PCC don't universally have less recoil, blast and aren't necessarily cheaper to load than rifle rounds so your statement really has no standing. As others and I have tried to point out to you rifle rounds are capable of being loaded down and loaded with cast bullets. So given that I can shoot the same bullets in my marlin 336 35 rem at the same velocity for the same price as I can from my 1894C 357 give ma a shot you think you can make with a PCC that can't be made with a rifle.
Are Pistol Caliber Carbines relevant these days?
- Thread starter Panzercat
- Start date
- Status
meanmrmustard
Member
Are you firing 35 Rem out of your side arms, though?
Do you carry a revolver that large to necessitate ammo commonality?
A person who does not reload cannot load down rifle rounds, now can they?
Also, which pistol are you shooting 35 rem out of?
You need to broaden your horizons and realize that just because you selected something that you feel is best for you and your situation, that doesn't mean it is best for every single other person in every single other situation.
What ammunition fits in my sidearm has absolute no bearing on making a shot with my longarm.
Since we are talking about actually making a shot with a longgun what style handgun is in my holster is irrelevant.
I only gave one example of one possibility there are other solutions to include conversions and subcaliber inserts.
Again what does this have to do with making a shot with a longgun?
Please by all means enlighten me what is the situation where a shot is going to be possible for you to make with a PCC that I can't make with a carbine chambered in a rifle caliber.
What caliber is your rifle caliber carbine?
And I don't know why you cannot comprehend this, but there are factors beyond "can I make a shot with it?" that go into firearm selection.
Last edited:
meanmrmustard
Member
What is this insistence of making "a shot"? What shot do you want to make! That, to me, is irrelevant as well. Lets call it a combat scenario where, like battle fields these days, don't see engagement but at a few hundred yards. Certainly, you can hit something at 200yards with a 357 rifle...can't you?
You're skirting around what Warp and I are getting at, and obviously not answering the question: You state that your 35 outperforms your 357, in rifle barrels, and you have the ability to make some fancy shot or something that you've not specified. Wonderful.
You're still carrying two different cartridges. 35 rem is not on your side. Strike one for the rifle.
357 weighs less total than 35. You can carry more ammo on your person. If your packing a 357 revolver, youve got more ammo there to shove into the long gun if need be. Strike two.
The 35 typically is holding less rounds than the 357, and generating more recoil energy for the same weight bullets. Less shots, and harder to bring back on target when you do begin shooting. You also have a higher volume of fire with the 357, as its packing more rounds. not a SAW, but certainly effective. Strike three.
Your 357 just won the game. Well, of the two cartridges YOU listed, in platforms of equal action type.
Last edited:
I would think most would agree that the selection of a firearm that is incapable of making a desired shot would be a bad selection. If you wern't in such a blind fury to defend PCCs you would too.
So let me see if I have this correct you claim that a PCC can do something that a RCC can't and when I insist an answer you claim it's irrelevant and claim I'm skirting the question. Is your real name Obama?
Last edited:
What shot is a pistol caliber incapable of making?
What in the heck are you even talking about??
So when you download your rifle caliber to perform like a pistol caliber in order to get those sets of benefits, it still performs like a rifle caliber...have you redefined the laws of physics?
meanmrmustard
Member
Wow. Very classy, fella.
If you recall, I stated combat range, several hundred yard engagement. Either cartridge could be effective, or are you only wanting me to give you a ridiculously long range? We both know that the rifle trumps a PCC at long range. Wasn't aware I had to give a "Obvious Facts 101" class this evening.
You've been told what a PCC can do versus the rifle: not sure i can get any more blatant, or are we not reading posts anymore? You ignoring fact and/or logistics, or just name calling?
I don't think superior long range performance is an excuse for lack of practice, and plenty folks do indeed practice. I imagine some can even effectively make positive hits on torso targets at ranges from point blank out to, say, 200 meters...with a PCC. But, maybe not as accurately as say someone with a 35 Remington revolver, which last I searched, doesn't exist. So we are still at an impass: you quote a "shot" of undefined range, target size, and circumstance. How is the PCC at a disadvantage?
Ps: you don't need either for SD. Just buy yourself a shotgun!
Last edited:
lol
I suppose it would surprise you to know that I do not currently own a single pistol caliber carbine or rifle, then, eh?
I'm not in a "blind fury" to do anything. I am, repeatedly, informing you of some of the benefits that are offered by pistol caliber carbines, and making you aware of reasons why some people in some situations might choose a pistol caliber carbine, and trying to get you to realize that just because you found a solution that you think is perfect for yourself in your situation that doesn't mean the same solution is the one and only acceptable answer for every single person in every conceivable situation in the entire world throughout all of perpetuity.
Inebriated
Member
Less recoil, muzzle blast, flash, and ammo cost is all relative.Warp said:
But for the sake of discussion, lets compare 9mm and 5.45 in their respective platforms (we'll say the 9mm is in an AR and the 5.45 is in an AK). Both guns have so little recoil, ANYONE can shoot them effectively. 5.45's flash can easily be negated with a $20 flash hider. 5.45x39 is cheaper to shoot than 9mm. Even if you reload, you're not going to match the price of 5.45x39. Add to that the massively larger ballistic effect on the target, and it's just seems hard for me to justify a PCC over a rifle.
And that's just comparing 9mm... Change that to .40, 357 SIG, 10mm, .45, .44, or .357 Magnum, and the recoil and cost just go up.
meanmrmustard
Member
As do the power and effectiveness of the cartridge. 10mm is no 545, but now we are comparing a thumper of a pistol round instead of a 9mm, which I'd say could be considered mild in comparison.
Oddly, over 80% of us are either disillusioned, or appreciate the pros of a good PCC!
BCRider
Member
Mavracer, you're both missing the point about the handgun connection and at the same time you're getting away from the whole question posed by the thread. Namely that it's about PISTOL caliber carbines and if they are relevant or not. So that's why the others are trying to drag you back to the topic by asking about what handgun you have that holds .35Remington ammo.
No one is going to suggest that a PISTOL caliber carbine is going to match or outshoot a RIFLE caliber carbine. Obviously a PISTOL caliber carbine is not going to be able to reach out much past somewhere around 100 to 200 yards, depending on the caliber and load choices, with total effectiveness.
But regular handguns become difficult for many of us to use for varmints or other smaller targets requiring some degree of precision at around 35 to 50 yards. That's where a PCC comes in. With the greater stability it can fill in that gap of 50 to around 150 yards and still "make the shot" in perfectly adequite fashion. AND it can do so using the same ammo the shooter keeps in stock for their handguns. And that is the whole enchilada in a nutshell
Obviously from your posts you're not a fan of a rifle that does not shoot rifle caliber rounds. And that's fine. But for some of us and for some uses a pistol caliber can do the job just fine.
No one is going to suggest that a PISTOL caliber carbine is going to match or outshoot a RIFLE caliber carbine. Obviously a PISTOL caliber carbine is not going to be able to reach out much past somewhere around 100 to 200 yards, depending on the caliber and load choices, with total effectiveness.
But regular handguns become difficult for many of us to use for varmints or other smaller targets requiring some degree of precision at around 35 to 50 yards. That's where a PCC comes in. With the greater stability it can fill in that gap of 50 to around 150 yards and still "make the shot" in perfectly adequite fashion. AND it can do so using the same ammo the shooter keeps in stock for their handguns. And that is the whole enchilada in a nutshell
Obviously from your posts you're not a fan of a rifle that does not shoot rifle caliber rounds. And that's fine. But for some of us and for some uses a pistol caliber can do the job just fine.
But I already have thousands of rounds of 9x19 and 0 rounds of 5.45, and the muzzle blast/repercussion of the rifle round isn't going to go anywhere because you threw a $20 flash hider on the end of the barrel.
I also don't personally care to deal with corrosive ammo.And I'm not the only one that meets the above criteria.
Inebriated
Member
meanmrmustard said:
Sure, but when you increase the recoil of the pistol round, you can also increase the recoil of the rifle round (to keep the comparisons fair). I've not shot a 10mm PCC, but I've shot several .44 and .357 lever guns, and I would much rather shoot a 7.62x39, .30-30, .300blk, etc., and gain the extra energy and ballistic effect.
And I said nothing about not appreciating the PCC's pro's.
Sure, and as I said before, PCC's are great for ammo consolidation.Warp said:
Of course not. But that extra 1k ft. lbs. of energy sure is going somewhere when you go with a PCC. And if you're shooting any firearm without ear pro, you're doing hearing damage, both immediately and for the long term. Touch off a 9mm PCC and 5.45x39 rifle indoors without ear pro and tell me if you feel any more warm and fuzzy having fired the PCC.Warp said:
Then shoot Wolf/Tula. Still comes in comparably to reloaded 9mm.Warp said:
Last edited:
meanmrmustard
Member
Maybe not the 44, but the 10 and 357 are kittens in the shoulder bumping department in rifle form, much more so than a 30-30 for sure.
My statement about the percentage was an observation of the poll numbers, not a bash at you.
"Almost always" is somewhat accurate. But one thing they cannot do more often than not is share ammo with a side arm AND a carbine. They (PCCs) can do no less than as well inside their effective range as far as hits on target, and with your more powerful cartridges, be deadly to boot.
Like I stated earlier, and I'll add .30 Carbine: Some, like the 5.7, shine in both a pistol and carbine.
Ash
Member
I picked Yes because I use an M1 Carbine, which is basically in that category. I also have a Mini-14GB, then move up to full-power arms like a Garand. Pistol caliber carbines have their place - nice to use when you are wandering about and need some stray animal control.
I have no use for an AR but understand folks who use them. I don't actually use a rifle that fires the same round as a pistol outside my .22lr's, but understand why others do.
I have no use for an AR but understand folks who use them. I don't actually use a rifle that fires the same round as a pistol outside my .22lr's, but understand why others do.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Yeah. The others include, "When I make the shot will it have the effect I want?"
That factor militates in favor of more powerful cartridges.
Besides taking the same ammunition that your pistol can. Which would seem you missed out on in "Obvious facts 101" class.
What can a PCC do that you can't do with a RCC?
That's why I ask about "THE SHOT"
Just answer the question what shot can be made, what target can be knocked down, or what game can be harvested with a PCC that couldn't be done with a rifle.
Also for the record I have several PCC and love them dearly but I well understand there capabilities and limitations.
Why isn't your rifle chambered in something more along the lines of .338 Lapua or .50 BMG?
Last edited:
MCgunner
Member
Sure are a lot of mall ninjas on this thread. Ain't there any Fudds left in the world, or has everyone traded shooting deer and small game for killing zombies?
I've already told ya, hunting everything from squirrel to hogs in heavy cover (.357 Carbine, choose your handload). Hunting in heavy cover, for that matter. A .44 magnum lever gun is easy to carry, quick to the eye, very fast in heavy cover, and packs a big punch for hogs or deer.
Maybe a .454 Casull M92 Rossi stainless as a camp companion in Alaska. Of course, it'd be no better than a Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70, but I'll take it over ANY AR15 Mattel toy against big bears.
I've already told ya, hunting everything from squirrel to hogs in heavy cover (.357 Carbine, choose your handload). Hunting in heavy cover, for that matter. A .44 magnum lever gun is easy to carry, quick to the eye, very fast in heavy cover, and packs a big punch for hogs or deer.
Maybe a .454 Casull M92 Rossi stainless as a camp companion in Alaska. Of course, it'd be no better than a Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70, but I'll take it over ANY AR15 Mattel toy against big bears.
Vern Humphrey
Member
How do you know it isn't?
I have quite a few rifles -- and match the cartridge to the intended use. I haven't found a use where a pistol cartridge in a long arm is the optimum solution.
Furncliff
Member
Perhaps... transitioning a new shooter to CF rifle?
How do you know it isn't?
I have quite a few rifles -- and match the cartridge to the intended use. I haven't found a use where a pistol cartridge in a long arm is the optimum solution.
For you it might not be.
For somebody else, it might.
- Status
