Why arent pistol cal carbines more common?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KriegHund

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,514
Location
Colorado, Broomfield
Not sure where this belongs, but oh well...

Anyways, pistol carbines seem like nice guns, especially in larger claibres (10mm or .45) able to preform accuratly, rapid aimed fire, and shortness.

Im wondering why i very rarely see them around? IE gun shows or even here at the forums. The only carbines like this i remember seeing are the HK USC or whatever it is, some S&W carbine, and the CX4 Storm.

If you could get a side loaded or 30 rnd stick magazine like an SMG it seems like they could be rather nice general purpose weapons. Cheap to shoot, accurate, decently powered, lightweight, short...

Only problems being the much lower range compared to rifles...but for a CQC weapon or something...

I would love to see a cheap market for these...400 or 500$ carbines...seems like it would be a decent market.
 
you left out the marlin camp, and the 9mm conversions for ARs, and all the guide-gun (big bore lever actions)

but yeah, i've often wondered why they weren't more common.

i suspect it is because they are suboptimal for deer, and not in wide use by the military. that leaves them as niche guns, with, i guess, an appropriate market share.
 
i concur...

i didn't know there was an S&W carbine... and the HK USP is a pistol.

but there also is the Keltec Sub2000, and hi-point 9mm carbine.

there was a thread about the CX4 storm, and it was a 3 page flame fest before it got locked. :banghead: :barf: some people seems to be very much against pistol cal carbines, however i like them. the longer barrel sucks more power and accuracy from the cartridge, and it is light recoilling, cheap and fun to shoot.

~TMM
 
Taking .22LR out of consideration, I'm not a big fan of pistol-caliber carbines because they have the similar weight and size as a rifle, without the power and range. I think a lot of pistol-caliber carbines would be better served with shorter barrels, notwithstanding the legal restrictions. For me, if it's a long arm and fires pistol ammo, it could at least make up for it by being full-auto. But no, can't have those. :uhoh:

The only exception is that I'd like to have a .44 lever gun. For ... bears, you know. :D
 
Telperion covered my objections, i.e., minimum 16" bbl, underpowered, same size as a rifle, what's the point? YMMV
 
Well, with lightweight composite (plastic) stocks, they can be pretty light. I think they have a purpose. They are easier to shoot accurately than a pistol, lower recoil and lighter than a rifle. For someone like my wife who isn't a big shooter and finds it hard to handle full size rifles (she's very short) these are very big pluses. Given most home defense situations they should do the job. Now adding AR-15's to the equation; with collapsable stocks, lw barrels and polymer receivers puts a new spin on my theory. Still, arf's are not for everyone.

To answer the original question, between the pistol cal. arf, hi-point, kel-tecs, storms, and rugers, I guess that's enough to fill the niche. And as I am sure you have found out, many people just don't like them.
 
As others have posted the minimum barrel length and the ballistic disadvantage of a pistol caliber carbine makes them not that useful. That being said I do believe they have a niche market. I live in a large metropolitan area, the nearest outdoor range is about an hour away, and the indoor ranges do not allow rifle powered rounds to be fired. A pistol caliber carbine would be a nice compromise for me, since I can practice some of my rifle skills at an indoor range only 5 minutes from my home. Also factor in the price of 1,000 rounds of 9mm versus 1,000 rounds of .223 and it is a little more economical to shoot a pistol caliber carbine. I think a pistol caliber carbine can perform adequately as a home defense weapon, but there are better weapons out there. There are a lot of designs out there, but a lot of them are not in that $400-$500 price range. The Beretta CX4, Ruger PC9/40, Marlin Camp 9/45, Kel Tec Sub 2000, the Hi-Point, and maybe Feather Carbines are only ones that I can think of that are in that price range, but there are many more that are much more expensive.
 
I just purchased a HI-Point 40 cal carbine, I would guess the lowest cost firearm I've purchased in a number of years however one of the most enjoyable, the 40 caliber turns into an accurate, fun, plinker and could double
as home security, so I vote yes on pistol cal. carbines.
 
It is hard to define the proper purpose or function of a pistol calibre carbine. For something small, light, and carriable, you have to pick a pistol. For power and effectiveness over long distances, you need a rifle that fires a rifle cartridge. The only rationale for the pistol calibre rifle I can come up with is that you can use it to get more accuracy from a pistol round without having the overpenetration problems of a rifle cartridge. In other words, the pistol carbine is for short distance shooting when high accuracy is required. I suppose this is what the police use them for. These carbines also have little recoil and aren't as loud as big calibre rifles, so you can shoot them without much wear and tear. I have a Ruger PC9 and like it but still believe that it is of limited use. (I have bought Hirtenberger submachine gun 9mm to fire from it, to give the rifle more oomph.) But the pistol rifle can be fun to shoot, and for us gun nuts that is sufficient justification to buy one. (The .22lr is both a rifle and a handgun round and obviously has strong uses for small game hunting and for cheap target shooting.)

Drakejake
 
1. People don't understand them.
2. Gun companies don't design them right or market them well.
 
From some limited reading I have obtained the idea that the 45 tommy gun (a hefty gun) was well liked by many in WWII. Obviously not stellar in long range shooting, it seems to have been well suited for the frequent urban combat and recon patrols. I really, don't know what its effectiveness was, but I think it would more than suffice for most of today's domestic shooting encounters. Thus, the general concept of a pistol caliber rifle seems well conceived. I agree that there is a lack of multiple good affordable options. The exception I make is for the Kel-tec sub2000, not because it is the best, but it is capable of rapid deployment from being folded in half to a length of 16" and takes various high cap mags in 9mm or 40cal. This weapon could benefit from sturdier sightsand a better stock design. Personally, I would love a grease un or tommy gun if they were available and not to expensive.
 
i am a pi and do alot of work in very rural areas in pa, oh, and wv, that said the keltec sub in .40 cal takes the same mags as my g22 and g23, folds to fit in a briefcase and is in essence an extended pistol with extended mags. it doesn't weigh much more than a glock and allows me to shoot well and CAREFULLY at much greater range. overall a nice gun. otherwise i have no use whatsoever for pistol cal carbines that do not fold. the only thing the keltec has over the others is compactness and weight.
pat
 
Depends on what you're trying to do.

A pistol-caliber carbine maximizes what the cartridge can do - if you have a reason to use that particular ammo (mostly compatability with a pistol, a resonable concern for some).

Thing is, when you've gone to a gun that size, shape, and weight, upgrading to a rifle caliber gives you more power in the same overall package (but now you're incompatible with your pistol, which may or may not be an issue).

Categories of guns may overlap. Define what it is you're trying to do, then use what fits.
 
I think, with regard to the Thompson and grease gun, they were well-received because somebody figured out if you took a pistol-caliber carbine, shortened the barrel and added da switch, you got something quite useful: a submachinegun. Hence my comments as above; the two things that make pistol-caliber longarms more attractive as weapons (a short barrel and selective-fire) are not available by law, hence carbines occupy an unstable point between handguns and rifles. One usually ends up going with one or the other.
 
I can see that a compact, lightweight, pistol-calibre carbine could be useful for home defence, simply because in the stress of combat most people can't hit anything with a pistol unless they press the muzzle against the target. The 16" barrel limit is a downer, though. Maybe a bullpup...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
Not to beat a dead horse but:
Tommy gun was 10.5lbs and 32" overall w/ a 10.5" barrel.
M3 Grease Gun was 22.8-29.8" (retractable wire stock) and 8lbs and 8" barrel.
Beretta storm is 5.75lbs, 29.7" overall with 16.6" barrel.
Sub2000 is 4lbs and 29.5" opened with a 16" barrel.

So overall lengths are not different, now they are lighter and have an increased barrel length for less muzzle flash noise and increased velocity (these points are open to debate). While the automatic fire is wonderful for combat, it is costly for plinking and not great for home defense to be spraying bullets all over the place. My only complaint is durability especially of the sub2000.
 
I agree that they don't have much purpose. It really is a niche thing, and when I'm HOME I'd rather have a nice shotgun or rifle by the bed than my Kel-Tec Sub 2000.

Now, when traveling... the KT Sub2k makes sense. You can check into your hotel without looking like you've got a gun on you. I can't do that with anything else but my 20" SxS when we're talking long guns. I don't care about the performance gains form a carbine at all -- I can just HIT stuff better with them than a pistol.

Now, for non-serious shooters, they might even make more sense. Recoil perception is often directly related to the noise given by a weapon. I know, and y'all know, that .223 and 7.62x39 semi-autos don't really have any recoil, but they make noise, and that bothers some folks that just want one gun for protection. It's far easier on them to warm up to a 9mm or .357 lever-action carbine than something in an intermediate rifle cartridge.

For shooters they're just fun plinkers, and in my case fill a "niche" when traveling. For non-serious shooters I think they're a viable, but less than optimal, option. For all their shortcomings they're still way, way better than a sharp stick, right? :) If one of my gun buddies used one for HD we might have to talk about that a bit... but if a single mom without much money had a Hi-Point carbine for HD I'd give her a thumbs up.
 
Taking .22LR out of consideration, I'm not a big fan of pistol-caliber carbines because they have the similar weight and size as a rifle, without the power and range.
Click to expand...

+1

The only pistol caliber carbines that interest me are .357 mag, .44 mag, .454 casull, and 10mm auto. And right, its too bad that an SBS is defined at less-than-16" - it would be nice to have 10, 12, 14" pistol caliber carbines.

OT: Lance Armstrong may well be the best athlete in recorded history - he just won his 7th TDF - unbelievable.
 
i suspect it is because they are suboptimal for deer, and not in wide use by the military. that leaves them as niche guns, with, i guess, an appropriate market share.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've got the varmint and deer/elk rifles but by far most of the critter shooting I do is possum/skunk/yote control at under 100 yds. So I've decided that I need a .45 Camp Carbine with Wolf springs shooting +P or .45 Super ammo. Why? Less noise mainly, 230 gr. HPs at just subsonic speeds, plus fast backup shots, all the power and penetratration I need and cheap to shoot. If it stays by the back door and happens to be the gun I grab to shoot my way to my main defencive gun then it should do fine in that role. Heck I just need another gun, sshhh don't tell the wife.
 
Fun

Does a gun have to have some purpose besides fun, enjoyable?
Does it have to be my first choice for shooting hordes of zombies?
Does it have to leap tall buildings in a single bound?
Does it have to make any sense?

NO not for me. I enjoy guns, I like to shoot. I shoot rifles chambered
in pistol cartridges and pistols chambered for rifle cartridges.
I have shot rifles as small as 32 acp, not counting 22 rim fire.
I have shot pistols as big as the 50 Browning and 3 1/2” 10 gage.
They were all fun to shoot, at least once anyways.
Remenber you can have more then one.

Don’t try this at home.
I have some bolt actions chambered for the 7.62X39. I take the fired
cartridge and open up the primer pocket to take 209 shotgun primers.
I then put a round ball in the neck, no powder. Just plain old fun to
shoot.

With a pistol cartridge in a rifle the larger the caliber the easier it is to
see the bullet in flight. A little like shooting tracers.

All fun. Be safe but don’t let your better judgment limit your fun.
 
Years ago, the Army had an "Assault Gun" project. General Bob Sunnell was the lead. Now the Assult Gun was a WWII deveopment -- an anti-tank gun in an armored and tracked chassis. Cheaper to build than a tank.

We studied and studied. General Sunnell finally summed it up; "You need a tank-killing gun. That means you need a heavy chassis to carry it, the ammo, and take the recoil. You also need armor to protect the crew. And you need a top quality fire-control system to let you get hits out to tank ranges. And for flexibility, you might as well put a turrent on it. And then you have a tank!" :eek:

I've applied the same logic to carbines -- and I keep coming up with the Winchester M94 in .30-30.
 
I am with the last few posts:
I can see no good reason to make, or buy a pistol caliber carbine.
BUT, I don't need a good reason other than the fact that I want one.
Actually, wanted more than one: I have a bunch:
Ruger PC9
Colt AR15 in 9mm
Marlin lever gun in .357
Winchester lever gun in .45 Colt
Kel-Tec 9mm
I guess you can count my Sten submachine gun as a pistol caliber carbine.

Several years ago I posted some chrono results using several of these carbines and numerous loads to see what effect barrel length had on velocity. In a nutshell the .357 and .45 Colt made a huge difference, particularly with slow burning powder (for the caliber: H110 and AA#9 being the main powders I tried). The 9mm made very little. The difference between a 3" barreled nine and a 16" barreled nine wasn't all that much.
Since the barrel length doesn't give me much, I registered my AR15 as an SBR and bought a 10" barreled upper as well as a integrally suppressed upper that has a barrel well under 16".

IMO, the Thompson makes a poor pistol caliber carbine. The sights, and trigger are not very good IMO. I shoot a monthly match that always has a stage where you start off shooting a semi-auto Thompson and I think it sucks. Having one with an open bolt would be worse. I have fired real full-auto Thompsons and they were a good submachine gun. But knowing what I know now, they don't hold a candle to an M4 in any way, shape, or form. IMO it is a design that was state of the art 75 years ago (or whatever) and is no longer a viable choice. My Sten, is of course, worse. As a carbine, it doesn't get much worse: the Hi-Point is a much better carbine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Marlin Camp v. Beretta CX4
Replies
11
Views
2K
Navy_Guns
N
D
  • Locked
Advantages of Carbines?
Replies
23
Views
7K
OldBillThundercheif
O
K
  • Locked
Why no Glock carbine?
Replies
23
Views
3K
Omaha-BeenGlockin
O
B
  • Locked
Why is there no "Thumper"?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
ExAgoradzo
ExAgoradzo
usp9
  • Locked
Impulse buy, Beretta Storm Carbine, ???
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
darkfreedom
D
Back
Top