Some people not reloading, and not wanting to reload, isn't an "after the fact rule"...it's reality of the real world.
Are Pistol Caliber Carbines relevant these days?
- Thread starter Panzercat
- Start date
- Status
Some people not reloading, and not wanting to reload, isn't an "after the fact rule"...it's reality of the real world.
Trail boss and unique both work well. I also have a 38/55 that runs well with AA5744 and a 245gr cast bullet I can get about the same velocity as any 240 gr cast 44 mag load although the drop will be much less with the 38/55s better BC. Any bullet you cast for 357 can be used in a 35 rem and I load all kinds of rifle rounds on my progressive.
Vern Humphrey
Member
It's also not a rule.
When you tell me that I can't bring up reloading, then you are creating an after-the-fact rule.
That is a straw man. You can bring up reloading all day long. But you can't proclaim that nobody out there could possibly have a use where a pistol caliber carbine is a better choice, for them, than a rifle caliber carbine, because of reloading...because not everybody reloads, or wants to reload.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Get a dictionary and look up "straw man."
Now that's a straw m an. You're pretending that's my argument. It isn't. My argument is that standard rifle calibers can do anything a pistol caliber carbin can do -- including fire reduced recoil loads.
...if you reload.
Not everybody reloads, and not everybody wants to reload. And that is perfectly acceptable.
Not to mention the other benefits that have been discussed ITT...many times over.
Inebriated
Member
No, you go with a lower recoiling cartridge.
meanmrmustard
Member
Trite? Semantics?
Kind of a sorry apology considering I made mention of "combat" in several posts.
I can give my proof and opinions, ideas and rhetoric same as the next guy. But I can't make you read it, no matter how often I repeat it.
Also, what if your enemy is wearing more than soft armor? I mean, you've thrown in a very good variable: What if they have soft armor?
What if they have "big boy" vests, or several that are layered? I've seen tests of .308 win against three bullet proof vests layered, simulating an actual hostage situation that had happened previously. The .308 failed.
I believe Box o Truth, that's where I read the test. It also showed the rib cracking capabilities of pistol rounds even when they don't penetrate. Even a bruised diaphragm or broken collar bone can impede your enemy.
Last edited:
Inebriated
Member
Then you go with a stronger cartridge....
meanmrmustard
Member
Like?
Inebriated
Member
Like a magnum.
Surely you aren't eluding to the notion that a PCC would be a better option?
Surely you aren't eluding to the notion that a PCC would be a better option?
meanmrmustard
Member
I'm suggesting it isn't much worse.
Your suggestion of an unnamed magnum has flaws: recoil, cost, barrel life, and the length of barrel needed to get optimum performance from the cartridge, whichever that may be. This equates to a heavier, possibly cumbersome gun. It's also assumed you'll be carrying even less magnum rounds than I termed irate rifle cartridges.
Basically, you're sniping now, and that's pretty much it. Magnums are niche as well.
Last edited:
MCgunner
Member
But, Vern, you KNOW you can load a .300 WM down to .30-06, but you'll never load the .30-06 UP to .300 WM By this logic, you should own a .300 WM....er, well, a .338 or a .375 H&H etc, etc, etc.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Are you proposing that we adopt Pistol Caliber Carbines equal in power to the 375 H&H?
If not, what is your point?
Absolutely. I think there are a number of guns that not make too much sense to buy if one doesn't hand load (which is probably a more accurate term than reload, am I reloading if its never fired brass?).
However, limits of a person are not the same as limits of a gun. To go back to my example people probably consider what range they realisitically can achieve hits at. That doesn't mean the gun is per se limited that way.
More to the point though, I think to call someone out that says this is my solution and accuse them of thinking the whole rest of the world is like them is reading too much into their statement. To further illustrate the point one could just as validly charge the non hand loader who states the pistol caliber is better for introducing new shooters of assuming everyone is like them.
Like most things the details matter. The specifics of one's intents, purpose and situations matter. It is totally valid to say a pistol caliber is a more valid alternative to X given that one doesn't hand load. To leave out that caveat is just as and arguably much more presumptious than to turn around and state that a tailored cartridge allows the same capability.
That is absolutely neither here nor there in relation to your original question, what can a rifle caliber do that a pistol can't. There a level of armor that may rifle rounds can defeat which pistol rounds cannot. The fact that there is also a level or armoring that will stop any rifle round is really neither her nor there in answering your question and in way changes the answer.
I'll be frank, it is hard to answer a question if the person asking it keeps changing it.
Inebriated
Member
And you're not sniping when you shoot an armored target in a hostage situation?
MCgunner
Member
Just that if you don't have a .50 BMG, you don't have the mostest. You can always load the more powerful gun down. I bought a 7 mag when what I originally was thinkin' was .280. Figured, I can load the 7 down, but not the .280 up.
So, by your logic, buy a Barrett in .50. THEN, you have it all, you don't need anything else. And, you want long range?
I mean, I shoot a .50 caliber CVA inline. I don't need that, could load the Barrett down to 1400 fps with a 385 grain bullet. Never mind that it's a 30 lb gun and ain't real quick to the shoulder or handy to carry afield, it will DO it ALL! It's the end all, you need nothing more than a .50 BMG chambered Barrett.meanmrmustard
Member
Didn't change it, just escalated the situation.
What's better when neither round can fully penetrate? You added body armor to the equation to prove a point (which is taken), but I rebutted with a new problem: chest hits are negative due to armor.
I bet both platforms will sit a bad guy on his butt though.
meanmrmustard
Member
So we are talking sniper rifles vs PCCs?
You guys are right: this may be getting out of hand.
Well as a starting point that is not true, at least not really in the way in which you are implying. After a certain point when down loading cartridges you run into notable performance and in some instances even safety issues.
The rest of your post is just reductio ad absurdum at its best.
Well, where logical fallacies take you anyways.
Last edited:
meanmrmustard
Member
There's a reason its a dead language.
No you really did. You asked, what can a rifle do in combat that a pistol caliber can't. One, of a number of answers given, was it can defeat armor that pistol calibers can't. That is a real life capability. You then basically just stated the fact that there is also armor that the same rifle couldn't defeat? Pardon me for saying this but duh! Great, so what? That has no real relation to your initial question. The question didn't ask what the limits of a rifle were.
- Status
