Someone clue me in on the 9mm AR thing?
- Thread starter hifi
- Start date
- Status
beerslurpy
member
More recoil, less capacity, less stopping power, less penetration- what's not to like?
Would be quieter indoors tho. And probably a lot easier to suppress.
Would be quieter indoors tho. And probably a lot easier to suppress.
beerslurpy
member
If you subscribe to some special olympics definition of effectiveness, then yes, it retains "effectiveness" even with a 6 inch barrel.
But if you dont care about armor penetration or one shot kills, why not use something smaller like an Uzi variant or a Steyr TMP or MP5? A micro uzi is about the size of a USGI 45 and can be suppressed much more readily than an M4 shooting .356 dia bullets (remember your suppressors are all made for 5.56mm). Lets not forget the P90, which is basically the same small package plus armor penetration.
But if you dont care about armor penetration or one shot kills, why not use something smaller like an Uzi variant or a Steyr TMP or MP5? A micro uzi is about the size of a USGI 45 and can be suppressed much more readily than an M4 shooting .356 dia bullets (remember your suppressors are all made for 5.56mm). Lets not forget the P90, which is basically the same small package plus armor penetration.
voilsb
Member
beerslurpy:
I'm not sure what you mean about more recoil and less capacity. The only 9mm ARs I've ever shot (about 3 different ones, totalling about 500 rounds or so) have had less recoil than a 5.56 AR and used 32rd mags, which is more capacity than a 30rd mag for the 5.56.
I'm not sure what you mean about more recoil and less capacity. The only 9mm ARs I've ever shot (about 3 different ones, totalling about 500 rounds or so) have had less recoil than a 5.56 AR and used 32rd mags, which is more capacity than a 30rd mag for the 5.56.
beerslurpy
member
Sorry voilsub, I though the 32rders were larger than the normal 30rders. Also, doesnt the cartridge weigh more?
Neither recoils much, I thought 9mm was more but I could be wrong.
Neither recoils much, I thought 9mm was more but I could be wrong.
voilsb
Member
Ahh. I don't know which magazine takes up more space, ultimately. One's long and skinny, the other's, well, not. I've also got no idea which round is heavier. I think they end up pretty even.
All the 9mm ARs I've shot used Sten mags, and I think they were steel instead of aluminum. The mags themselves seemed to weight more than the 5.56 mags.
As for recoil, true, neither recoils much. But using a hot 5.56 load (like XM193), your shoulder can get kinda sore after a few mags of rapid fire.
I know 9mm ARs are easy (and fun) to bumpfire, and it's not hard to keep them roughly on target. That's mainly what I base my recoil thoughts on. Bump a 5.56 AR and you get rounds going nearly everywhere. Bump a 9mm AR and they're still pretty scattered, but not nearly as badly.
Ultimately, I think people buy 9mm ARs either because they think a subgun will be safer to use indoors, which I disagree with, or because they're easy to suppress, which is quite true, or simply because they're fun.
All the 9mm ARs I've shot used Sten mags, and I think they were steel instead of aluminum. The mags themselves seemed to weight more than the 5.56 mags.
As for recoil, true, neither recoils much. But using a hot 5.56 load (like XM193), your shoulder can get kinda sore after a few mags of rapid fire.
I know 9mm ARs are easy (and fun) to bumpfire, and it's not hard to keep them roughly on target. That's mainly what I base my recoil thoughts on. Bump a 5.56 AR and you get rounds going nearly everywhere. Bump a 9mm AR and they're still pretty scattered, but not nearly as badly.
Ultimately, I think people buy 9mm ARs either because they think a subgun will be safer to use indoors, which I disagree with, or because they're easy to suppress, which is quite true, or simply because they're fun.
Cesiumsponge
Member
Shooting a 9mm ammo in a carbine package makes it cheaper to practice plinking compared to 5.56mm. You also get increased velocity and possibly penetration with 9mm in a carbine as opposed to a shorter pistol using 9mm if that is a consideration. Likewise, a perfectly legitimate reason is that "it's something different". Though, if I wanted a 9mm carbine, I'd get something more unique like a Calico w/ a 50 or 100 round drum, though some configurations are considered an SBR due to the collapsing stock that makes it way short (and I can't own that variant in WA 
)
Why make a 5.56mm pistol?
Firearm manufactuers have started to blur the lines between pistols/carbines and carbines/rifles for a while now.
Calico:
)Why make a 5.56mm pistol?
Firearm manufactuers have started to blur the lines between pistols/carbines and carbines/rifles for a while now.
Calico:
More recoil, less capacity, less stopping power, less penetration- what's not to like?
END QUOTE
Actually a few mistakes here. The 9mm recoils less than the 223 but both are in the very little recoil catagory. The 9mm holds 2 more rounds in a standard mag 32 vs 30. It does have far less stopping power your right. The 223 rules. As for penetration the 9mm has more penetration in homes and people (overpenetration risks are actually more with pistol rounds) but the 223 has more penetration on steel and soft body armor. I agree with your though. Pistol caliber carbines make little sence and there is not much too like with them as a whole.
Pat
END QUOTE
Actually a few mistakes here. The 9mm recoils less than the 223 but both are in the very little recoil catagory. The 9mm holds 2 more rounds in a standard mag 32 vs 30. It does have far less stopping power your right. The 223 rules. As for penetration the 9mm has more penetration in homes and people (overpenetration risks are actually more with pistol rounds) but the 223 has more penetration on steel and soft body armor. I agree with your though. Pistol caliber carbines make little sence and there is not much too like with them as a whole.
Pat
beerslurpy
member
Sorry, I meant less penetration of bad guy and of protective garment of bad guy. I dont anticpate shooting walls in a combat situation, except by accident.
The cartrdige weights and diameters are nearly tied, certainly not enough to discount either automatically. The only problem is you get a ton less effectiveness per round.
I take back what I said earlier about weight and size.
The cartrdige weights and diameters are nearly tied, certainly not enough to discount either automatically. The only problem is you get a ton less effectiveness per round.
I take back what I said earlier about weight and size.
A side issue, but if I have a BG that is shootable and has mistaken the concealment of drywall for cover, I most certainly plan on shooting a wall.
I think we agree, though, that 9mm ARs are kinda...questionable. It essentially turns a rifle into a pistol caliber carbine, and we've just done a thread about that. To my mind the only advantages it gives are:
1. Potential ammunition commonality between rifle and handgun
2. Quieter/easier to suppress
3. Less expensive practice than 5.56
4. Allows stupid public officials to sleep easier at night
#3 is done better by a .22 Rimfire upper, IMO, and #1 and #2 are not large enough advantages to offset the disadvantages the pistol caliber brings to the table. Others, however, might think differently. #4 applies to administrators of government agencies who employ ninjas and want to decree what tools they should use (though, upon further thought, that could easily apply to public officials' views of citizens as well).
I think for most of the non-governmental purchasers of 9mm uppers, the real reason is #5.
5. Because I want it.
Nothing wrong with that.
Mike
I think we agree, though, that 9mm ARs are kinda...questionable. It essentially turns a rifle into a pistol caliber carbine, and we've just done a thread about that. To my mind the only advantages it gives are:
1. Potential ammunition commonality between rifle and handgun
2. Quieter/easier to suppress
3. Less expensive practice than 5.56
4. Allows stupid public officials to sleep easier at night
#3 is done better by a .22 Rimfire upper, IMO, and #1 and #2 are not large enough advantages to offset the disadvantages the pistol caliber brings to the table. Others, however, might think differently. #4 applies to administrators of government agencies who employ ninjas and want to decree what tools they should use (though, upon further thought, that could easily apply to public officials' views of citizens as well).
I think for most of the non-governmental purchasers of 9mm uppers, the real reason is #5.
5. Because I want it.
Nothing wrong with that.
Mike
As is typical of law enforcement administrators police tend to adopt 9mm carbines at about the same time that they adopt .40cal pistols. I believe this is done deliberately just to prevent them from accidentaly making a good decision, thus causing the world to implode.
Ammo commonality is not a advantage. My patrol M4 has 1 30 round mag in the gun and 1 20 round mag in a buttstock mag pouch. Thats 50 potential rounds. That is plenty of ammo to use. WIth a Ruger Pistol caliber carbine you would have a 15 round mag in the gun plus your 2 spare pistol mags. Thats 46 rounds. Thats less ammo overall.
Pat
Pat
Perhaps the best answer is because they are kind of cool.
I personally have no use for one but if I had the chance, I would gleefully empty mag after mag at assorted targets.
Also, since a 9mm is designed to expand at the velocity it achieves from a 4" or so handgun barrel, wouldn't it expand more and therefore penetrate less out of a longer barrel? Wouldn't the effectiveness be more than it would be out of a handgun with the same round? Does it make less noise (better maybe for starting a new shooter)? Cheaper plinking too maybe?
I don't own an AR so my answers are entirely theoretical, but I can see how one would at least fit into the "cool range toy" category.
I personally have no use for one but if I had the chance, I would gleefully empty mag after mag at assorted targets.
Also, since a 9mm is designed to expand at the velocity it achieves from a 4" or so handgun barrel, wouldn't it expand more and therefore penetrate less out of a longer barrel? Wouldn't the effectiveness be more than it would be out of a handgun with the same round? Does it make less noise (better maybe for starting a new shooter)? Cheaper plinking too maybe?
I don't own an AR so my answers are entirely theoretical, but I can see how one would at least fit into the "cool range toy" category.
pauli
Member
9mm really doesn't gain much from carbine length barrels.
i am of the opinion that 9mm ar's exist because ar people will buy them
i am of the opinion that 9mm ar's exist because ar people will buy them
I'm basically as mystified as you, Hi fi. No break in the price (blowback) and no full auto and not easily convertible to 223 by switching uppers. There is no upside in my mind. I would buy a 22 LR dedicated upper if I wanted to plink cheaply. YMMV
Father Knows Best
Member
Depends on what you mean by "penetrate less." The big problem with "overpenetration" in handgun ammo is that it carries a lot of energy through materials other than flesh. A .223 round loses a LOT of energy just passing through drywall, due to the fact that it weighs so little. The drywall causes it to shed a lot of velocity and, thus, energy. In addition, the .223 round relies on high velocity to fragment and cause damage, so when it loses velocity it becomes about as effective as a .22LR. By contrast, a 9mm will pass right through drywall without losing hardly any effectiveness at all. The end result is that innocent bystanders on the other side of an interior wall are much more likely to be killed by .223 rounds than by 9mm rounds fired from the same gun. Similarly, a 9mm slug that passes through a person's clothing or body is still much more likely to be carrying lethal energy upon exit than a .223 bullet.
Yes, but the question is not "9 mm AR versus 9mm handgun," it is "9mm AR versus .223 AR."
Yes. Especially in a short barrel carbine, the .223 makes horrendous noise and impressive muzzle flash. The 9 mm would be a lot less startling. In addition, the 9 mm would be much easier to suppress. This is about the only really valid reason I can come up with for a 9 mm carbine. Still, there are better choices than the AR platform is you want a 9 mm carbine.
Debatable. 9 mm ammo is cheap, but so is surplus 5.56 NATO. Unless you do a LOT of plinking, I doubt the cost would be a major factor. The 5.56 mags are also much cheaper.
Zak Smith
Member
To me, the most compelling reason for a 9mm "AR15" is to shoot pistol-caliber carbine matches, or on training ranges where rifle bullets cannot be contained, like some shoothouses.
While I will never advocate their use for defense, I think the 9mm carbines are GREAT FUN.
I personally would much rather shoot a 9mm AR than an AR with a .22lr conversion kit. I know the 9mm doesn't have much recoil, but I want SOME sign that I've fired besides a tiny little 'crack' sound. I haven't fired my Ruger 10/22 literally in YEARS (although my son used to and my nephew still does) but I have spent some time with a Beretta Storm and Winchester white box ammo
To me, it's all about the fun factor.
I personally would much rather shoot a 9mm AR than an AR with a .22lr conversion kit. I know the 9mm doesn't have much recoil, but I want SOME sign that I've fired besides a tiny little 'crack' sound. I haven't fired my Ruger 10/22 literally in YEARS (although my son used to and my nephew still does) but I have spent some time with a Beretta Storm and Winchester white box ammo
That's not neccessarily true. Independent testing has shown as little as 1% to as much as 33% increase in velocity depending on ammo brand. While their tests were not completely "scientific" or "the gospel" by any means, they fired various 9mm ammo through various carbines and pistols and the results were similar... While it can't be called a theory, it's enough to support the hypothesis.
To me, it's all about the fun factor.
I think the answer to the question asked is covered in the link I posted below by Chuck Taylor. At one time, the submachinegun dominated the law enforcement and military tactical team arena. The most popular was the HK MP5. Colt, being a business, wanted a piece of the action, so they came out with the Model 635, 9mm submachinegun in an attempt to get in on the 9mm subgun craze and all the lucrative government purchase orders.
I have a Colt 9mm AR15.
I registered it as an SBR and bought an LRM suppressed upper for it. http://www.lrmfirearms.com/pages/863787/
One of the reasons I wanted it was because I played around with the Colt submachine gun (Model 635) that was owned by my local dealer and I really enjoyed it: I really wanted one,but they are far too expensive for me to own one.
http://www.colt.com/mil/SMG.asp
http://www.chucktaylorasaa.com/coltm635.html
I haven't received the tax stamp for the SBR, or the suppressor and therefore don't know how all this stuff will work yet.
"More recoil, less capacity, less stopping power, less penetration"
I think that about sums it up. It does recoil significantly more than the 5.56 making rapid follow up shots slower (IMO).
It is no more difficult or easier to suppress. I have no idea people are referring to here: I bought an AAC M4-2000 suppressor for 5.56. http://www.advanced-armament.com/products/rifles/m42k.asp It has a quick detach using a special flash suppressor. It goes on and off in a second or two. The 9mm suppressor I bought is integral, although you could use any one of many muzzle cans.
You get very little increase in velocity with a 16" barrel. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=45283&highlight=chronograph
If you don't want one: fine. Don't buy one.
Some of us think they are fun. It isn't a substitute for anything else. I still own plenty of 5.56 guns as well as 7.62 battle rifles etc. The only reason I need to own one, is that I want it.
I made what I consider a good case for owning a pistol caliber carbine in that other thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=148276&page=4
Sorry for the double tap at the end.
I have a Colt 9mm AR15.
I registered it as an SBR and bought an LRM suppressed upper for it. http://www.lrmfirearms.com/pages/863787/
One of the reasons I wanted it was because I played around with the Colt submachine gun (Model 635) that was owned by my local dealer and I really enjoyed it: I really wanted one,but they are far too expensive for me to own one.
http://www.colt.com/mil/SMG.asp
http://www.chucktaylorasaa.com/coltm635.html
I haven't received the tax stamp for the SBR, or the suppressor and therefore don't know how all this stuff will work yet.
"More recoil, less capacity, less stopping power, less penetration"
I think that about sums it up. It does recoil significantly more than the 5.56 making rapid follow up shots slower (IMO).
It is no more difficult or easier to suppress. I have no idea people are referring to here: I bought an AAC M4-2000 suppressor for 5.56. http://www.advanced-armament.com/products/rifles/m42k.asp It has a quick detach using a special flash suppressor. It goes on and off in a second or two. The 9mm suppressor I bought is integral, although you could use any one of many muzzle cans.
You get very little increase in velocity with a 16" barrel. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=45283&highlight=chronograph
If you don't want one: fine. Don't buy one.
Some of us think they are fun. It isn't a substitute for anything else. I still own plenty of 5.56 guns as well as 7.62 battle rifles etc. The only reason I need to own one, is that I want it.
I made what I consider a good case for owning a pistol caliber carbine in that other thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=148276&page=4
Sorry for the double tap at the end.
- Status
