds. Sounds pretty handy. It's a 9mm, but, is a true sub gun. So, restrictions apply, but would be nice to have around.

 

[dusty14u]

I have a KT Sub 2000 with the G17 magwell, for a HD firearm I think it is quite useful. I keep mine loaded with the Glock 33 round mags. I also have an HK USC in .45, and although it only takes 10 round mags it would also work quite well.

+1

Good reliable and accurate gun. A couple of 33rd mags and you are good to go for a while.

 

[Warp]

For home defense I would be satisfied with a 9mm carbine that was reliable, durable, easy to shoot, and had a good site + flashlight.

Depending on the cost of said gun, however, I would probably rather have a centerfire rifle caliber instead.

 

[JFrame]

Many people feel perfectly content to defend their home with a 9mm pistol or .38 revolver, and don't seem to receive any criticism for those choices. I don't see what suddenly marginalizes the 9mm carbine other than that the rounds are coming out some significant feet per second faster...???


.

 

[Warp]

Many people feel perfectly content to defend their home with a 9mm pistol or .38 revolver, and don't seem to receive any criticism for those choices. I don't see what suddenly marginalizes the 9mm carbine other than that the rounds are coming out some significant feet per second faster...???

I think it stems from several things. Often a handgun is selected as a primary home defense firearm because:

1) It is very easy to lock up in an accessible location, such as a nightstand or drawer, due to its size.

2) It allows easy one handed use, so that the other hand is free for a phone, opening or closing doors, picking up/carrying/directing other family members or young children, etc.

3) They only have one or two firearms and select something that can be carried on their person or in their vehicle as well as serving on the home front.

The pistol caliber carbine generally does not have any of those advantages, or if it has them it is to a lesser degree than a handgun.

People seem to think that if they are going to be using a platform that lends itself very easily to the additional power and effectiveness of a rifle round (or shotgun shell), then why keep the handgun cartridge?

 

[mljdeckard]

Not at all a bad option, but I would still keep my shotgun first, my M-1 carbine second. But if I hadn't inherited an M-1, I'm not sure I ever would have gotten around to buying one, especially at today's prices.

If I hat to use a pistol caliber carbine in this role, I would keep the emphasis on the advantage of low recoil to get as many hits as I could as quickly as possible.

 

[ugaarguy]

So are you basing your hd round on "over penetration"?

What the two gents actually said were:

I think a .223 would be better for being able to fire a more powerful round that penetrates less especially with frangible ammo. I personally use an AK 74 loaded with Hornady V-Max. The 9mm would do the job for sure but over penetration could be a serious issue. (Emphasis mine)

I don't really see the advantage of a 9mm over a .223. The rifle round creates a bigger wound channel and overpenetrates less, and is has very little recoil to begin with. (Emphasis Mine)

And doesn't every sufficiently powerful round over penetrate?

Of course they all do. That doesn't mean we should discount a round that (with proper load selection) typically provides less penetration of building walls of typical construction, AND greater terminal performance on aggressors.

To the op, yes a PCC will work; but modern carbines (like AR-15, AK-74s, and similar) and shotguns are more effective while typically having less risk of stray shot over penetration with proper load selection.

 

[Skribs]

Many people feel perfectly content to defend their home with a 9mm pistol or .38 revolver, and don't seem to receive any criticism for those choices. I don't see what suddenly marginalizes the 9mm carbine other than that the rounds are coming out some significant feet per second faster...???

Like Warp said, handguns are about compromise. You wouldn't be able to use a pistol that held .223 rounds in the grip, and out of a 5" barrel the .223 isn't going to get up to speed. Pistols, and their cartridges, are designed around a smaller platform. You don't get much performance boost from the added size, except for the sight radius and the stock. When you're talking about a legal rifle, which has a 14.5" barrel and 1.5" flash hider, the .223 is going to be near its full potential, and the 9mm is going to be just a bit better than out of a pistol.

There are many properties of the .223 that make it superior to the 9mm. The wound channel is significantly greater, despite a negligable increase in recoil. More importantly, 9mm JHP rounds will clog up when going through drywall and fail to expand, overpenetrating more. .223 rounds do not have this issue.

Pistols are a compromise. You lose the stock, you lose the powerful rifle cartridges, and you gain recoil due to the smaller size. However, it is something that is easier to hide and easier to carry.

 

[dprice3844444]

do not consider using nfa weapons as part of home defense if you have to.you bring in the feds,which you really don't want them snooping around or deciding you violated a federal law and them dragging you into fed court while your dealing with state/county courts.depletes the finances for defense real quick.for home defense,keep it simple and effective.

 

[Warp]

do not consider using nfa weapons as part of home defense if you have to.you bring in the feds,which you really don't want them snooping around or deciding you violated a federal law and them dragging you into fed court while your dealing with state/county courts.depletes the finances for defense real quick.for home defense,keep it simple and effective.

...so don't violate a federal law?

And why would they be snooping around anyway?