What's the point of AR-15 pistols?
- Thread starter steam.atomic
- Start date
- Status
M2 Carbine
member
Like most guns the .223 pistol is only as good as the person shooting it. If they can't hit anything with the .223 pistol they are probably poor shots with anything else.
For instance. (I use the Kel Tec because I like it better than my AR pistol)
At 100 yards the PLR is more accurate than most pistols and as accurate as a lot of AR rifles.
Standing at 100 yards while fast firing a 30 round mag into the old Texas concealed carry qualification target. (the Red pasters are from some light loaded test rounds)
Doesn't look like the bullets are spread all over the berm from the .223 pistol.
bbuddtec
Member
Wow, haters.... first off, if a rude and lousy shooter made the gun bad, there's a HUGE list of bad guns... :|
As far as accuracy goes, from what I've seen, barrel length makes little difference for .223 , it's certainly not night and day.
ah well, as you were...
As far as accuracy goes, from what I've seen, barrel length makes little difference for .223 , it's certainly not night and day.
ah well, as you were...
MtnCreek
Member
M2,
That is some really impressive shooting! My very limited experience with such pistols made me doubt their usefulness. I’ve fired an AK type pistol once and just intended to make noise with it. Every other AR or AK type pistol I’ve seen shot resulted in bullets all over the place from 20 yds and have even seen guys at a formal range cut the target stands down. Maybe not my cup of tea, but I do have a new respect for them, at least in your hands. Thanks for the photos.
That is some really impressive shooting! My very limited experience with such pistols made me doubt their usefulness. I’ve fired an AK type pistol once and just intended to make noise with it. Every other AR or AK type pistol I’ve seen shot resulted in bullets all over the place from 20 yds and have even seen guys at a formal range cut the target stands down. Maybe not my cup of tea, but I do have a new respect for them, at least in your hands. Thanks for the photos.
Loosedhorse
member
Not sure about the math, there--typo I think. Or maybe the losses weren't supposed to be in order. Either way, that's fine--doesn't matter.
Guess you're a "the glass is 22% empty" type of guy!
The implication seems to be that "killing" with a round going over 3100 is the right way to do it, but using a 2400 fps round, well, that's just bad form--not quite cricket!
Definitely, it's true: anyone can have any opinion, and personal preference requires no clear reason at all.
M2 Carbine
member
Thanks, but I'm just a decent shooter, nothing special and at my age (74) I'm getting worse all the time.
Individuals may not like or have a use for a particular gun, but that doesn't necessarily mean the gun is useless or ineffective.
I also have the Rossi .357 and Henry 22LR "Mare's Leg", that some call useless and difficult to shoot. In fact, a person can get quite good with the gun with a little practice.
Recently, a lady I taught to shoot, shot my Henry 22. She took to the gun right away and liked shooting it. She liked ringing a steel plate.
About every 10 shots I'd have her move back a few yards. Shortly she was shooting the gun at 52 yards and seldom missed the target.
Before this time the only thing she had shot at 50 yards was a AR rifle.
She immediately bought a Henry Mare's Leg.
.
Last edited:
1911austin
Member
Pay your $200 tax, slap on a new buffer tube and stock.
Nakanokalronin
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 354
It's an easier/cheaper way to have a SBR without the stamp (or the stock) or the only way to obtain one in a ban/nanny state. Some are for fun but even those can be used in a defensive role if need be.
Mine was made for fun but I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it.
Mine was made for fun but I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it.
Last edited:
Loose,
Typo, shoulda been 2470 FPS.
Your inference is erroneous. I don't demand any particular speed.
However, a 22% velocity loss in a caliber that many in combat are raising serious questions about is a concern to me.
Aside from the Placement Is All argument, I see no point whatever in reducing the effectiveness of a defensive caliber, and that's what you're doing with a short-barreled handgun AR variant.
Something most don't take into consideration in going with such a platform is the effect on terminal performance with such a velocity loss.
Those bullets are generally designed to perform (ie expand) at certain speeds. When you reduce those speeds, you tend to also affect what the bullets do on impact.
Buy one if you want one.
I've not said otherwise. I just don't find the AR pistol to have any overriding benefit as a defensive proposition.
If you do, it's your life.
I won't bet mine on one.
M2 is quite a proponent of the Mare's Leg.
I own two as toys, and in the scenarios he mentions for his (sporting, slowfire, close, etc.) they have some utility.
For defensive uses, they also fall short in relation to far better choices.
No amount of fascination with the coolness thereof can change that.
Denis
Typo, shoulda been 2470 FPS.
Your inference is erroneous. I don't demand any particular speed.
However, a 22% velocity loss in a caliber that many in combat are raising serious questions about is a concern to me.
Aside from the Placement Is All argument, I see no point whatever in reducing the effectiveness of a defensive caliber, and that's what you're doing with a short-barreled handgun AR variant.
Something most don't take into consideration in going with such a platform is the effect on terminal performance with such a velocity loss.
Those bullets are generally designed to perform (ie expand) at certain speeds. When you reduce those speeds, you tend to also affect what the bullets do on impact.
Buy one if you want one.
I've not said otherwise. I just don't find the AR pistol to have any overriding benefit as a defensive proposition.
If you do, it's your life.
I won't bet mine on one.
M2 is quite a proponent of the Mare's Leg.
I own two as toys, and in the scenarios he mentions for his (sporting, slowfire, close, etc.) they have some utility.
For defensive uses, they also fall short in relation to far better choices.
No amount of fascination with the coolness thereof can change that.
Denis
Loosedhorse
member
How many in combat are raising questions about HP loads? I understand that you are not giving a "threshold" velocity for effectiveness, but you do seem to be implying that a 3000 fps load would clearly have more effectiveness than a 2470 load; and perhaps that the effectiveness of the 2470 load would cross some "unacceptable" point that the 3000 load is above. If you're not implying that, then I'm not sure why you think the lost velocity is important; if you are, the reasons for neither of your assumptions is is clear to me.
As to shorter barrels, we could make the same point about .357 snubbies; heck, even 9mm rounds are probably better out of longer carbine barrels than out of pistol barrels, so I'm not sure why your idea that "I see no point whatever in reducing the effectiveness of a defensive caliber" wouldn't also apply to them. And yet .357 snubbies and 9mm pistols are very much standard and accepted: despite their "faults," people do indeed bet their lives on them every day.
I think that .223 pistols may be analogous. But, I could be wrong.
Well, no matter what we choose, there will always be "far better choices"; even if one is "carrying" a division of Marines, I think carrying two divisions would be "far better."
Careful, Dennis! This is after all MA, and we're talking about a pistol--you wouldn't want me to do anything illegal, would you?
Last edited:
Loose,
It's not the 3000 FPS IN ITSELF that I'm advocating.
And I'm very much aware that the military is not using HPs. In fact, thereby you make another point for me.
IF the resulting velocities from a 10-inch (or so) AR pistol barrel are reduced sufficiently to also reduce their ability to expand as they were designed to do at "normal" velocities, those bullets are much more likely NOT TO EXPAND, which in effect transforms them into the equivalent of an FMJ.
An FMJ in the .223 is far from the best way to go, defensively.
Your handgun analogies don't necessarily apply in handgun calibers.
By definition, handgun calibers are designed to be used in handguns. They CAN achieve a velocity boost, and an effectiveness boost, through a carbine-length barrel. Some, like the .357, can gain as much as 500-600 FPS through a carbine. In such cases, you're achieving exactly the opposite result: you're GAINING effectiveness by shooting a handgun caliber through a "rifle" barrel, rather than losing effectiveness in shooting a rifle caliber through a handgun barrel.
.223 pistols are certainly not analogous.
A 9mm or .357 Mag runs at certain velocities through handguns, using bullets designed to expand at typical minimum handgun velocities. That can still provide reasonable power & effectiveness levels in dropping down to a 2-inch snub from a 4-inch "standard" handgun barrel length. Most good modern bullet designs built for a .38 or .357 Mag will still achieve a decent percentage of the expansion parameters designed into them if fired through a snub.
Even in the marginally reduced velocities inherent to a snub, you do not lose 500-900 FPS in dropping down from a 4-inch barrel to a 2-inch barrel.
To me, there's no correlation whatever in your analogy.
My comment on buying one was directed at those who may simply want one.
As with the Mare's Leg, toys are fun & need no justification.
In choosing one as defensive hardware, if you insist just make your choice concurrent with reality as an informed choice.
There's a good reason why you don't see professional instructors advocating a pistol AR or an ML for serious purposes. And why you don't see police using an AR pistol.
The concept simply doesn't hold up in real life.
Denis
It's not the 3000 FPS IN ITSELF that I'm advocating.
And I'm very much aware that the military is not using HPs. In fact, thereby you make another point for me.
IF the resulting velocities from a 10-inch (or so) AR pistol barrel are reduced sufficiently to also reduce their ability to expand as they were designed to do at "normal" velocities, those bullets are much more likely NOT TO EXPAND, which in effect transforms them into the equivalent of an FMJ.
An FMJ in the .223 is far from the best way to go, defensively.
Your handgun analogies don't necessarily apply in handgun calibers.
By definition, handgun calibers are designed to be used in handguns. They CAN achieve a velocity boost, and an effectiveness boost, through a carbine-length barrel. Some, like the .357, can gain as much as 500-600 FPS through a carbine. In such cases, you're achieving exactly the opposite result: you're GAINING effectiveness by shooting a handgun caliber through a "rifle" barrel, rather than losing effectiveness in shooting a rifle caliber through a handgun barrel.
.223 pistols are certainly not analogous.
A 9mm or .357 Mag runs at certain velocities through handguns, using bullets designed to expand at typical minimum handgun velocities. That can still provide reasonable power & effectiveness levels in dropping down to a 2-inch snub from a 4-inch "standard" handgun barrel length. Most good modern bullet designs built for a .38 or .357 Mag will still achieve a decent percentage of the expansion parameters designed into them if fired through a snub.
Even in the marginally reduced velocities inherent to a snub, you do not lose 500-900 FPS in dropping down from a 4-inch barrel to a 2-inch barrel.
To me, there's no correlation whatever in your analogy.
My comment on buying one was directed at those who may simply want one.
As with the Mare's Leg, toys are fun & need no justification.
In choosing one as defensive hardware, if you insist just make your choice concurrent with reality as an informed choice.
There's a good reason why you don't see professional instructors advocating a pistol AR or an ML for serious purposes. And why you don't see police using an AR pistol.
The concept simply doesn't hold up in real life.
Denis
Loosedhorse
member
Agreed. However, many .223 HPs fragment, rather than expand. If they still fragment at 2470 (not an unreasonable assumption), then why should we suppose their effectiveness is reduced? If rather than fragment, they now simply expand (and so penetrate more), perhaps that's more effective?
Exactly. So if you're giving us the old "shoot .223s out of a short barrel if you want, but there are far more effective choices", shouldn't you be saying the same thing about anyone who chooses to use a pistol, rather than carbine, barrel for .357?
Ah, so your objection is about .223 bullet design? As I said above, many .223 HPs fragment. Also, until quite recently, very few if any ammo manufacturers were worried about "short-barrel ballistics", so it could well be expected that your .357 bullet wouldn't work as well out of a 2 inch barrel compared to a 4 or 5.
That's a little disingenuous, isn't it? Given that the .357 isn't starting at 3000+ fps, of course it will show lower numeric losses. And even so, yes, some .357 loads do lose 500 fps in that scenario.
According to Ballistics by the Inch, a typical .357 load may travel 1465 fps out of a 6 inch barrel, and 1293 out of a 4 inch; out a 2 inch, 858. That's a 34% velocity loss compared to the 4 inch--and I'm supposed to be concerned about a 22% loss for a .223?
Sure: market forces. Most of their students, whether LE or not, don't use them.
Well, that might be the reason. If so, that doesn't mean it wouldn't hold up in someone else's "real life." LE has no trouble getting short-barrel rifles (if they want them), and mounting them visibly, cruiser-ready, in their cars. For those who don't really have that option, AR pistols might serve a similar role.
In real life.
Understood. I was just whining a little about our stupid laws!
My apologies.
Last edited:
I'd like to get an AR pistol one day. I know it isn't as practical as the rifle variant, but I don't want to have to jump through all the hoops for a SBR either. The buffer tubes have that pad on them, press it to your cheek and put a nice red dot on it. For short range shooting, someone familiar with a rifle pattern AR should do fine.
For defensive use, any AR in general is going to ring your bell. They are LOUD. Even the 16 inch ones. I wouldn't want to use one indoors without earmuffs. For that reason, I would not use any AR in that role.
For defensive use, any AR in general is going to ring your bell. They are LOUD. Even the 16 inch ones. I wouldn't want to use one indoors without earmuffs. For that reason, I would not use any AR in that role.
Loose,
A .223 bullet designed to expand OR fragment is still very much dependent on velocity to perform at the levels intended by the factory, and a 500-900 FPS loss can & does impact that performance.
Severely, in some cases.
Choosing to use a .357 carbine instead of a pistol because the carbine has better ballistics? Huh?
I don't follow at all.
The REAL handgun (not your AR pistol) is chosen for applications where a larger gun (rifle or carbine) can't be carried, concealed, or used effectively.
In the case of the .357 Mag, it was designed for handguns, to produce performance levels inherent to handguns, and where a carbine can't be used. It's nowhere near the same thing as your .223 pistol, and the example you attempt to use here is meaningless.
I have a .357 Marlin, it boosts the .357 Mag cartidge velocity considerably.
That is far from the only criteria for selecting whether I carry it in hand or one of the .357 revolvers on the belt.
Can't hardly tote the Marlin into WalMart, can very easily with any of the .357 handguns.
Marlin won't fit in the glovebox.
Marlin doesn't work a house in the middle of the night as well as the revolvers can.
And so on.
Nothing disingenuous at all.
Comparing a lightweight high-velocity .223 rifle round to a much heavier and slower handgun round is apples & oranges.
The .223 depends much more on velocity and bullet construction to achieve its best results.
If it remains a solid or FMJ, it will most likely punch a .22-caliber hole through a target.
A .357 or .38 snub is RELATIVELY less dependent on velocity, and will be less affected by a 34% velocity loss than the .223 will be, IN GENERAL, by a 22% velocity loss.
The typical modern premium .38 & .357 Mag JHPs remain more likely to offer at least SOME expansion in losing 200+ FPS between barrel lengths, and even if they don't expand, they'll still penetrate and punch a .357-inch hole as opposed to your 22-caliber hole.
Also, context is important, and you're playing a misleading numbers game with your percentages.
In comparing the .357 handgun with the 10-inch AR pistol, forget the percentages. Those are important for purposes of discussion in comparing shorter & longer barrels in a .223 AR platform only.
Stick with the velocities, which are more relevant in comparing a .357 handgun in two barrel lengths against the .223 ARs in shorter and longer barrels.
A 200-400 FPS loss (not always exact, varies from gun to gun & load to load) in a typical .357 will have much less effect on terminal performance than a 500-900 FPS loss in a typical .223.
Market forces have nothing to do with a competent professional instructor not advocationg an AR pistol for any serious defensive uses.
They understand full well, if they have any real background in the subject at all, that the things just don't cut it.
Same with police.
And, "most of their students" not using them is a commentary in a different direction than you intended.
You take an AR pistol to a good training course & see how well it does not stack up.
AR pistols CAN serve a purpose.
They CAN fire a bullet.
They just don't do it efficiently, either ballistically or in hand.
Denis
A .223 bullet designed to expand OR fragment is still very much dependent on velocity to perform at the levels intended by the factory, and a 500-900 FPS loss can & does impact that performance.
Severely, in some cases.
Choosing to use a .357 carbine instead of a pistol because the carbine has better ballistics? Huh?
I don't follow at all.
The REAL handgun (not your AR pistol) is chosen for applications where a larger gun (rifle or carbine) can't be carried, concealed, or used effectively.
In the case of the .357 Mag, it was designed for handguns, to produce performance levels inherent to handguns, and where a carbine can't be used. It's nowhere near the same thing as your .223 pistol, and the example you attempt to use here is meaningless.
I have a .357 Marlin, it boosts the .357 Mag cartidge velocity considerably.
That is far from the only criteria for selecting whether I carry it in hand or one of the .357 revolvers on the belt.
Can't hardly tote the Marlin into WalMart, can very easily with any of the .357 handguns.
Marlin won't fit in the glovebox.
Marlin doesn't work a house in the middle of the night as well as the revolvers can.
And so on.
Nothing disingenuous at all.
Comparing a lightweight high-velocity .223 rifle round to a much heavier and slower handgun round is apples & oranges.
The .223 depends much more on velocity and bullet construction to achieve its best results.
If it remains a solid or FMJ, it will most likely punch a .22-caliber hole through a target.
A .357 or .38 snub is RELATIVELY less dependent on velocity, and will be less affected by a 34% velocity loss than the .223 will be, IN GENERAL, by a 22% velocity loss.
The typical modern premium .38 & .357 Mag JHPs remain more likely to offer at least SOME expansion in losing 200+ FPS between barrel lengths, and even if they don't expand, they'll still penetrate and punch a .357-inch hole as opposed to your 22-caliber hole.
Also, context is important, and you're playing a misleading numbers game with your percentages.
In comparing the .357 handgun with the 10-inch AR pistol, forget the percentages. Those are important for purposes of discussion in comparing shorter & longer barrels in a .223 AR platform only.
Stick with the velocities, which are more relevant in comparing a .357 handgun in two barrel lengths against the .223 ARs in shorter and longer barrels.
A 200-400 FPS loss (not always exact, varies from gun to gun & load to load) in a typical .357 will have much less effect on terminal performance than a 500-900 FPS loss in a typical .223.
Market forces have nothing to do with a competent professional instructor not advocationg an AR pistol for any serious defensive uses.
They understand full well, if they have any real background in the subject at all, that the things just don't cut it.
Same with police.
And, "most of their students" not using them is a commentary in a different direction than you intended.
You take an AR pistol to a good training course & see how well it does not stack up.
AR pistols CAN serve a purpose.
They CAN fire a bullet.
They just don't do it efficiently, either ballistically or in hand.
Denis
Bovice,
Define "short range".
And I never had to fire one indoors, but after working a few houses with a 16-incher I decided the handgun was far more convenient. Quit taking the AR in unless it was a bigger building.
Today it's still a handgun when things go bump in the middle of the night.
Denis
Define "short range".
And I never had to fire one indoors, but after working a few houses with a 16-incher I decided the handgun was far more convenient. Quit taking the AR in unless it was a bigger building.
Today it's still a handgun when things go bump in the middle of the night.
Denis
Loosedhorse
member
Evidence? Citation? I mean, you are free to assume that's true, just as I am free to assume that any impact of that velocity loss on SD effectivenss is trivial using the right loads, unless there is evidence to the contrary for those loads. So far, we have your assumption that a .223 HP is either unable to expand or fragment at 2470 fps; and/or your assumption that such a bullet expanding and maybe fragmenting at 2470 will do little defensively (except make an attacker laugh?).
Again, I see no reason for either assumption, and you have presented none.
And these may be the situations where an AR pistol would also work. Unless there would never be any category between concealable pistol and carbine; but I think that there are roles (maybe car gun, maybe bedroom gun, maybe given certain legal or disability considerations) where it might fit.
And, again, that's not even talking about target and hunting use, for those so inclined.
On what basis do you claim percentages are misleading--why aren't your straight fps numbers misleading?
Why? Just your say-so? You've given no evidence except, "See, the number is bigger! Don't worry about percentages!" And again, both .223 and .357s apparently can lose 500 fps.
Not at all. If you check back at my first post in this thread, I stated upfront that it was a niche pistol.
Just like a .38 snub, only a different niche.
If you go to a typically Glock-and-1911-dominated class with your .38 snub, you will discover its disadvantages...and likely keep using it anyway.
They may (as you insist) "understand" that; but if they are anything like you, they apparently don't have any articulable reason for that "understanding"--except of course the pedantic, unconvincing "That's just the way it is in real life."
Reality to me consists of evidence. You either have none to provide on this topic of .223s at 2470 being a poor choice for SD; or you have it and just don't want to share.
Guess which way I'm betting?
Denis, you have your opinon, I have mine. Fine. If you have some evidence about the .223's ineffectiveness using the ammo that I'd use out of such a pistol, then please: don't hold out. Show me.
If, instead, you're just going to respond with more unsupported personal opinon about what "real life" is like, thanks--please have the last word, and I won't disturb you again on this topic. I've know what cards I'm holding, and you've (I think) shown me all yours, too. Be well, thanks for the discussion.
Last edited:
ny32182
Member
They exist because of the SBR laws in this country, period. If you didn't need a tax stamp for an SBR, they would all be gone by tomorrow morning.
They may be fun to make noise with, but there is nothing you can try to do with an AR pistol that can't be accomplished better with something else, be it an AR SBR or regular format pistol, depending on the situation.
They may be fun to make noise with, but there is nothing you can try to do with an AR pistol that can't be accomplished better with something else, be it an AR SBR or regular format pistol, depending on the situation.
Loosedhorse
member
Could be. I note, however, that some submachineguns like the MP5, or even machineguns like the HK 51 or 53, have collapsible stocks, again making them awkward, large "inefficient" pistols. Perhaps the stocks are meant to be in the collapsed position for storage only, never for use. But my guess is if those were legally available for sale, some folks would buy them.
Maybe even this folk.
ny32182
Member
They collapse for storage/transport/ and/or LOP adjustment, same as on an AR carbine.
Loosedhorse
member
That hasn't been my experience for the older HKs; for others, I'm sure your right. And of course, stockless "PDW" versions exist for guns like the MP5 and XM8.
Again, my point is that even in environments (military) where SBRs are easy to get, these odd stockless pistols are nevertheless made for some reason. And, I would guess, used.
ny32182
Member
In what military environment do they use a stockless MP5?
Loosedhorse
member
How would I know? But HK makes/made it. Your point therefore that such awkward pistols are only made because of SBR laws seems wrong--they do in fact exist in settings where such laws don't apply. I would assume therefore that someone thinks they have a purpose.
fastbolt
Member
I'd guess that somewhere along the line, someone had a couple of thoughts occur them.
Can I(we) make one that actually functions?
Will someone pay money for it?
There's an old saying from the car business. Revised for polite company, it's that there's a butt for every seat made.
BTW, the velocity threshold for fragmentation to occur in .223 & 5.56 loads, and how shorter barrels might diminish the effectiveness when it comes to terminal ballistic effect ... as well as getting short gas tubed guns to run well with different loads ... isn't exactly a new consideration.
Bullet design & weight, and barrel twist rate, can be revised to help try to mitigate these issues, to some extent.
Nothing really new.
- Status