Phaedrus/69
Member
This is perhaps a complicated question and I beg your indulgence because this will probably be a long post. The basic question: Is the pistol-caliber carbine and/or subgun functionally obsolete in this day and age? I've been exploring this issue quite a bit. A few months ago I caught wind of the fact that HK is dropping their USC carbine from their lineup. For those of you that haven't seen this gun it's basically the civilian version of the UMP submachine gun, in .45 ACP. I've always loved the gun every since I first got to handle one maybe 14 years ago at the LGS, so I decided to jump on one while they're still available. I just paid it off and will probably have it within 10 days or so. My plan is to do an UMP conversion in stages. This involves replacing the lower (hopefully with an FBI, if not a Navy), adding a folding stock and eventually getting stamps to make it an SBR and add a can. This will be expensive but in the end I'll get a very light, short and accurate gun that gives me 25 rounds of .45 ACP on tap.
There was a lot of soul searching before the purchase! I'm well aware that as a weapon I would probably have been better off just getting an M4-gery of some kind. Certainly a Daniel Defense with a 16" barrel would be much more potent for QCB and already comes from the factory set up for gunfighting (30 round mags, rails, etc). So why did I set out to build a .45 ACP carbine that costs three times as much as a good M4?
Well, first and foremost the heart wants what the heart wants. I'm an HK fanboy and I always wanted the USC/UMP. While I do plan to use it for home defense I bought it as a fun-gun/range toy as well. Where I live I can shoot the USC on the indoor range but they don't allow rifles ("real" rifles). That means there's nowhere within 20 miles for me to shoot an M4, so few opportunities to train with it. Also it's cheaper to shoot a .45 ACP. The ammo isn't really any cheaper than 5.56 but it's a lot slicker to reload (ie carbide dies).
So where does the pistol-caliber carbine fall on the utility spectrum? Certainly it's not even close to matching the lethality of a "real" rifle. The 5.56 round is at twice as powerful as any .45 ACP loading. A .300 Blackout is even stouter, and of course a 7.62 x 54 is more potent still. It's been said that people shot with handguns run away while those shot with rifles are DRT. So I'm well aware that for almost the same size and weight I could be employing a much more effective weapon.
On the other hand, compared to a handgun the carbine is a real step up. With a longer sight radius and three points of contact with the body it's a lot easier to shoot a carbine well. Since it's heavier and larger it can also be fired faster with accuracy. The longer barrel will eek out more velocity and properly set up the carbine holds a lot more rounds. I know I can dump an entire magazine onto a playing card about as fast as I can pull the trigger at 25 feel with a rifle or carbine- I can't do that with a handgun.
I do have a Remington 870 Tactical too, and down the road I'll still be buying a DD or BCM rifle, so I'm not locked into using the USC for HD. But I'll probably move the USC ahead of my HK USP45 Tactical in the rotation.
What do you folks think about the viability of a pistol caliber carbine for home defense?
There was a lot of soul searching before the purchase! I'm well aware that as a weapon I would probably have been better off just getting an M4-gery of some kind. Certainly a Daniel Defense with a 16" barrel would be much more potent for QCB and already comes from the factory set up for gunfighting (30 round mags, rails, etc). So why did I set out to build a .45 ACP carbine that costs three times as much as a good M4?
Well, first and foremost the heart wants what the heart wants. I'm an HK fanboy and I always wanted the USC/UMP. While I do plan to use it for home defense I bought it as a fun-gun/range toy as well. Where I live I can shoot the USC on the indoor range but they don't allow rifles ("real" rifles). That means there's nowhere within 20 miles for me to shoot an M4, so few opportunities to train with it. Also it's cheaper to shoot a .45 ACP. The ammo isn't really any cheaper than 5.56 but it's a lot slicker to reload (ie carbide dies).
So where does the pistol-caliber carbine fall on the utility spectrum? Certainly it's not even close to matching the lethality of a "real" rifle. The 5.56 round is at twice as powerful as any .45 ACP loading. A .300 Blackout is even stouter, and of course a 7.62 x 54 is more potent still. It's been said that people shot with handguns run away while those shot with rifles are DRT. So I'm well aware that for almost the same size and weight I could be employing a much more effective weapon.
On the other hand, compared to a handgun the carbine is a real step up. With a longer sight radius and three points of contact with the body it's a lot easier to shoot a carbine well. Since it's heavier and larger it can also be fired faster with accuracy. The longer barrel will eek out more velocity and properly set up the carbine holds a lot more rounds. I know I can dump an entire magazine onto a playing card about as fast as I can pull the trigger at 25 feel with a rifle or carbine- I can't do that with a handgun.
I do have a Remington 870 Tactical too, and down the road I'll still be buying a DD or BCM rifle, so I'm not locked into using the USC for HD. But I'll probably move the USC ahead of my HK USP45 Tactical in the rotation.
What do you folks think about the viability of a pistol caliber carbine for home defense?
