Explain pistol caliber carbines, please ?

[Wanderling]

Not sure if this belongs here or in Rifles; moderators please move if I put this question in a wrong section.

I am curious as to the advantages of having a pistol caliber carbine vs just regular carbine. I understand the appeal of having a single cartridge; but isn't the ballistic performance pretty much dictated, at least in large part, by the round and not as much by the length of the barrel ? So it seems to me that with a pistol round, you always have the limitations of short effective range and relatively low performance.

I can see the appeal of using a pistol round in SMG - it's designed to be used at close range, the pistol round gives the advantage of low recoil and easy control at high RPM, and the round performance limitations are overcome by large number of shots fired. But in a semi-auto carbine, you still get the same rate of fire as the handgun, in a relatively much heavier and bulkier package; so what's the advantage ? Is it that the longer barrel length of carbine does, in fact, noticeably increase range or ballistic performance ?

I am not trolling, I am honestly trying to understand, and I appreciate any information.

 

[Edarnold]

Depends on the cartridge, low pressure loads like the .45ACP don't gain much from extra barrel length, while high pressure rounds like the .357 and .44 magnums can pick up two or three hundred fps. in a longer barrel: all that muzzle blast from a pistol is wasted energy.
And, face it, unless you are a Miculek or a Bob Munden, you can shoot a long gun way more accurately than a pistol. If you are off in the woods, not big-game hunting but taking small game for the pot, a carbine that matches your sidearm in ammunition makes plenty of sense.

 

[Wanderling]

Sorry, I should've limited my question to the non-Magnum rounds, I was primarily interested in 9mm, .40, .45 carbines. Magnums make much more sense.

Also, I understand how a carbine would be easier to shoot accurately, but if you spend all that money and carry all that extra weight, why not a "normal" rifle carbine ? I mean, it's not all that difficult for a layperson who's not fighting behind enemy lines to stock two different rounds for two guns. And the regular rifle round is both much more powerful and has more range.

 

[DesertFox]

An AR-15 in, say, 9mm has the advantages of: less detrimental over-penetration, especially for home defense or in a tactical situation where there might be a baby sleeping in a crib in the adjacent room; familiar controls for the operator; and, of course, ammo interchangeability.

A Marlin Camp 9 that I have sure does the trick on a gopher vs. out of a 5" barrel 9mm handgun.

I would consider 9mm to be a bit higher pressure-wise at around 30,000psi vs. .45ACP at around 20,000psi so what the previous poster said about this is a good indicator of what may be gained in ballistics.

You're also looking at bullet weights generally heavier in the pistol calibers - which gets us back around to the heavy/slow vs. light/fast debate.

 

[bigfatdave]

I need neither the extra power nor the longer range for my purposes, and I can practice a LOT, 24/7, rain or shine, all year long with a PCC on my club's indoor range.

So the PCC serves as a trainer and an intermediate weapon if needed.

And tell me where I can't take a sub2000 ... it fits in a laptop bag WITH the laptop in there, too!

To summarize, I don't want my PCC to be a M14 or AR10, I don't particularly like the AR-pattern family of guns, and a 9x19 carbine with 33x Glock magazines is a good modern alternative to an M1 Carbine (although my venerable M1 Carbine remains my go-to "house gun" if I ever needed anything bigger than a handgun)

 

[BCRider]

Any pistol caliber carbine is still going to be for use at shorter ranges just as you say the SMG is useful at. The semi auto version is simply a less costly or more easily obtainable option than a full auto version. Or in some cases, such as where I live, they are the ONLY option since we can't get full auto endorsements as private civilians.

For medium range use from 25 to 100 yards many folks will find that they are far more accurate than a handgun thanks to greater steadiness provided by the shoulder stock.

And finally, for range plinking giggles at such distances the ammo is cheaper.

 

[browningguy]

As already said, they make a great intermediate range firearm, with my HK USC on .45 or the Sub 2000 in 9mm I feel like 100 yard shots are easy. They aren't so easy with a pistol however. When traveling by car around the country we always pack the Sub 2000, I keep it in a standard size soft briefcase with lunch, a laptop and 4 spare 33 round mags.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Let's just say that a hundred-yard shot with even a Hi-Point 9mm carbine can be done more quickly and at least as accurately as with a Glock 17.

And I would suspect that terminal ballistics for the carbine would be a bit better, as well.

 

[451 Detonics]

I will copy paste my comments from another thread here...

1. Size, many are smaller carbines and handier in enclosed spaces than a MBR. Also they tend to make for handy car guns as well.

2. Low muzzle flash, this makes them much more user friendly indoors or from an enclosed space. This is also very important to entry teams in places like meth labs where the air can be quite flammable. Also less blinding to the operator in low light situations.

3. Low muzzle blast, easier on ears in enclosed spaces.

4. Less penetration then some MBRs, safer in the home with less worry about a round overpenetrating walls and such.

5. Many can use the same magazines as your primary handgun.

6. Same ammo as your primary handgun.

7. Will easily shoot minute of felon or better out to 200+ yards. This is more than enough for urban setting or for SD/HD.

8. Low recoil makes it user friendly for any family member big enough to shoulder it. Very user friendly for small statured folks.

9. Very easy to suppress, in a caliber like 45 ACP almost all factory ammo will be sub-sonic thus a suppressed PCC wil not require special ammo for maximum effectiveness.

I am sure there are other upsides to the PCC and yes there are down sides as well but the pros outweigh the cons by a wide margin. I own PCCs in 3 calibers, 4 if you include 22RF. One of my favorites is the Mech Tech. Mine has a dedicated lower that I bought on Gun Broker rather cheaply. It pairs very nicely with my Glock in the same caliber and uses the same magazines. A Mech Tech built on a Glock 21 lower paired with a Glock 21 would handle just about any HD/SD situation.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

To understand it, we have to go back a hundred and fifty years or so. During the Civil War, there were two successful repeating rifles, the Henry and the Spencer. The Henry was chambered for a rimfire cartridge that was much less powerful than the later .45 Colt cartridge. The Spencer was chambered for a short, stubby .56 rimfire cartridge. So both repeating rifles/carbines were essentially glorified pistols.

In 1873, Winchester brought out the famous Model 73 and a new centerfire cartridge, the .44 Winchester Central Fire (WFC) which soon became known as the .44-40 (the "-40" meaning it held 40 grains of black powder, more or less.) Of course, this was still basically a "pistol" cartridge, and Colt soon offered the famous Single Action Army in .44 WCF, calling that the "Colt Frontier Revolver."

Winchester brought out several other centerfire cartridges for its rifles and carbines, but kept them in the "pistol power" range because the toggle-action of the '73 Winchester wasn't strong enough to deal with full-power rifle cartridges, such as the .45 Government (AKA the .45-70). Not until 1880 was there a repeater that could handle the .45-70, the Marlin. Winchester didn't have a rifle-power repeater until John Browning designed the Model 1886 lever action rifle.

So the situation at the time was, if you wanted a rifle or carbine, you could choose a repeater, but you had to stick with a pistol-power cartridge. If you wanted true rifle power, you had to choose a single-shot rifle. There were no repeaters that would handle full power rifle cartridges.

That being the case, if you opted for a repeater, it made sense to choose a cartridge that matched your revolver. And so a tradition of pistol-caliber carbines matched with revolvers emerged.

Then during WWI, there were people seeking semi-automatic or full-automatic hand-held weapons for use in trench warfare. Developing a reliable rifle as light as a bolt action rifle, that would handle a full power rifle round was a tough job. So tne route many designers took was to develop what today we call submachine guns -- full auto weapons chambered for pistol cartridges. The famous Thompson submachine gun is an example.

In the 1930s the National Firearms Act made it difficult for ordinary people to own automatic weapons (it's worse today.) But semi-automatic weapons were okay.

So eventually two traditions merged -- the 19th Century rifle-and-revolver combo, and the 20th Century submachine gun/semi-auto pistol caliber carbine. Several companies, notably Ruger, began to bring out carbines -- either semi-automatic or lever action -- chambered for pistol cartridges. Those intended for hunting were generally in .44 Magnum, but some people also use the .357 Magnum in a carbine for deer. Carbines chambered for automatic pistol cartridges were touted for self-defense or general plinking.

 

[briansmithwins]

PCCs are fun but limited by their cartridge. Pistol cal ammo just isn't in the same class as even .223. You're kidding yourself if you think they are comparable.

The other issue is that pistol bullets actually carry through barriers better than light jacketed rifle rounds. Pistol bullets are slow and smash their way though. Lightly built rifle bullets at high velocity tend to tear themselves apart when they hit anything, leading to reduced penetration. Whither or not this is a good thing depends on what you're trying to do.

Don't get me wrong, I love my SBR UZI. But if I need a weapon I'm grabbing a rifle.

BSW

 

[M1key]

Me and my 9mm carbine will rule the world someday.

...well, at least out to about 50 yards.

M

 

[bigfatdave]

You're kidding yourself if you think they are comparable.

I don't WANT or NEED it to be a battle rifle.
It is simply a portable long-arm that complements a handgun ... not a substitute for a Ma Duece

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

All I can figure is that it's all for fun. I almost picked up a Hi-Point 9mm carbine for $175 several months back. Ultimately, I'm glad I didn't; though, at the time, I thought it would be a lot of fun on some rural property. LOL... I guess kinda like a 10/22 on steroids?

 

[SHR970]

I have a friend that is useless with a handgun. Over a course of 20+ years, he is still a klutz with a handgun and is lucky to hit what he is pointing at with one. On the otherhand, with a rifle he resonably competent. For HD / suburban protection in a SHTF situation a PCC is THE choice for him.

 

[jmr40]

Pistol caliber carbines are falling out of favor for serious work. Those in LE and the military are finding a carbine chambered in 5.56 is much more effective, does not pose any greater danger of overpenetration, is much more reliable than the pistol carbines and uses a common ammo.

The pistol carbines were popular at one time because they offered a smaller package with a light recoiling round that offered plenty of capacity and were perceived to be safer in urban environments because of over penetration concerns. Since they were intended to be used at close range full powered rifle rounds were not needed. The 5.56, in the right gun does everything better.

They are still in use for fun guns for many of the reasons listed above and will probably continue to be used for those purposes.

While the 357 and 44 magnum rounds used in lever actions are much more potent than the same rounds used in handguns they are still at a disadvantage when compared with rifle rounds such as the 30-30. I have a Marlin in 44 mag. It is a fun gun to shoot, but I cannot think of a single practical advantage it offers me over one of my 30-30's, or any other rifle. But I ain't selling it either.

 

[Bohemus]

Pros are quite obvious - cheaper ammo + its the same ammo you shoot in your pistol.
You can shoot at ranges that wont let you shoot rifle - ranges within city so you dont have to travel far.
And they are fun to shoot!

 

[Ditchtiger]

Explain pistol caliber carbines, sure.

Take one out plinking and have fun, no explanation will will be needed.

 

[Furncliff]

^^^^ya that.

Love my carbines. I'm retired and shoot a lot, strictly for fun. My PPC's are fun and cheap.

 

[beatledog7]

I would imagine plinking nutria from an airboat with a 9mm carbine would be about as much fun as you can have and talk about later here.

 

[bigfatdave]

I guess kinda like a 10/22 on steroids?

well, that would be a Ruger PC9/PC40, really.

The High-Point carbines are ugly, but surprisingly ergonomic. Their aperture sights aren't bad, really, and offer accuracy leaps&bounds ahead of anything you can mount on a handgun short of an optic. I don't own one, but I've shot a friend's a few times, and shot what we call "cheap carbine shootouts" with his HP and my KelTec sub2000 ... I generally win because I'm running Glock mags and am more comfortable with my gun than he is with his, they're both pretty good for putting a bunch of 155grain lead slugs into a paper plate at 25-50 yards quickly.

 

[benzy2]

There isn't a single firearm I've bought that I own that was purchased with a primary role as to put holes in people. Certainly not a rifle either. For me then, it's all about which firearms are the most fun and after having shot a hi point I can honestly say I enjoyed it quite a bit.

I missed the memo that firearms no longer can have an entertainment purpose and must all strictly be used to "slay bodies from the primary".

 

[Skribs]

An AR-15 in, say, 9mm has the advantages of: less detrimental over-penetration, especially for home defense or in a tactical situation where there might be a baby sleeping in a crib in the adjacent room; familiar controls for the operator; and, of course, ammo interchangeability.

I cringe every time I read someone post this. The fact is, if you're using HD ammo (assuming hollow point for a 9mm, and a round designed to fragment, yaw, or expand in .223), the 9mm round will clog up going through drywall, (causing it to fail to expand, and thus overpenetrate more) while the rifle round will lose a small amount of energy and penetrate roughly the same. Rifle rounds overpenetrate LESS than pistol rounds, assuming we're talking about an HD load.

People just assume that because the rifle round has more energy, it is going to penetrate further. That isn't true. The round is also designed to dump its energy faster.

However, the biggest advantage I could see of a pistol-caliber carbine (talking a 9mm AR) is that there are some ranges, like the one I frequent, that only let you use pistols and shotguns. Higher velocity rounds are more likely to skip off their barriers than get stopped. Thus, if I wanted to use a carbine at that range, my options are pistol or nothing.

 

[allaroundhunter]

An AR-15 in, say, 9mm has the advantages of: less detrimental over-penetration

Here we go again.......a properly designed 5.56/.223 self defense round will over penetrate less than a JHP pistol round (9mm included)

 

[451 Detonics]

Here we go again.......a properly designed 5.56/.223 self defense round will over penetrate less than a JHP pistol round (9mm included)

Key words are "properly designed"...

You do know they make the same frangible ammunition for pistol as they do for rifle right? As well as other pistol ammunition made to limit penetration.

and this...

Cs are fun but limited by their cartridge. Pistol cal ammo just isn't in the same class as even .223. You're kidding yourself if you think they are comparable.

Never said they were but I bet a 45 ACP 185 gr DPX round will stop an aggressor every bit as fast as a .223 round will with a center mass hit.