But a different rifle could, making the rifle that can't the wrong choice.
amidoingitright?
Are Pistol Caliber Carbines relevant these days?
- Thread starter Panzercat
- Start date
- Status
But a different rifle could, making the rifle that can't the wrong choice.
amidoingitright?
MCgunner
Member
Ever hear of a filler? Solves safety issues. I use cornmeal in my cap and ball guns. I could load that 50 BMG with 70 grains of 777, add a corn meal filler to compress the load, and top it with a 385 grain Minie and it would match my CVA Wolf. Accuracy? Well, i don't know, but I doubt a 00 buck pellet on a .30-06 with a smidge of Bullseye or Unique is minute of squirrel accurate, either.
I do know a 105 gain SWC over 2.3 grains of Bullseye in .38 brass is in my Rossi 92.meanmrmustard
Member
It has a lot to do with it, I.e: brings the rifle down a peg. If its a real world situation where a bad guy is wearing armor capable of stopping pistols, then same guy can be wearing stuff to stop a rifle. I'll reiterate: the minimum capabilities of a rifle can be eclipsed by the maximum of a pistol cartridge. We've all stated it to one degree or another. I didn't even bring up armor, you did. So if a dude is wearing stuff that stops BOTH, the rifle caliber gun does nothing that PCC can't. There's your relation, relativity, reality, so forth and etcetera. You're telling me someone can stop a pistol round with armor, and its been done to a rifle as well. So, not to quote you too closely, but duh.
So, you haven't answered the initial question: what can the rifle do, that the PCC can't!
Edit to add: and for all our back and forth, over 80% polled STILL opine that a PCC will get THEIR job done to one degree or another.
They can do a number of things.
They are easier to shoot accurate close and medium range shots with minimal firearm experience.
They are quiter, with little muzzle climb, flash, or recoil.
They can share ammunition with a sidearm, and some share magazines.
I alwas find it funny how various rifle rounds designed for suppression can have so many followers, when what you are almost doing is creating a pistol caliber carbine. Just one that goes slightly further with a better BC, but also often is less effective with a subsonic spitzer bullet vs a pistol bullet.
A .300 blackout in its subsonic loading for example is essentially just recreating a pistol caliber carbine (although with the ability to also use more powerful rifle rounds can be more versatile)
The law limits two of the things pistol caliber carbines do best:
1.They utilize short barrels much better than most rifle cartridges, since they use rounds meant for short pistol barrels an 8-12" barrel carbine (SBR by law) is often better than a similar length rifle in practical use.
2.The second thing is they make the best use of suppressors, as many pistol rounds are already subsonic standard, or close enough that they can simply be made a little heavier and slower without altering the effectiveness of the round significantly. While rifle rounds depend on velocity for most of thier terminal performance, which they lack in subsonic loads.
Pistol caliber carbines would be more useful without the NFA.
But they still have thier place.
They are easier to shoot accurate close and medium range shots with minimal firearm experience.
They are quiter, with little muzzle climb, flash, or recoil.
They can share ammunition with a sidearm, and some share magazines.
I alwas find it funny how various rifle rounds designed for suppression can have so many followers, when what you are almost doing is creating a pistol caliber carbine. Just one that goes slightly further with a better BC, but also often is less effective with a subsonic spitzer bullet vs a pistol bullet.
A .300 blackout in its subsonic loading for example is essentially just recreating a pistol caliber carbine (although with the ability to also use more powerful rifle rounds can be more versatile)
The law limits two of the things pistol caliber carbines do best:
1.They utilize short barrels much better than most rifle cartridges, since they use rounds meant for short pistol barrels an 8-12" barrel carbine (SBR by law) is often better than a similar length rifle in practical use.
2.The second thing is they make the best use of suppressors, as many pistol rounds are already subsonic standard, or close enough that they can simply be made a little heavier and slower without altering the effectiveness of the round significantly. While rifle rounds depend on velocity for most of thier terminal performance, which they lack in subsonic loads.
Pistol caliber carbines would be more useful without the NFA.
But they still have thier place.
Last edited:
exdetsgt
Member
I have a Rossi M92 lever action in 38/357. It's my favorite rifle. I've had several AR15's and you walk around in the boonies with one down here on the Mexican border neither the good guys nor the bad guys think you're just another hunter. But with a lever action, well, you're just another hunter.
How does bringing the rifle down a peg have anything to do with your question? Seriously. Maybe that is your new thing you want to do for some reason, but it is hardly a retort to the answer given.
Certainly no one ever said otherwise. But again that is not a retort to the fact that a rifle will defeat armor that a handgun wont. It doesn't mean in any way that defeating other types of armor is not a capability that rifles have over pistol cartridges.
Yeah, to directly answer a question you asked. Armor was one of a number of answers given that you chose to focus on and
Right, but do you not understand that this does not mean that it is untrue that there are types of armor that the rifle will defeat that the pistol wont and thus that is something they do that a pistol wont and that you asked not "is a rifle better in every single situation," but rather, what in combat can a rifle do that pistol calibers wont do. Again its two totally different discussions. You have jumped rails, apparently when you didn't like the answer. It is not true that the rifle has to be more effective in every scenario imaginable for it to have real world capabilities and advantages in some scenarios. I get your point that there are situations where either could be equally effective or equally ineffective. It is simply not the case that those situations and that fact means there are no situations where one does something the other can't or does it much better.
I'm telling you exactly what you asked, what is a capability that a rifle has that pistol caliber gun doesn't. It can defeat certain types of armor. Nothing you have said has refuted that it any way. It has merely been discussion of a a different and very tangentially related new point you've brought up.
In essence your logic is is the same as the following:
A: 308 AP round has no combat abilities that a pellet gun doesn't. What can a .308 round do that a pellet can't
Here's how the argument develops.
B: a 308 with AP bullets can do the following that a pellet cant: A, B, C, D, E, and F--it can defeat barriers that would easily stop a pellet. In fact a layer or two of carpet will stop a pellet but is no match for an AP 308 round.
Now A responds ignoring all other points besides the one about barriers.
A: Yeah but, ceramic plates can stop 308. Thus it is no more capable than pellet in any situation and can't do anything the pellet can't period because it is equally ineffective if one wears ceramic plates.
Do you see how that argument doesn't work and thus doesn't refute the answer I gave you?
Perhaps another example will help.
Example:
A: What can a 250cc motorcylce do in daily commuting that a 90 cc scooter can't?
B: Go 80 MPH on the free way.
A: But on that little 250cc would be hard pressed to do much more than 100-110 MPH and there are roads in the world where one can travel faster than 110 MPH.
Again great, what does that have to do with the initial question. How does A's response disprove or refute B's answer to his question? It doesn't.
Do you still think this?
If a rilfe can defeat a soft vest and a pistol caliber cannot, then yes I have. That is true whether neither or both can defeat a vest. My statement was not that a rifle can defeat every type of armor on earth while a pistol caliber cannot.
If you honestly cannot see the what is incorrect about your final assertion "So, you haven't answered the initial question: what can the rifle do, that the PCC can't!" and the contentions you have used in making it. I don't think I am capable of explaining it to you or that there is much point in discussing it further.
Would that be the case if you had a 30/30 lever action or BLR in 308? If the AR was a 9x19 would it be any different than if it was 5.56 or 300 Blk, or .22LR? I ask these questions to make the point that what you are saying is not an argument that really hinges on pistol caliber versus rifle caliber but rather on style of weapons.
meanmrmustard
Member
You're grasping. Other than repeating the obvious, that which has been done before your posts, you've not really swayed votes here. We know, for the love of Pete, about body armor. My point was; if your enemy stops rifle bullets too, what does it do that the PCC can't. You STILL haven't answered this!!!
I guess we can agree to disagree. Pellet rifles, body armor, scooters...by your logic I'd carry a 50 BMG, wear adamantium armor, and cruise a Ninja. I'm not changing your mind about possible effectiveness, or rather, the PCCs place on the field anymore than you are deterring me.
I do none of those things, btw. I'm afraid of motorcycles.
Last edited by a moderator:
Inebriated
Member
meanmrmustard said:
YOU brought up the situation, dude. I'm just telling you that there are certainly better options in that situation than the PCC, and to suggest otherwise is either pure or blind ignorance. You and Warp can keep swinging the conversation and circumstances back around into the PCC's favor all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that if there's a PCC that can do a job, there's a rifle that can do it better.
He absolutely isn't.meanmrmustard said:
And that paranthetical is the reason a lot of people like them and a pretty notable added capability. Depending on use the added range may or may not be notable. Terminal ballistics of the subsonics has been addressed more than once in this thread. It is an argument that IMHO used to be a VERY big strike against rounds like the 300 BLK, and one that a lot of folks seemingly willfully ingnored. With the development of bullets designed to expand and perform at lower velocities it is an argument that is carrying less water these days. The last big advantage is that 30 cal match rifle bullets can produce precision that IME match pistol bullets cannot approach. Again depending on one's use this may more may not matter.
Now I would agree that if all you are going to do is shoot inside 100 yards or so, maximum accuracy is not needed, and you only ever want to shoot subsonic then getting a 300 BLK over a 9x19 may not be the best choice. However, there are a number of legit reasons and real world advantages to using a 300 BLk instead.
I totally agree. I think it is worth at least noting that no NFA would also change much of the discussion about rifles too. For example a suppressor notably would cut sound, blast, and muzzle rise that you mention in the beginning of your post. Of course it might still be the case that there would still be less on some pistols. At a certain point the difference is not notable enough and it stops mattering.
I think that generally speaking you other points have merit. This one I'd be inclined to push back on a little more. I'm just not sure that it is per se true of all pistol rounds as compared to all rifle rounds (assuming other factors are equal). I would think that it would certainly be true if the rifle rounds in question are particularly powerful ones and thus produce a lot of recoil, flash and blast. For mild rounds I'm just not sure that your statement is really true. My experience has been that if I had someone my Noveske with an aimpoint on it they have a very easy time of hitting targets out to 100 yards or so. If I do the same with one of my the pistol guns that is wearing a RDS there is no perceivable difference. I take a lot of people who are new to guns shooting. I don't think my experience is per se universal but it does make me believe that the statement in question cannot be per se true either. I'm sure if I handed them a 300 win mag and told them to have at it, it would be very different than if I gave them a 9x19 carbine.
meanmrmustard
Member
Never did I bring up sniping. I'm drawing a conclusion from your post. As for rifles performing better, I'm sure of that...to a degree. But, these facts have been rehashed, from at least Page 2.
By my definition, reiterating what has already been said and moved past in order to try and come to a conclusive point is grasping. Hell, I'm even doing it now. But I recognize it: no ones minds getting changed. You believe a rifle is better...better at what? This is where I draw my line, as I can fire faster, rue acquire targets faster, carry more ammo, am effective at combat range, and share ammo with a pistol by way of using a PCC. The rifle just ain't getting all that done in spades.
Ymmv.
Inebriated
Member
You brought up the .308 hostage situation. In what way is shooting a person with a .308 in a hostage situation NOT sniping?
- Status
