For use inside a building...

In regards to PCCs and ARs (5.56x45):

1. Both will damage your hearing without earpro.

2. I am just as fast and accurate on my follow up shots with an AR as I am with a PCC.

3. Round effectiveness goes to the 5.56.

I will take an AR every time.

 

I didn't propose a what if scenario or state what I would/did do. Rather, I posted a real life event and pointed out why your suggestion was not universally a good idea. Your statements were blanket statements of what one should do made without qualification. For what it is worth, no I do not believe I would have donned ear pro were I in such a situation.

I agree threads like this are often not particularly useful. That is in part because the question often is not tailored enough to give respondents all pertinent info. Another reason is that in the absence of such info people quickly default to their own circumstance and often then do not state the assumptions they are making. A related issue, and it can be seen repeatedly in this thread is the "my gun fight" phenomena. Credit needs to be given to Larry Corriea for the name. The idea is people tend to have a set of preconceived notions about how a gun fight will go down. For example, it will be a bump in the night that wakes me while the threat is downstairs and I am upstairs. I will be awake alert and have quickly oriented to what is happening. I will take up a position while another person reacts just like I think they will. I will put on my ear pro. When the bad guy comes in the door, I will fire 2 shots. They will have a particular effect on the bad guy. Any other bad guys will do A, B, and C. From what I have been able to gather in my career, violent episodes often do not happen in a just so manner. There is not a script and things often go down in weird/unexpected ways. When one focus on "their gun fight" the miss a lot of what could happen and in some circumstances what is even more likely to happen. Lastly, a lot of people respond who honestly have no clue what they are talking about and have no practical experience to base anything they are saying on. They spew theories or regurgitate things they have heard, which may or may not be true.

 

I'm not sure how much we can rely on round-count statistics gleaned from the Armed Citizen column, since it is a compilation of newspaper articles. News stories are notoriously bad at getting the details right, so if an attacker was fired at seven times and hit twice, that might often be reported as "shot twice". Also, I notice that even in that sample, 36% of attacks involved multiple assailants. I also suspect that there were a whole lot more reloads than were reported, if for no other reason than to not be helpless while waiting for police to arrive.

On the LE side, we do have pretty good data from the NYPD SOP-9 study, as long as you remember to exclude round counts from ND's, putting down animals, etc. We find that the average number of rounds fired per incident by the NYPD to stop the alleged perpetrator was 10.3 between 1990 and 2000. (The average per officer was lower, at 5.2, because many of the incidents involved multiple officers shooting to stop.)

I also seem to recall that the NYPD Stakeout Squad, back in the Jim Cirillo days, tried and then ditched double-barreled shotguns in the stakeout role because their 2-shot capacity left too little margin for adverse circumstances. Even though the Stakeout Squad was by all reports a well trained and well experienced group of officers, their hit rate with the 12-gauge was about 50% IIRC (which actually isn't bad)...yet a 50% hit rate with a 2-round capacity and a nonzero rate of failure to stop means that you'd better have backup.

FWIW, the benefit of having a deeper magazine isn't to be able to shoot 20 or 30 rounds at an assailant; it's reserve capacity. Unlike LE, a typical homeowner will realistically respond only with whatever ammo is already in the gun, and may not have immediate backup. If you shoot a few rounds, you still have plenty in reserve and don't have to try to find a reload.

Also, even though I live in a small house, a shot from the door of my kids' bedrooms to the living room is about 12 yards. I prefer sights at that distance.

 

Good discussion going. Too bad the OP missed the joke regarding Joe Biden's advice on using a double barrel shotgun instead. That literally had me laughing out loud!

For these 2 quotes above:

No we're not talking about house clearings or LEO/Military engagements here, but why would you use a lesser weapon to defend yourself with even in a HD scenario?

Unless you don't have the means or option, that is a different story.
It doesn't matter who is using the weapon, but as an individual you want to equip yourself with the best and most effective weapon you can have as much as possible to protect yourself and your family.

So you think you there may only be one bad guy (thief, burglar, or whatever) who may break into your home. What if there's a gang of 2-3 guys who break in?? How do you anticipate how many bad guys may try to rob you?

You can't. Which is why you equip yourself with the most effective weapons you can use. It normally goes in this order:

Rifle>Shotgun>Pistol

If you can use the rifle/carbine with rifle rounds, why use a carbine with pistol rounds????

I never understood that. I.e. Given the same AR platform 9mm vs 5.56, why would you use the lesser round? Disregarding noise levels of course, which are not as important in this scenario and can be overcome with hearing protection or a suppressor.

Bottom line for me, use the best weapon that is available to you. If you have all 3 (rifle, shotgun, pistol) I'd be using the Rifle because it has the most versatility in almost any situation. If all you have is a shotgun or pistol (or pistol caliber carbine) I guess that'll do.

 

This sums up my feelings on the topic. My 10.5" SBR also has hardly any flash with the AAC blackout FH on it.

Another thing missed by most re: MP5/sub-gun effectiveness is that the tier 1 units who use(d) them effectively have a very high level of training, expend massive amounts of ammo in practice, and almost exclusively are making headshots. Caliber becomes way less important when you are good enough to make headshots on demand while moving against moving targets in low light who are shooting back at you.

For the typical civilian (typical anyone not in a tier one military or top LE hostage rescue team) caliber is much more important as headshots can't realistically be relied upon under combat stress. A rifle round like 5.56 will work way better in the upper torso than any pistol round. It will also be more forgiving on the headshots as well.

Pistols have their place, but if I'm going to have the bulk of a rifle, I want the power.

A couple crossover carbines that bridge the gap would be the M1 carbine with 110g soft points which is light with low recoil, but makes the magical ~2000 fps range where the temp. cavity causes permanent tissue damage and a 357 magnum lever gun also hitting those velocities with certain (125g) loads.

 

"If you can use the rifle/carbine with rifle rounds, why use a carbine with pistol rounds????"
Because that's a verbal distinction along what is in reality a continuum. Is 223 the 'lowest' on the rung of 'rifle rounds', is 30 carbine highest on the 'pistol' scale? Even accounting for the needless bulk of a 16" barrel our laws saddle us with, there are significant differences in size/weight and especially for pistol caliber weapons vs. more powerful counterparts. Then you have the flash/noise/concussion difference that so many (all exclusively endorsing ARs, I can't help but notice) manage to deny despite every single last person here's experience on any gun range shooting rifles and pistols. And lastly, you can fit a whole lot more rounds of pistol ammo in a stick mag than rifle ammo without it becoming ridiculously big or heavy.

For those in denial about flash/boom from a short barrel indoors, might I suggest an HK51k; 308 from a 3" barrel

I'm sure that flaming pig recoil booster will tame the flash and recoil confused just fine

TCB

 

Umm...I'm not in denial about the flash and recoil from my 5.56 SBR with a good flash hider. It is fine, many, many Tac teams also use 5.56 SBRs routinely w/o issue. Is it more than a pistol or pistol carbine? Sure, it also isn't a big deal unless from a bare muzzle or a brake.

Also, while I don't have a 30rd MP5 mag on hand, I wouldn't be surprised if it is heavier than an AR mag, longer too.

There is no significant difference between a 5.56/300 BLK/6.8 SPC carbine and a pistol caliber carbine of the same barrel length and magazine capacity in terms of size and weight.

 

Actually, "house clearings" would be fitting for the discussion of Home Defense because we have the same set of considerations. The AR makes more sense for the LEO perspective because they are not choosing the environment of the fight. When you choose a weapon for Home Defense, the environment has already been decided.

It most certainly DOES matter who is using the weapon, as that itself will dictate the effectiveness. My wife can run my MP5 like she was born with it. She knows how to use an AR, but nowhere near as quickly and accurately as the MP5. There are always things to consider outside of assumed "stopping power."

There have been several instances in recent months of 2-3 burglars being successfully defeated with a homeowner with a 15 shot pistol, so I'm not so sure I'm quick to believe that a 30 round MP5 mag is a handicap.

Hey, load up your AR with a Beta Mag for home defense if you want to, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that an MP5 is a poor choice for home defense and/or room clearing. The formula works, and it worked for a long, long time.

 

The MP5 is by no means a poor choice...but the OP is asking why a PCC would not be superior to a 5.56 carbine. I think to state a PCC is superior as a general statement is a stretch. It can be superior in certain circumstances though, like in the case of your wife being able to run one so much better than an AR.

 

In a shooting scenario inside a building the correct answer is a 45 acp pistol, not a carbine or rifle, for close quarters the pistol can go from target to target faster in a small space, at least that is the way seal teams do it, and they dont use the sights ,you look at the target and shoot, by the time you try to aim your rifle or smg you will already have a 45 bullet on your chest if the seal comes into the room.
I practice this way , I dont have to use the sights up close , where I look is where the bullet goes.
BTW they do this in hostage rescue training where there are shoot or no shoot targets and no time for error or aiming the sights.
Think about It, can you swing both arms with a rifle faster than one hand and point shoot accurately?
Inertia and physics say you cannot unless you are a super human.

 

CMC, what is your source for SEALs and hostage rescue teams using pistols w/o using the sights?

False dichotomy, I don't just swing my arms in either case, I pivot my torso which is the same speed either way and a better balance of speed and accuracy as you can easily over-swing just an arm (the inertia you mentioned).

I say this as someone who has done a lot of pistol point shooting, even one-handed on the move. I would never take a pistol over a rifle in CQB, if given an option, and I would take a carbine with a red dot for a hostage rescue shot any day. I can be both extremely fast and extremely precise at the same time with that setup. I'm talking hitting the mid-brain precise, not hitting somewhere in the head that may or may not stop them with a point shot handgun round.

I'd love to see a competitive 3 gunner on a shot timer 1-hand shooting a pistol on multiple targets vs. their red dot sighted AR. Bet the accuracy is waaaayyy better with the AR and the pistol times the same, or averaging slower with over-swings, or such a miniscule amt. faster the poor accuracy makes it not worth it.

Have you seen top level shooters work an AR on multiple targets? It sounds like a machine gun, the platform is not limiting speed, the limiting factor as always is the operator.

 

To recap, the points in favor of the PCC that have been offered up, prior to the "usability" discussion was less muzzle flash, less noise and less concussion/blast at the muzzle. Those are all very true and very viable considerations, yet the remain dismissed for some reason. A homeowner won't be blinded by the flash of a 9mm PCC, as complete powder burn is achieved in the first 10 inches of barrel. What dull orange glow that might remain is not blinding or disorienting to the shooter. The decibel levels as it relates to hearing damage are also a viable consideration. Both will cause hearing loss, yes, but an increase of 6 decibels does indeed cause more hearing damage. The concussion/muzzle blast cannot simply be ignored. It is a bear to deal with indoors, a harsh reality that most of the muzzle brake proponents should take note of.

The "SWAT Teams can handle it" write-offs don't hold water; members of our Military, Law Enforcement, and Civilian Shooters have all had to deal with all of these issues, and their effects can be hazardous to our health both during and after such an event.

Is an AR15 a better all-around long gun? You betcha. Is the PCC a piss-poor choice for the job? Nope. That's all I have to say on the matter.

 

You have zero idea what you are talking about. Absolutely none.

 

PS90
Weight: 6.3lb
Length: 26.2in
Price: 1250$ (Buds; probably more like 1100$ elsewhere)

Colt 6920
Weight: 6.9lb --9.5% heavier
Length: 32in (collapsed) --22.1% longer, and still with a very short LOP
Price: 1000$ (Impact Guns) --10% to 20% more expensive (obviously Colt isn't exactly the best bargain these days, so the number is probably more like 20%-30% for a suitably good AR)

CX4
Weight: 5.7lb
Length: 29.7in
Price: 750$ (Cabela's, after mail in rebate)

That's what a pistol-caliber/PDW carbine can do that a full on rifle can't. Not even getting into the largely subjective weeds of capacity, ballistics effect, or how much more you'll blow configuring the rifle the way you want it.

Also keep in mind that when (not "if") someone like Kel Tec feels like giving FNH some competition, their extremely simple design will be easy to copy for the price of a Sub2000. So I'd argue the prices are more identical than anything (after all, they all require 16" lightweight barrels, triggers, and a bolt body; costs can't be all that divorced given competition)

TCB

 

So, how is 2" in length and $250 in price a deal-breaker to get the MASSIVE improvement in terminal effectiveness offered by the 5.56 round over a pistol cartridge?

The Bullpup PS90 offers a real world advantage in compactness...but there are a number of 5.56 Bullpups also, so apples/apples the point is moot.

To address the flash issue...it is totally non-issue in my 10.5" 5.56 with Blackout FH. I bet the CX4 with bare muzzle has more. Blast/concussion, again not a real-world issue though I'll grant it will be more than with a PCC (I've shot CQB around plenty of M4s, not a problem).

Increased noise, yes no doubt they are louder and may result in more permanent hearing damage. I'll take that risk (or mitigate it in another way) for the immediate increase in terminal effectiveness from a rifle to end the fight.

I actually like pistol caliber carbines and think one set up with a RDS and light would be a very good HD weapon, way better than a handgun. I just will never concede they are better than a 5.56/6.8/7.62x39/300BLK sensibly set up for a CQB role.

Check out the 123g 7.62x39 Fusion thread, that round is awesome! 15" penetration, 75 cal. expansion and the tearing of tissue you get in the temporary stretch cavity from rifle velocities.

 

How about a 16" Smith & Wesson M&P15 for $600? That's comparable to the PCC.

IMO, it boils down primarily to what you shoot best and are most comfortable with. Both are capable HD carbines.

 

I won't claim that a PPC is "better" than a real rifle but I'll interject the same comment I always have to make- I can shoot a PPC on my local range while I can't shoot a rifle anywhere. I literally haven't fired a rifle round in probably fifteen years! There's nowhere around here to do it. I think there's a rifle range 15 miles SE of me but I haven't contacted them to look at cost, etc.

For me a PPC that I can shoot weekly is a better bet than a rifle I can't shoot at all. This is only applicable to me but there are almost certainly others out there in the same boat I'm in.

And as far as muzzle flash a CX4 Storm has virtually none. Shooting in very low light there's very little flash. A 9mm must burn pretty much everything in that 16" pipe. It's also not very loud at all. You wouldn't want to shoot it w/o any ear protection but if you forgot your "ears" you wouldn't be stunned. By contrast a real rifle is near flash-bang levels. Especially SBRd.

Obviously if you were facing an invader and had one round of ammo, you'd be better off with a .308 than a 9mm. I won't even bother trying to say a rifle isn't more lethal. But it's not an option that all of us have available to us.

 

"The Bullpup PS90 offers a real world advantage in compactness...but there are a number of 5.56 Bullpups also, so apples/apples the point is moot."
1) Some folks were saying there was no size advantage
2) Bullpups at least double the AR's price, have their own issues with loading, and weigh even more
3) Notice the CX4 actually weighs even less and splits the length difference despite not being a bullpup

I also mentioned I wasn't going into the ballistics area, since I think that is a whole other can of worms, that doesn't even seem to be near the deal-breaker it's made out to be for HD in practice.

TCB

 

It would be convenient to leave ballistics completely out of a discussion of whether a PCC or rifle caliber carbine is more effective! But shouldn't terminal effectiveness be one of the primary considerations when choosing something to stop a deadly threat? Especially in a home where the ability to conveniently carry it is N/A?

The reason ballistics aren't a deal breaker in practical HD is the same reason it isn't on the street for civilians...statistically, criminals will disengage from an armed threat more often than not. It is just luck and relying on the criminal choosing to retreat. LE however, have very different experiences on the street with poor terminal effectiveness of handgun rounds. Just last year a highway patrolman near my home fatally wounded a suspect in the first few seconds of a gunfight. The suspect returned fire, accidentally fumbled the magazine on the ground, picked it up, reinserted it, ran back into his car and drove a bit down the road before collapsing.

The FBI advises to plan on having to fight for 15 more seconds after shooting someone through the heart with a handgun.

If you have a PCC and can use it well, it will be good for HD, but take advantage of its superior shootability to precisely place your shots (heart or mid-brain) to make up for the lower terminal effectiveness.

 

Yes allaround hunter I dont know nothing ,you in turn know so much you are not willing to accept the facts or as they say cannot see ythe forest for the trees.
I just happen to know some of the real seals and that is all I have to say, you want my sources , I can tell you it will never happen.
The people like the seal shoot over 50,00 round in practice a year in many scenarios just because you think a rifle is more powerful does noot mean it will be the best tool in every scenario get a grip.
I just answered the question by the OP , I dont have time for silly debate , if you dont like my answer you dont have to insult me.
Over and out.

 

There's obviously a lot of rhetoric here by folks who have never fired a PCC, indoors or out. The difference between the same cartridge fired in a rifle versus a pistol is HUGE.

Having done quite a bit of testing with .40cal 180gr Gold Dots at 1450fps out of a rifle, it's obvious to me that a lot of the discussion is from folks who have never actually seen what bullets do to flesh. Funny how in a hunting discussion, it is accepted that a 250gr .45 at 900fps will fully penetrate any deer that walks and kill it deader than fried chicken but when shooting people you need a rifle. Further proof that perception is everything.

 

Coincidentally enough, I just got back from wringing out my first PCC. I put more than 1000rds through it today, and had my 5.56 carbine along for fun. I've had, and trained with, the 5.56 for about 7 months now.

I shot both today with a shot timer. I also turned down the lights (It's good to be the only one on the range during the work day.)

The PCC was:
Quieter.
Had less flash.
Quicker between shots. (about 15%)
Quicker between targets. (about 10%)
More accurate on second and third shots. Well it would be better to say easier to be accurate with on follow up shots.

There are the obvious ballistic differences between the two, but if you think 9mm is sufficient ballistically then the PCC makes sense. Or to look at it another way: Would you rather tilt your shootability equation towards speed and accuracy, or energy/round? In reality either are probably good choices, and with training will serve you well.

The weapons in question waiting to be cleaned while I fart around the internet: