why do carbines exist?

[CentralTexas]

1-were are pistol ammo carbines designed so you only needed one caliber ammo between pistol/rifle?
2-is this why some Police still have them?
3-Anyone have info on effective distance of 9mm rounds from carbines?
CT

 

[PBIR]

My impression was that they were made to provide a firearm that offered more firepower than a sidearm for situations where a full size rifle would be too bulky.

 

[MaterDei]

I have only one, a Marlin Camp .45.

Why do I have it? Because it's FUN!!!

 

[VaughnT]

Actually, this is an ages-old practice that first originated in the cowboy days. The idea was to have a rifle and pistol in the same caliber so you only had to buy one kind of bullet to carry in your saddlebags. Not only did this make shopping easier, it was a heck of a lot safer/faster when you were digging for rounds to keep the injuns and banditos away.

Today, a carbine in a pistol caliber, like my Marlin M45 camp carbine, is that the longer bbl gives the round more time to burn powder and the longer sight radius gives you more accuracy. Essentially, you have a more powerful and accurate firearm shooting a very cheap round (when compared to .223 or .308 ammo)

Bean-counters love the idea of streamlining, too.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Dislike of carbines goes back to the pre-cartridge days. This is from The Last of the Mohicans

To Heyward this
was a moment of feverish and impatient suspense; though the
scout saw fit to select it as a fit occasion to read a
lecture to his more youthful associates on the art of using
firearms with discretion.

"Of all we'pons," he commenced, "the long barreled,
true-grooved, soft-metaled rifle is the most dangerous in
skillful hands, though it wants a strong arm, a quick eye,
and great judgment in charging, to put forth all its
beauties. The gunsmiths can have but little insight into
their trade when they make their fowling-pieces and short
horsemen's --"

 

[CentralTexas]

So which is better?

in an urban combat SHTF situation? 9mm carbine or 223?
I think the answer is in what's the effective kill range of both if accuracy is combat accurate?

 

[PBIR]

FWIW, a lot of USMIL units have moved from MP5's to M4's for MOUT situations etc.

 

[Jim K]

The carbine idea goes back long before the "cowboy days". The original idea was to have a short gun for cavalry that could be handled easily and fired from horseback, something difficult with the long infantry musket. Ammunition for the carbine was usually the same caliber as for the musket, but with a lighter charge.

In the commercial world, the term carbine came to be applied to any short musket or rifle which would be suitable for use by a horseman.

Around 1905, some nations adopted a compromise rifle, shorter than the infantry rifle but longer than the older carbines, which could be used by both services. In WWII, the U.S. adopted a new type carbine, using a totally different cartridge from the infantry rifle.

Recently, the term has been applied to a short rifle firing pistol cartridges. These have proven useful for police, giving them a longer range weapon while retaining commonality of ammunition with their pistols. Such carbines have proven popular with civilians as "plinking" and to a lesser extent, home defense firearms.

Jim

 

[Cosmoline]

They're a lot more than mere fun guns. In a recent "Handloader" they confirmed that out of a Marlin 1892, the .357 Magnum has the power of a .30-30. You won't see that kind of boost from the wee 9x19, but for big boomers a carbine can provide a massive increase in power and enhanced control and accuracy. I see Marlin is producing a "carbine" in .475 Linebaugh to take advantage of these ballistics.

 

[Badger Arms]

There's nothing wrong with a pistol caliber caribnes. Heck, people still carry 30/30's lever guns instead of bolt guns. It's funny how pistol-caliber carbines were just fine for years. Any gun is more effective than no gun.

 

[mainmech48]

It's a very old practice and still one that has a lot going for it IMO, practically speaking. Especially for those whose income or interest levels dictate getting maximum utility for a minimum investment.

Way back when, quite a few .44 C&B revolvers were converted to .44 Henry RF in order to take maximum advantage of the then-new technology.

A year or so after Winchester introduced the M 1873 and the .44 WCF cartridge, Colt started chambering the SAA for it.

Your typical "pilgrim" needed to both feed and defend himself and his family using the same set of tools. Having his only sidearm and his only rifle chambered for the same ammunition was the most practical and cost effective solution.

Most folks can shoot a carbine more accurately than a handgun, regardless of range. Almost anyone's personal maximum effective range will increase threefold or better in terms of vital zone hits with one. While this doesn't turn a .357 or .44 Mag carbine into an ideal deer rifle or defensive longarm, it does make it arguably easier to use effectively for either should it become necessary.

I'm a lot less enamored of the concept when it comes to semi-auto pistol cartridges. The ballistic differences when fired from a typical carbine are much less marked, even though one's accuracy at longer ranges will still be better.

No matter what the caliber, if you're going with a single sidearm for SD/HD having a companion longarm of the same chambering is worth considering, IMHO. It won't make that one caliber do everything, but it'll help you do more things better with it.

 

[BevrFevr]

carbines don't have to fire pistol rounds

A short rifle is for short places, or for carrying long distances.

Besides, what is not to like about those cool new berreta storms. Not an M4 to be sure but what a handy little package. Or even the old M1 with a pistol grip stock.

These are not precision long range instruments but if I was facing a pistol and had my choice of a carbine or a pistol. I'm picking the carbine. If I was facing a carbine I would still pick a carbine. Would any of you pick a pistol instead?

I didn't think so.

-bevr

 

[Sistema1927]

I can think of very few situations where I would be at a disadvantage when carrying my Marlin 1894C and S&W 686.

 

[DevilDog]

I think carbines exist because you can't have too many options. Look at the evolution of the AR-15. First 20" barrels, now 10.5, 11.5, 14.5, 16, 18, 20, 24 and 26 are available, most of those right off the shelf.

From what I have read, the many of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq are throwing shorter barreled versions on their rifles because of all the convoy duty and having to fire from a vehicle often. A rifle is a tight squeeze in a vehicle and a carbine sized weapon gets you much more firepower than a pistol.

If we are talking "carbine means pistol caliber", there are pluses there. With a pistol caliber long-arm, you can shoot more economically and most indoor ranges will allow you to practice with it.

 

[PBIR]

A Storm plus a 92 is not a bad setup. Ammo & mags are interchangeable. I have a customer with that setup who hangs out here from time to time, and he seems quiet happy with his 9mm carbine.

 

[MrMurphy]

There are rifle caliber and pistol caliber carbines. Rifle caliber carbines came first.

The M4, .30-30 levergun, etc are all rifle caliber carbines. Handier package for mounted use or at close range, with the same punch as a full size rifle or nearly so.

The pistol caliber carbines became popular in the 1870s. Modern semiauto pistol caliber carbines are basically long-barreled semiautomatic only submachine guns in basic form and function.


A 5.56mm carbine will penetrate body armor, and can hit and kill someone at 300 meters plus with a 16" barrel. A 9mm carbine, you're lucky to even hit someone past 100-150 yards, and performance isn't the greatest even with velocity boost from the longer barrel. It's good for 75-100 yards at most. The pistol caliber carbines give you a more accurate and generally higher-capacity weapon for distance shooting with the same ammo as your pistol.

The rifle caliber carbines give you the capability to wallop someone at the same distances as a rifle, nearly as accurately, with a handier weapon.
The 5.56mm with softpoints also penetrates less in building materials due to bullet design, but still drop someone hard and goes through vests. A 9mm JHP shot from a carbine will plug up and keep going. And a vest will stop it.

 

[Citadel99]

Because, where I work, we jump out of planes with weapons. M4 carbine is a lot better to jump than a M16.

Mark

 

[mrstang01]

I keep seeing people saying you can't hit anything with a pistol caliber carbine over 100 yards. I'd have to bet that they haven't tried further than that range, because it can be, and is, regularly done.

 

[mete]

The term carbine has been around for more than 200 years. It was shorter than a rifle by about 6 ". The British carbine of the 1700s was 42" long [barrel], the rifle 46 or 48". Our 1873 Springfield had a carbine version as did the 30-40 Krag.The 1903 originally had both rifle and carbine designed but they dropped the 30" rifle version. The carbine was used primarily by cavalry.

 

[LAK]

User aside, as a class of weapon, the effective range limitation on 9x19mm carbines is somewhat limited by mechanical accuracy and sights - probably more often the latter than the former. Obviously the velocity fall off is quite rapid and I would say that 200 yards is about the outside.

 

[bendable]

most people have j u s t that amount of space left in the safe to put , o n e more .....somthing ... and carbine seem to fit the bill

 

[Thunderstick]

200 yds? I'm not in law enforcement but I have my doubts that any police force would prepare their officers for 200 yd gun battles with pistols or carbines. They have snipers for that. What is the real effective range for a hangun? 40 yds maybe? The carbine would be used beyond 40 yds but there is a max distance. Think about this too.....in the urban environment 200 yds is a really, really long shot.

Just like in warfare, the weapon of choice in the WWI ETO with the open fields was the M1 Garand but the PTO choice was the carbine in the jungle environment.

The advantage of the "pistol ammo" is the officers already carry extra clips on their belts and wouldn't have to grab extra ammo when they grab their carbine.

 

[vwfool]

In the case of the pistol/carbine combo, you still go to the store or the range and only worry about one kind of ammo, just like 120 years ago.

If you never have, pick up and try out a 94 Winchester trapper with a 16" barrel in .357, .44 Mag or .45LC. I promis it will make you

The pistol caliber ones are also great for a first hunting rifle for kids. They aren't too heavy, have hardly no recoil (especially compared to a 30-30, 30-06, 250 or 7mm whatever), and with the Cor-bon loads in .45LC or .44 Mag they have plenty of power.

And, there are just some freaks in the world that just flat out prefer a short barrel no matter what.

30-30 16"
.45LC 16"
45-70 18" (though my dream is the 16" Co-Pilot from up yonder in Alaska)
.22LR 16-18"
7.62 18"
12 gauge 18" to 20" maximum
T/C .50 cal. 24" though it will be about 18" before this fall

 

[RonS]

Well, back in the dawn of time, they were made for officers who wanted a long arm but didn't want to carry a full sized Brown Bess or whatever. Still applies, they are light, handy and convenient for people who have other things to do, but who might have to defend themselves with something better than a sidearm. Today we can argue that a carbine is not much better than a pistol, but it had to be a big improvement over a sword, the original "sidearm".

 

[pauli]

to paraphrase words of wisdom, "if carbines did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them."