tryshoot
Member
I couldn't hit 1/5th as good with Glock 17 @ 100 yds! I'm not shooting with you. Good shooting, I wish I could.
Explain pistol caliber carbines, please ?
- Thread starter Wanderling
- Start date
- Status
allaroundhunter
Member
The difference is a frangible rifle round does much more damage than a frangible pistol round. The rifle round is at a high enough velocity that it does not need as much penetration as a pistol round, but will still do more damage.
With a DPX .223 round? You would be dead wrong. The .223 will deliver 200%+ more energy than the .45 ACP will
Skip to 1:30 of this video for .223 and 4:00 for .45 ACP +P
Last edited:
chieftain
Member
bubba in ca
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 373
Sold off my pistol calibre carbines when I discovered 20 gauge with 2 buckshot for HD. You can buy a pair of mossbergs or mavericks for the cost of these carbines.
The carbines have less stopping power than a mini 14 or sks. In my case, they also required me to stock a couple calibers I had no real use for.
If you are looking at one IN PLACE OF a handgun in the same caliber they make some sense as with equal or less training you will get more hits with a long gun than a handgun. They also make sense in jurisdictions that don`t allow handguns or regular carbines or If you feel the need to lawyer-proof yourself in your jurisdiction.
Netnet, a shotgun in the house, a .223 or 7.72 carbine for outside, and a pistol for backup or concealed carry. .22 long rifles make good fun guns and are cheap to shoot.
The carbines have less stopping power than a mini 14 or sks. In my case, they also required me to stock a couple calibers I had no real use for.
If you are looking at one IN PLACE OF a handgun in the same caliber they make some sense as with equal or less training you will get more hits with a long gun than a handgun. They also make sense in jurisdictions that don`t allow handguns or regular carbines or If you feel the need to lawyer-proof yourself in your jurisdiction.
Netnet, a shotgun in the house, a .223 or 7.72 carbine for outside, and a pistol for backup or concealed carry. .22 long rifles make good fun guns and are cheap to shoot.
hogshead
Member
I would not feel under gunned with a 45 acp carbine for home defense. I wonder how anyone ever killed anyone with a Tommygun?
Romeo 33 Delta
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 402
From my experience, using a pistol and a pistol caliber carbine, while my pistol group is about 8" at 15 feet ... I can hold 4"-5" at 50 yards with a carbine.
I'm old now, crappy eyesight (compared to that in my youth), less muscle mass too. I'm one of the guys the Government invented the M1 Carbine for. With a pistol, I'm mostly better off throwing it at the target most of the time.
I'm old now, crappy eyesight (compared to that in my youth), less muscle mass too. I'm one of the guys the Government invented the M1 Carbine for. With a pistol, I'm mostly better off throwing it at the target most of the time.
Grmlin
Member
A .45 ACP will put a BG in a SD situation down a hell of a lot faster than a .223/5.56. The .223 will go straight through leaving a nice clean hole on both sides unless it hits a bone, the .45 is going to make a big ugly mess of them. I carried an M-16 for years, while it is a great round and good for supresive fire it lacks the knock down punch like the M-14/M1A but that is a whole other argument going on in another post. I have a Winchester 94AE in .45 colt and it's fun to shoot (not cheap) and matches with my Ruger Vaquro .45. I'm also looking for a rifle in .357 magnum to match ammo to my .357 pistols . A 9mm in a carbine would probably be the cheapest to shoot for fun and also has a functional use.
allaroundhunter
Member
You, sir, carried an M16 loaded with FMJ rounds because that is what the military has to use. For defensive purposes, a defensive round is used that is MUCH more effective than FMJ rounds. Look at the video in my earlier post for a visual description of why a .223 will do MUCH more damage than a .45 ACP
Then why do Special Weapons entry teams use M4's instead of 1911's? I assure you, the .223 is the better man-stopper.
hogshead
Member
The 223 works better on poodle's.
chieftain
Member
Simply not true.
I have fought with all the above calibers as I stated in my above entry. I do not particularly care for the 5.56 NATO, but it is a heck of a lot more powerful than the 45acp. It is true that some of the rounds go clean through and only make 22 caliber holes, but they will go all the way through. Most of the 230gr Ball of the 45acp will not get through.
With that said, most of the 5.56 NATO rounds if they hit any solid body structures, the rounds, particularly under 100-150 yards will yaw and break up, becoming very effective. The newer 855A1 are MORE effective.
Boattail bullets virtually always yaw and create a bullet LENGTH wound path, assuming they don't break up which does happen often to the 5.56 NATO under 100-150 yards.
Look, as many have stated, the PCC is superior to a handgun for fighting for the gain in accuracy, and a very small marginal increase in velocity which increases the energy on target a very small amount in most cases.
For fighting given any choice at all use a rifle/carbine or maybe a shotgun. All superior fighting weapons to a PCC. If it is all you have, let'er rip. But don't get caught up in a fantasy.
Take it from a guy who owns several, bought my first one in 1970 a Winchester 94 in 44mag. They are fun, usually inexpensive to shoot, and I use one of them for competitions. Putting lipstick on a pig just will not let that Beastie fly.
I no longer march to the guns, but unless given no choice, use a rifle/carbine loaded with a rifle cartridge, even a weak one.
Good luck.
Fred
bigfatdave
Member
1 - yeah, so?
2 - you don't get a PCC in a caliber you don't already stock!
mortablunt
Member
The terminal ballistics are better over handguns. They are fabulous HD guns. They also normally are not too expensive and much easier to control than handguns.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Seems to me that it is exceedingly difficult to explain pistol cartridge carbines to those who have an unfounded bias against them in such a way that they will understand the appeal. Although I will try. 
Pistol cartridges always gain a little velocity from rifle barrels. Particularly revolver cartridges which may gain as much as 700fps. To me, this is a nice bonus but not their strongest advantage. Fact is, pistol cartridges are VERY effective against all kinds of targets. No, their energy figures won't impress energy worshiping rifle shooters but energy is not everything. The crap about FMJ's in either flavor is moot unless you're a uniformed soldier shooting at uniformed enemy combatants. Moot. With a good flat pointed cast bullet or well constructed jacketed bullet, they are very effective. Yes, the .223 is a wonderful cartridge but it is a varmint blaster at best. The .45ACP, with proper projectiles, is very effective, even against larger critters than your average gang banger.
They are also vastly easier to hit with and at longer ranges. Any shoulder fired weapon with a longer sight radius is easier to hit with than a pistol. This is a given.
They offer vastly decreased recoil. A big plus for smaller or younger shooters. A big plus for rapid follow-up shots. A big plus for younger hunters because a good .357-.44Mag levergun puts a lot on target without beating up the shooter. Even the mighty .44, which gains 300-400fps over revolvers, has a fraction of the recoil of most rifles.
They are VASTLY quieter. Their quietness belies their effectiveness. This is an often ignored factor but pistol cartridge carbines are much quieter than rifles. The .223 in particular, which is usually chambered in a 16" AR for defensive use, is unbelievably loud when fired indoors. Not only will this permanently damage your hearing, it can also temporarily disorient the shooter. A big deal in a defensive situation. Pistol cartridge carbines will cause little if any effect in this regard.
The bottom line is that the pistol cartridge carbine perfectly fills the gap for when a pistol is not enough but a rifle is too much. The put plenty of killing power on target within their effective range and have a lot going for them. Sometimes, you just don't need a proper rifle.
Pistol cartridges always gain a little velocity from rifle barrels. Particularly revolver cartridges which may gain as much as 700fps. To me, this is a nice bonus but not their strongest advantage. Fact is, pistol cartridges are VERY effective against all kinds of targets. No, their energy figures won't impress energy worshiping rifle shooters but energy is not everything. The crap about FMJ's in either flavor is moot unless you're a uniformed soldier shooting at uniformed enemy combatants. Moot. With a good flat pointed cast bullet or well constructed jacketed bullet, they are very effective. Yes, the .223 is a wonderful cartridge but it is a varmint blaster at best. The .45ACP, with proper projectiles, is very effective, even against larger critters than your average gang banger.
They are also vastly easier to hit with and at longer ranges. Any shoulder fired weapon with a longer sight radius is easier to hit with than a pistol. This is a given.
They offer vastly decreased recoil. A big plus for smaller or younger shooters. A big plus for rapid follow-up shots. A big plus for younger hunters because a good .357-.44Mag levergun puts a lot on target without beating up the shooter. Even the mighty .44, which gains 300-400fps over revolvers, has a fraction of the recoil of most rifles.
They are VASTLY quieter. Their quietness belies their effectiveness. This is an often ignored factor but pistol cartridge carbines are much quieter than rifles. The .223 in particular, which is usually chambered in a 16" AR for defensive use, is unbelievably loud when fired indoors. Not only will this permanently damage your hearing, it can also temporarily disorient the shooter. A big deal in a defensive situation. Pistol cartridge carbines will cause little if any effect in this regard.
The bottom line is that the pistol cartridge carbine perfectly fills the gap for when a pistol is not enough but a rifle is too much. The put plenty of killing power on target within their effective range and have a lot going for them. Sometimes, you just don't need a proper rifle.
Yet all the .30-30 offers is greater range. The .44Mag has been used effectively for the largest game on earth. The .30-30, not so much. It is at its limit with deer, hogs, black bear and would be minimal for elk. Conversely, the .44Mag can be loaded to mousefart levels for easy plinking with cast bullets. It can be reloaded with carbide dies. It can share loads with a good sixgun. It offers double the magazine capacity. In the east, it is highly unusual to need more range than a good .44 carbine covers.
MrDig
Member
I own a GP100 and an 1894C in .357, I also own a Taurus Tracker and an 1894 in 44 Magnum, I have a Taurus 94 and a Marlin LeverMatic in 22 LR as well.
Why do you want me to explain why I have them?
Why do I need a Semi-Auto?
Why do I need/want guns at all?
Asking anyone why they want to exercise constitutionally protected liberties is dangerous, as long it has no effect on you what difference does it make?
"My right to wave my arms in the air ends where another persons nose begins"
attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes
Why do you want me to explain why I have them?
Why do I need a Semi-Auto?
Why do I need/want guns at all?
Asking anyone why they want to exercise constitutionally protected liberties is dangerous, as long it has no effect on you what difference does it make?
"My right to wave my arms in the air ends where another persons nose begins"
attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes
CoRoMo
Member
What CraigC said.
For home defense, there are very few options better than a long arm spitting heavy, subsonic projectiles.
For home defense, there are very few options better than a long arm spitting heavy, subsonic projectiles.
mortablunt
Member
Give it your best shot
A 9mm from something like a Beretta Cx4 can come out out at 2000 FPS. biggest gain is that you now have dramatically improved control versus even the best handgun.
You should see the group differences of a Hi-Point versus an m1911.
Surprisingly less recoil; it's like a 22 or less. Even the powerful cartridges in hot loads aren't a trouble.
That's one thing I don't like about 223; the 16" tactical AR's touted for HD are the worst, especially if they've gotten one of the 11.5" barrels with the big flash hider. In my opinion, it's worse than a 30-06. Forget 30 caliber rifle round, 223 is the ear splitter.
And you need something between a rifle and a handgun. HD is a ti
me when you want rifle power with pistol restraint.
7.62x39 is 20% more energetic. 30-30 is limited by its underbore design.
Agreed. Great post.
Something that has me taking a LOOOONG look a PCC is the fact that alot of casual handgunners dont reload, i regularly scrounge a hundred or more caseings an outing in most of the major calibers. Im looking at getting a progressive press and a PCC so i can put those cases to use making realy realy cheap plinking ammo. As for why not just shoot them in a pistol, im neither much good with nor do i care for them. For seriousness like situationals weeeel i gots me a mini-14.
XTrooper
Member
Don't really care what anyone thinks of it, but from 125 yards and closer, I'll take on most anything with it.
Henry Big Boy .357 Magnum
Henry Big Boy .357 Magnum
Jason_W
Member
From a handloader's perspective, pistol rounds are typically cheaper and easier to reload than rifle rounds.
Also, you can run a pistol and long gun by investing in only one set of dies and one type of brass/bullet/primer.
Also, you can run a pistol and long gun by investing in only one set of dies and one type of brass/bullet/primer.
Certaindeaf
member
Maybe the same reason they shoot .22lr out of carbines/rifles.
Loosedhorse
member
From a SD/HD perspective:
Less effective but quieter than rifle caliber carbines. May be more prone to over penetration, but that's probably not true with proper ammo selection. Offers ammo interchangeability (and sometimes magazine interchangeablility) with your pistol.
Personally, if I'm carrying something big enough to effectively shoot rifle calibers from, I'll shoot rifle calibers.
With hearing protection!
Less effective but quieter than rifle caliber carbines. May be more prone to over penetration, but that's probably not true with proper ammo selection. Offers ammo interchangeability (and sometimes magazine interchangeablility) with your pistol.
Personally, if I'm carrying something big enough to effectively shoot rifle calibers from, I'll shoot rifle calibers.
With hearing protection!
76shuvlinoff
Member
A Marlin 1894c .357 sits stoked right next to my 870. My wife can run it well and semi autos seem to confound her. Same reason she likes wheelguns.
That's good enough for me.
That's good enough for me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
