Why arent pistol cal carbines more common?

[Magnum88C]

Pistol caliber carbines make a lot of sense for anyone who has a use for carrying the same type of ammo in a rifle and pistol. A .44 Mag pistol and levergun make a dandy brush hunting combo.

For the urbanites, they can apply the same thing to their HD situation. To apply it for the bottom feeder crowd, get one that takes the same magazines as your pistol. Shotguns make a lot of noise. For those who recommend against guns like .357s because of noise and yet pick a shotgun for HD, are kidding themselves. Get the PC carbine, it'll make less noise than your "nine" and make it easier to hit with.

Yes, there's practical use for them.

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?

Absolutely, at least on the internet. See, nearly everyone on the 'net has to be ready at every moment for the world to end and they can go deploy against the Bad Guys with SEAL Team 6. So, only the newest, most tactical (at least, that's what SWAT and Soldier of Fortune reviews say) will do!

In the real world, I think we all have guns, maybe a lot of guns that are just fun, admit it or not.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Pistol caliber carbines make a lot of sense for anyone who has a use for carrying the same type of ammo in a rifle and pistol.

Okay, I'll bite. How could you have a use for carrying the same type of ammo in a rifle and pistol if you didn't already have a rifle and pistol of the same caliber?

 

[Burt Blade]

The Winchester 94 is quite handy inside 150 yards. In .45 Colt with full power loads, it is more than enough gun for most "social" situations and certainly can be used to put food on the table, including deer. In .44 Magnum, the range is a bit further, and you certainly have more "thump" available.

Good revolvers in those calibers make effective sidearms.

The 20" barreled versions typically hold 10 rounds. (11 if the .45 Colt loads are a bit below maximum length.) There is a 16" "Trapper" model if you need a more compact weapon.

The Winchester 94 in .30-30 is the quintessential "Deer Rifle" in the USA. It has put more Bambi on the grille than anything else in the last 150 years. The design is well-proven.

 

[JohnKSa]

Pistol caliber carbines make sense because virtually every shooter can shoot more rapidly and accurately with a shoulder mounted weapon than a handgun. And because virtually every shooter can shoot more rapidly and accurately with a low-recoiling shoulder mounted weapon such as a pistol caliber carbine than with a full-power rifle.

Furthermore, pistol caliber carbines are typically lighter and shorter than full-powered rifles which make them an excellent choice for people who don't want to deal with the size, weight and recoil of a full-power rifle but may not have the hand/arm/shoulder strength to accurately use a handgun in the service pistol class or above. Also a good choice for certain types of disabilities.

It's also not uncommon for them to offer increased capacity compared to pistols and sometimes even when compared to full power rifles.

In addition, they reduce the report and muzzle blast & flash compared to firing the same round from a handgun and at the same time offer improved velocity compared to a handgun. They also typically have lower report and muzzle blast & flash compared to a full-power rifle. And they allow rifle like accuracy but with the use of ammunition that may be less likely to overpenetrate than full-power rifle ammunition.

So, compared to a handgun:
Improved accuracy.
Improved velocity.
Often improved capacity.
Improved effective range.
Lower report, blast & flash.
Lower recoil.
Easier to operate for those with low hand/arm strength.
Larger/heavier/not easily concealable.

Compared to a rifle:
Lower report, blast & flash.
Lower recoil.
Easier to operate for those with low hand/arm strength.
Less tendency to overpenetrate.
Smaller/handier/lighter.
Reduced effective range.
Reduced effectiveness (ammunition ooomph).

In short, they offer quite a few advantages over both rifles and handguns and only a few disadvantages. When one considers that many people don't conceal or carry handguns on their persons, the lack of concealability becomes less of an issue, and when one considers that few people live in an area where the use of a full-powered rifle is appropriate, the lack of range compared to a rifle isn't much of an issue.

That's why I said in my earlier post that if people understood them better they would be more popular & common.

 

[cosmonick]

One thing that I think hurts the pistol caliber carbine is the 16" barrel requirement. If you could buy a 10" barreled carbine with a folding stock, without registration, I think people would be a lot more interested in them. I know I would.

I also think that if 7.62x39 wasn't so incredibly cheap, there might be more interest in pistol caliber carbines. 9mm is cheap, but 7.62x39 doesn't cost any/much more and you get way more energy.

Personally, I really enjoy pistol caliber carbines. My 454 lever-action is one of my favorite rifles. I only wish that my Sub-2000 would have been reliable. I feet like the Sub-2000 is about as good as it gets with the current NFA laws.

There's definitely good reasons for pistol caliber carbines. As has been mentioned: matching ammo w/your pistol, way less noise, light recoil and just plain fun are all great reasons to own one.

Mo

 

[Magnum88C]

Okay, I'll bite. How could you have a use for carrying the same type of ammo in a rifle and pistol if you didn't already have a rifle and pistol of the same caliber?

OK, I'll bite back.

John and Suzie Homemaker, or Joe IJustGraduatedFromCollege, move into their (sub)urban paradise and decide they want to be able to defend it. They decide that while John works, he's going to need a handgun to CCW to be safe, and Suzie will stay home, and not needing a CCW, and the fact a carbine is easier to use, they get a carbine and pistol. Or Joe wants to CCW and have a more effective gun for home.

So, they buy a pistol and carbine in the same caliber. If an autopistol, they get a carbine that takes the same magazines, too.

Two common scenarios where one would have a use for a pistol and carbine in the same caliber, yet not have one yet.

 

[Apple a Day]

I own a Nagant revolver. I can't even make up a practical reason to own one 'cause there just isn't one! I'm looking at a 9mm carbine just because I think it would be neat and because I have the freedom to own one if I feel like it.

 

[hillbilly]

At a range I frequently shoot at, pistol caliber carbines are sometimes used to go BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG as fast as is humanly possible to pull the trigger.

Other than that, I'm not sure.

hillbilly

 

[SIGarmed]

I don't think they are unpopular in fact I think they are very popular. As far as any controversy, if there's nothing wrong with using a pistol what could be wrong with using a pistol caliber carbine? I guess it's all in what your intended use is. As a home defense carbine and plinker I think one would be great.

A Ruger PC carbine is definately on my list. I just wish Ruger would sell a .45ACP model. Now that would be the ticket!

 

[taliv]

At a range I frequently shoot at, pistol caliber carbines are sometimes used to go BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG as fast as is humanly possible to pull the trigger.

i LOVE doing that

 

[GunGoBoom]

Wow, JohnK, you've darn near convinced me to get one! Thanks. I feel a cheapie hi-point 9mm carbine comin on.

I just wish Ruger would sell a .45ACP model. Now that would be the ticket!

Change that to '.45 Super' and I think you'd have something there.

 

[KriegHund]

Hm....one thing about pistol carbines is that it could allow for a stronger action, allowing for some VERY hot loads.

Besides, something like a .357 lever action may be nice, but a .357 carbine could be better. Same accuracy, lighter weight, rapid fire,high cap magazines.

Now i dont understand why everyone says we shouldnt have them because the only niche they fill is small.

Another use for them could be HD but then you mat as well get a pistol, unless you are under 21 and would prefer something other than a shotgun...

But JohnSka did my arguments for my, aside from the stronger action concept.

 

[SIGarmed]

Change that to '.45 Super' and I think you'd have something there.

The .45 Super would work in a .45ACP PC carbine if Ruger made it. All it takes is a spring change in a Colt 1911.

 

[Tony Williams]

If you want a little more punch there's always that neat little 3-Ten carbine in .45 Win Mag.

In fact, most of the current crop of high-powered, big-bore pistol rounds make more sense in a carbine.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[106rr]

I think the biggest reason that pistol caliber carbines should be used is that the hit rate is much higher than that of a pistol. The single biggest defect in pistols is that they are hard to use with accuracy. You can yell "get better training" as loud as you like, but in many major cities there are no available ranges. New York with 8 or more million population is an example.
In many jurisdictions it is easy to get a rifle/carbine but impossible to get a pistol permit. The pistol caliber carbine has all the power necessary for defense at minimum cost.
There is also the issue of training cost. Few families can afford a trip to Gunsite or Thunder Ranch. Think of the family trying to send two kids to school and pay rent at New York or San Francisco prices. It is senseless to suggest that he/she spend thousands on pistols, airfare and training when a Marlin 1894 in 357 magnum will suffice nicely for home defense and a SHTF weapon. Little training or practice is needed for the pistol caliber carbine.

 

[only1asterisk]

I think the pistol cartridge carbine is the best defensive armament for the person that feels the need to be armed, has little interest in firearms and aspires only to a basic level of proficiency. This is more than a few people. Too bad the people who should use them don’t. They buy cheap 380’s instead.

David

 

[Shear_stress]

I find this debate interesting. Some folks here seem to think that each gun we own has to have some clear "purpose". This is funny to me, because so many people, if asked why they "need" this gun or that, will reply "I don't have 'need' it to buy it." Since when did we have to justify our guns?

The pistol caliber carbine, like nearly any gun, does have practical value. As has been said, compared to a pistol, it's easier to shoot accurately and rapidly; compared to a rifle it offers lower noise, lower recoil, and (with the exception of 7.62x39) incredibly cheap practice. Sure, out of a rifle barrel, a pistol cartridge still pales next to even the most modest rifle cartridge. However, I would be more afraid of a foe who trained heavilly on a Ruger PC9 than one who plinked annually on a Garand.

That said, the chances that our guns will ever be fired in anger are minute (knock on wood). Unless the unlikely happens, I say go out, have fun, and learn to shoot well with whatever you like. Sheesh, there are so many guns you can trash on the basis of practicality it's amazing we let ourselves own anything!

 

[GunGoBoom]

The .45 Super would work in a .45ACP PC carbine if Ruger made it. All it takes is a spring change in a Colt 1911.

Yes, in a locked bolt action of some kind. Not so with a blowback, where bolt mass is the key rather than spring weight - that is why I sold my MechTech in .45 acp - the MechTech folks didn't have a heavier bolt for using .45 super, even though they made a .460 rowland. Actually, more precisely, they wouldn't return my emails about the inquiry, so I gave up on the idea. I can shoot a handgun as accurately as a .45 carbine at close ranges - I wanted the MechTech to absorb the extra oomph of the super round. But in a locked breech action, it would work with just a spring change.

 

[HankB]

In a home defense scenario, most people, when under stress, will find it easier to hit the BG with a pistol caliber cabine than they will with a pistol.

At close ranges, I believe a quality JHP from a pistol caliber carbine will have more than adequate terminal ballistics, and be little, if any, inferior to FMJ fired from a short .223. (There are persistent reports of the latter round's less than sterling performance in places like Somalia and the Middle East - that's why they're seriously considering a 6.8mm round.)

Of course, not being bound by military rules, you can stoke your M4gery or AK clone with expanding bullets, at which point a pistol caliber carbine DOES give up power to a short .223 or 7.62x39, but since both the volume of gas and muzzle pressure of pistol rounds are reduced relative to rifle rounds, the muzzle flash and muzzle blast are also going to be reduced - substantially.

And there's just something nice about a carbine styled like the Beretta Storm . . . now, if they just didn't warn against continued use of +P or +P+ ammo . . .

(BTW, I don't have a pistol caliber cabine myself yet . . . but I've been considering the Storm, the Kel Tec, and the MechTech CCU for a Glock . . . they all seem like fun guns. Too bad Beretta didn't make their Storm in "bullpup" configuration with an OAL of 27" or so . . . )

 

[444]

I hope this doesn't hijack the thread, but no pistol caliber carbine is going to even be in the same ballpark as a .223.
This isn't a guess or internet rumor. This is from first hand experience. They are not close, and anyone that has seen people shot with both would never mistake which was which.

 

[Jeff Timm]

444 commented, "I hope this doesn't hijack the thread, but no pistol caliber carbine is going to even be in the same ballpark as a .223.
This isn't a guess or internet rumor. This is from first hand experience. They are not close, and anyone that has seen people shot with both would never mistake which was which."

At point blank range, inside the house, the 10 mm or .44 Magnum might be more effective than the .223 BALL. I have my doubts about 77 gr and other hollow points.

Geoff
Who suspects he might hit better with his shotgun at close range than a pistol, but the pistol is easier to conceal, if the situation is not critical.

 

[444]

Well, I respect your right to suspect that.
I have seen people shot at close range with a .223.
I have seen at least one person that shot himself with a 10mm in the head.
The two arn't even in the same ballpark other than on the internet.

 

[Seven High]

I read somewhere that in the old west cowboys carried a rifle and pistol of the same caliber. I think it was 44-40. I wonder how that would work out for present use.

 

[GunGoBoom]

It would still work - which is why I plan to add a Puma/Legacy Sports .454 casull levergun to match my .454 raging bull revolver - then *either one* can shoot *either* .45 colt or .454 casull - sweet combo I think.

 

[PaulBk]

The more things change...

It still does work. I carry a Glock pistol on my belt and a Glock carbine in my truck. Cartridges and magazines are interchangable. Flexability and options.

-PB