Are Pistol Caliber Carbines relevant these days?

[fireside44]

If they weren't relevant, they wouldn't sell them and people who do serious work with firearms wouldn't have them. Also, they are much cheaper to shoot and reload. That is relevance if I've ever seen it. Tough to beat a good 9mm, .38/.357, .45acp, .44 mag/special, pistol-rifle combo either for guys who need serious weapons and are on a budget. There is mucho sense in doing so. A lot of versatility there.

 

[mavracer]

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.

I can easily hunt anything from squirrels to hogs with a 30/30 or 35 rem, hunting in heavy cover it's just as quick to the eye and packs plenty of punch for deer and hogs and gives me more range.

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.

My point exactly they don't do anything better the only thing they do is chamber a round that can be used in a pistol.
BTW I wouldn't have a problem using a AR carbine chambered in 458 Socom or 50 Beowulf for Alaska, but then I don't really have a bias toward any platform.

 

[meanmrmustard]

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.

Class is in session...again.

What do you want to do with your rifle?

I'm still waiting to hear a scenario in which I can't get the job done with a PCC OTHER than long range.

We can go from there.

 

[mavracer]

I'm still waiting to hear a scenario in which I can't get the job done with a PCC OTHER than long range.

I'm not the one that claimed pistol cartridges are capable of doing things that can't be done with a rifle cartridge. That Being said we really need to quit.

 

[meanmrmustard]

I'm not the one that claimed pistol cartridges are capable of doing things that can't be done with a rifle cartridge. That Being said we really need to quit.

Agreed, but I'll add before we do that I never claimed any superiority for the pistol carbine that wasn't obvious nor true.

We can agree to disagree, sir.

 

[DMK]

I have a 16" barreled .357 lever gun. I don't reload. I don't see a need to make a shot past 50 yards, much less 100.

I can shoot .38s for plinking, I can shoot .357s for more serious purposes. I can shoot both rounds in a few handguns that I own. Accurate enough, light enough, compact enough, powerful enough.

This is the right gun for me.

 

[Inebriated]

Name one thing that actually pertains to making a shot that a PCC is capable of doing better.

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.

None of those things are done BETTER by the PCC! Yes, a PCC can do the same thing a rifle can in the same scenario, but by no means does that mean it does the job better.

Oh, and I don't know where an AR and bears came into the discussion, but an AR in .458 SOCOM is perfect for bears.

 

[Girodin]

I'm still waiting to hear a scenario in which I can't get the job done with a PCC OTHER than long range.

Hunting dangerous game? I'm sure one will argue it could be done. However, they would be ignoring the legal minimums on guns for that. I don't think anyone would argue it would be remotely prudent to do it.

I think this discussion has gone nowhere for a few pages. It is just talking in circles around the following ideas that most everyone seems to agree on.

Pistol caliber guns offer a lot of capability.

They cannot match ballistics of true rifle rounds.

Pistol cartridges are a short range affair.

A, if not THE, major advantage of pistol caliber guns is a economic one.

Outside of economics they have a couple other niches where they have particular appeal, places where their are legal restrictions, when one wants to share ammo (and possibly mags) with a pistol.

They are also fun guns to own and shoot.

 

[PorkChopsMmm]

Girodin, I agree on the round-and-round discussion. The only other benefit of the PCC I can think of is because of the smaller round the purpose built rifles tend to be smaller/lighter, an example would be my Rossi 92. The receivers just don't need to be as big to handle the longer rifle cartridges.

 

[Rudedog]

I'd go with the .357 mag in a lever gun like the Rossi 92.
You can carry a lot of loose rounds on you so you can top off the magazine when needed.

 

[Warp]

Hunting dangerous game? I'm sure one will argue it could be done. However, they would be ignoring the legal minimums on guns for that. I don't think anyone would argue it would be remotely prudent to do it.

I think this discussion has gone nowhere for a few pages. It is just talking in circles around the following ideas that most everyone seems to agree on.

Pistol caliber guns offer a lot of capability.

They cannot match ballistics of true rifle rounds.

Pistol cartridges are a short range affair.

A, if not THE, major advantage of pistol caliber guns is a economic one.

Outside of economics they have a couple other niches where they have particular appeal, places where their are legal restrictions, when one wants to share ammo (and possibly mags) with a pistol.

They are also fun guns to own and shoot.

Sounds about right.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Perhaps... transitioning a new shooter to CF rifle?

I just use a reduced handload -- for example, a 130 grain bullet at around 2400 fps in .30-06, or a light cast bullet at around 1500 fps.

 

[Warp]

I just use a reduced handload -- for example, a 130 grain bullet at around 2400 fps in .30-06, or a light cast bullet at around 1500 fps.

That's great, for you.

But not everybody reloads.

 

[Girodin]

The only other benefit of the PCC I can think of is because of the smaller round the purpose built rifles tend to be smaller/lighter, an example would be my Rossi 92.

I think that in most cases you will find that as to smaller, the real limit in most instances is going to be the legally imposed limit of 26" of overall length and 16" barrel length I have a number of guns in various calibers that are limited by such legalities. This is particularly true when one discusses bullpups (which make receiver length much less of an issue, and make any non NFA lever gun seem pretty big by comparison, and any NFA gun loses mag capacity). Bullpups can be had in both pistol land rifle calibers and in either case are likely to be limited by the 26" OAL. I think an AUG (and clones) is just slightly over 26" with a 16" barrel. I suppose it could be argued that in a ground up design one could still use more barrel and less receiver length to get to the 26"

As to weight, I think you are likely correct, in saying that in general they are often lighter. Much of any such discussion, however, will turn on the particular guns in question though. It appears that the Rossi you mention is particularly lightweight at around 5lbs. Most of the marlin lever guns in pistol calibers tend to be more like 6.5 lbs. Real lightweight non NFA ARs can come in below 5 lbs (a typical recipe includes a 14.5" pencil barrel with pinned A2, a cav arms lower, carbon fiber hand guard, etc) If, weight is a big concern one can obtain some pretty light weight options either way. I think my lightest non NFA pistol caliber rifle is a 9x19 kel tec that is around 4 lbs unloaded. Kel tec makes the SU 16 that is 4.7 lbs unloaded. One could probably shave a bit off of the SU-16 if he or she really wanted to (perhaps one could also turn down the sub 2k's barrel but it isn't really think as it is, I've heard of people having issues getting it threaded). At any rate it is already lighter than the admittedly very light Rossi you mentioned (and one could of course make that rossi lighter too if he or she were determined to do that). The kel tecs are a useful reference point because they compare guns made of similar materials and of similar quality/robustness.

In sum, generally I would agree with the point many of them are smaller or lighter. Really though, as with much of the discussion in this thread, it will come down to the particular guns at issue. If one is highly concerned about size and/or weight there are options either way that are likely to work well. If we start throwing in NFA options, and that is a legit option for many people, then the water gets even muddier.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Hunting dangerous game? I'm sure one will argue it could be done. However, they would be ignoring the legal minimums on guns for that. I don't think anyone would argue it would be remotely prudent to do it.

I think this discussion has gone nowhere for a few pages. It is just talking in circles around the following ideas that most everyone seems to agree on.

Pistol caliber guns offer a lot of capability.

They cannot match ballistics of true rifle rounds.

Pistol cartridges are a short range affair.

A, if not THE, major advantage of pistol caliber guns is a economic one.

Outside of economics they have a couple other niches where they have particular appeal, places where their are legal restrictions, when one wants to share ammo (and possibly mags) with a pistol.

They are also fun guns to own and shoot.

I was talking combat scenario, not hunting. So, dangerous game hunting brought up in a discussion of the usefulness of a PCC is a moot subject. The rhinos and lions are safe.

Round and round? You don't like gun discussions on a gun forum? Hmmm...wouldn't be the first time several folks didn't agree on something, and things trudged on.

I'd argue that depending on the cartridge, a PCC can be a mid range affair. But, no, it still won't hit a man size target at 600 meters with effectiveness. I agree.

Economics? Very much so.

Fun, indeed.

 

[Warp]

Let's not forget indoor ranges that don't allow rifle calibers.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That's great, for you.

But not everybody reloads.

If you don't reload, you just ain't right.

Seriously, you can buy reduced recoil ammunition.

 

[Girodin]

That's great, for you.

But not everybody reloads. Haven't we covered that a few times already?

You really do need to figure out that not everybody is exactly like you. And they don't need to be.

Well if we are discussion the abilities of the gun and not the shooter, I think it is fair enough to talk about what the gun can do with tailored loads. Its kind of like saying we should discount a rifles ability to shoot to 800 yards because the majority of people in this thread probably cannot get consistent hits at that distance. Just because one doesn't currently load that is not a true limit of the gun but of the person.

I think it is just as fair to point out that given a persons limits a capability of a gun might not make any difference to that person. I think it is fair to note that one gun can do this or that with commonly available cartridges while others will require a person to hand load or lose the capability.

I'm just not sure that it is fair to accuse someone who mentions what a gun is capable of with tailored ammo to think that everyone is just like them.

I might have noted that for a new shooter you just put the suppressor on. I know that not everyone does or even can use suppressors. That doesn't mean that mentioning them has NO merit. Now I probably shouldn't talk about it in a way that implies everyone can do that either. To be honest I don't think Vern did that in his mention of hand loading. He simply stated what he does.

 

[MCgunner]

I can easily hunt anything from squirrels to hogs with a 30/30 or 35 rem, hunting in heavy cover it's just as quick to the eye and packs plenty of punch for deer and hogs and gives me more range.

A squib load in that big a case and accurate? What powder? Besides, when I crank out rounds for my .357/.38 lever gun, I do it on a progressive press and cast for it to keep cost down. Reloading, truth be told, is the main reason I wanted a .357 carbine.

I have a .30-30...it's a pistol.

That's great, for you.

But not everybody reloads.

As I stated, reloading is one of the reasons I wanted a .357 carbine. I can shoot cast lead, dirt cheap ammo, and I can crank 'em out on my progressive. I do load for rifle calibers, of course. I load for everything I own save 20 gauge and rimfire, but having the Rossi lately has been a great thing. I'm not having a lot of problems finding reloading supplies. I picked up a pound of Bullseye and 500 SP primers Saturday and 25 lbs of lead. I can't find a friggin' .22LR round in the state of Texas! I've got some shorts I've been burning in my old Remington bolt .22 and my Rossi revolver, but .22LR is mysteriously missing from the state of Texas. So, I've been shooting a lot of light .38 105 grain SWCs out of my Rossi at swinging targets. It's kept me shooting/plinking, lately. My other alternative is Black Powder, another venue some of you folks have no use for, but I love shooting in rifles and revolvers.

Life's too short to rule out a gun I want. I might not NEED it, but if I want it, I get it.

 

[Warp]

Just because one doesn't currently load that is not a true limit of the gun but of the person.

...whether or not a person reloads is a factor for them when they decide which gun they ought to get for a particular use.

Does that makes sense to you?

Do you agree with that?

 

[Girodin]

I was talking combat scenario, not hunting. So, dangerous game hunting brought up in a discussion of the usefulness of a PCC is a moot subject. The rhinos and lions are safe.

You ought to clearly ask the question you want to ask, not other broader questions. If I totally missed a context that should have been clear it was likely because I was skimming a lot of the trite semantic based back and forth, and you have my apologies. To answer your newly clarified question, defeat armor. For many civilians in the US there are legal prohibitions on AP handgun ammo so even soft armor will defeat the legal bullets coming out of a pistol caliber. Of course there is hard armor that will defeat pistol rounds while other rifle rounds will pass through. Another answer would be have a bullet construction that offers reasonably reliable terminal ballistics (say can meet FBI standards) while simultaneously mitigating over penetration. The rifle can also offer vastly superior terminal ballistics (particular if one is limited by the strictures of international law to not use ammunition that expands or flattens easily). A serious increase in terminal ballistics is kind of a big deal when you are shooting people who present a threat to you. Why do you think so many professionals are moving from sub guns to things like the MK18 or similar style/configuration of weapons. Now, a lot of bad guys have moved on to a better place grace a various sub guns. Certainly a pistol caliber gun is a pretty formidable weapon inside of 150 yards or so. It simply does not have all the capabilities of rifle rounds though.

I've tried to discuss the issues as relating to various situations. It would be easy to say, no combat for a civie, or LEO, or military, and the discussion will change. Its hard to hit between the goal posts when one keeps moving them.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

...whether or not a person reloads is a factor for them when they decide which gun they ought to get for a particular use.

Does that makes sense to you?

Do you agree with that?

Well, yes and no. I can buy a reloading outfit for my .30-06 cheaper than I can buy a .357 caliber carbine.

And I can load a .30-06 down to 1600 fps or less. But I can't load a .357 up to 3000 fps.

So from a cost/benefit ratio perspective, the .30-06 and reloading outfit is a better buy than two rifles, one in .30-06 and one in .357.

 

[Warp]

Well, yes and no. I can buy a reloading outfit for my .30-06 cheaper than I can buy a .357 caliber carbine.

And I can load a .30-06 down to 1600 fps or less. But I can't load a .357 up to 3000 fps.

So from a cost/benefit ratio perspective, the .30-06 and reloading outfit is a better buy than two rifles, one in .30-06 and one in .357.

Okay then.

What we established here is that "but you an reload XXX" doesn't apply to everybody. Not everybody reloads, and not everybody wants to reload.

And that is perfectly acceptable.

Do you understand this?

Do you agree with this?

 

[Highland Ranger]

Any suggestions for PCC's in 45 or 9mm?

I have a 44mag wheel/lever combination.

The idea of interchangeable mags appeals to me.

Who makes these? Beretta? Sig?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Okay then.

What we established here is that "but you an reload XXX" doesn't apply to everybody. Not everybody reloads, and not everybody wants to reload.

And that is perfectly acceptable.

Do you understand this?

Do you agree with this?

I don't agree that you get to make after-the-fact rules.

When someone asks a question as the OP did, I assume he is asking for advice. My advice is there is no task that can't be handled better by a rifle-caliber weapon. When someone points out reduced recoil or something like that -- it's perfectly fair to point out that you can load a .30-06 to the levels of a .357 carbine, but you can't load a .357 carbine to .30-06 levels.