More police departments are switching to 5.56 carbines (AR-15) from 9mm carbines (MP5, etc) due to penetration issues. Check out the Box O' Truth and make a decision based on that.
Like many agencies the Sheriff’s dept I worked for in the mid 90’s went to the AR for exactly that reason. Our pistol caliber carbines, HK MP5’s couldn’t penetrate body armor. Fact is, most of the guy’s wanted to keep the MP5’s.
But yes, I'd probably take the 9mm CX4 over a shotgun. More ammo capacity, less recoil. Load it up with some hot +P or +P+ JHPs if you stick with 9mm.
Probably because for over 100 years it has been used in carbine’s and SMG’s the 9mm in proper NATO pressure loads, (+P) here in the states, has the greatest gains over most of the serious fighting PISTOL calibers. The revolver calibers, particularly the 357mag gain the most.
If you are good with either weapon shotgun or Cx4 it really is a pick’em.
I really don't see the advantage of a pistol caliber carbine for defensive use. It has no ballistic advantage over your hand gun, requires a bit more training to maneuver with in a tight space. I keep a carbine for home defense, but it's a Colt 6920, the same one that rode in my squad car.
Actually in a 9mm carbine there is a 10-20% increase in power. But you are right, your Colt AR15 is more powerful still. But if he puts a half a dozen Corbon 115gr DPX round where they belong in the VCA, I think he will have made his point. Besides the cost of shooting the 9mm Carbine will increase the probability that he will practice more. Hopefully train too.
Pistol caliber carbines have been fun plinkers for me. In a pinch I'd use one for a defensive weapon, but given a choice, I'm going to use a rifle round to take advantage of the ballistics.
Jeff
Yup. I agree with you totally.
I think he should get the 9mm carbine.
….Probably the biggest reason that military forces switched to bolt action rifles wasn't so much because of their superior accuracy or usefulness but because the advent of the machine gun made standing up and firing or riding one's horse across an open field pretty much suicidal. The difficulty of using a lever action from a prone position coupled with the limitations in cartridge selection pretty much spelled the end of the lever action for military arms. It is, however, easier to use than a bolt action rifle from a standing position. Grandpa's old 30-30 probably would make a pretty good HD gun, especially with some of the newer LeverRevolution ammo.
Just for the record, to get the history right. The US military never issued a lever action weapon. Some officers bought their own.
During the Civil War President Lincoln had to go around the Army’s ordinance branch to have private individuals pay for Spencer carbines to outfit some Union Cavalry regiments.
Yes, those folks kept the Union troops with muzzle loading single shots, even though there were fixed ammunition, breach loading repeaters available. “The troops would just waste ammunition” , “Besides then we would have to supply more than one kind of ammunition.” Imagine if they had supplied the Union infantry with say, a Henry rifle in 44 rim fire? I guess the war would have been over 2 to 3 years sooner.
These are the same folks and same kind of logic that keeps our boys stuck in the AR system. Oh they kept the Army in the single shot “trapdoor” Springfield 1873 in 45-70. The Indians had the Winchesters, not our boys. They were stuck until the Krag in 30-40 Krag, which didn’t last long and we got the 03 Springfield (A very good Mauser knockoff) and after the first try the 30-06.
And yes the lever action rifle does make a very good defensive rifle, in most calibers, both rifle and pistol.
Go figure.
Fred
