Why no pistol caliber bullpups ?

[barnbwt]

Uh, it's easier to sell bigger guns when they cost the same . That more than anything explains why more smg/pdw designs are not popular.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Another reason it's not worth doing a bullpup in a pistol-length cartridge; geometry.

For a standard reciprocating bolt design (basically all modern designs) the chamber will be a bit over one cartridge-length forward of the magwell, and the bolt/carrier will need to reciprocate a bit less than two times the cartridge length (minimum) to extract and strip a new round without over-riding the magazine too quickly (blowbacks tend to be longer so the bolt has a longer duration to dissipate higher levels of recoil energy into the buffer).

The distance of reciprocation is directly related to the cartridge length. In a rifle, this distance is considerable, as we see in the gigantic buffers required of ARs, regardless the configuration (it doesn't help that the spring is behind the bolt/carrier instead of alongside it like most other designs). Since the magazine well is too long to grip, you have to put it in front or behind the gripping area, and that means you end up with a really long extension behind the grip if you choose the latter --turning this into a slightly-longer stock as a bullpup is a natural progression.

However, if you do the same with a pistol-cal, you actually make the gun bigger than if you kept the mag at the pistol grip. To make room for the shooter's hand, you have to shift the magwell several inches behind the grip (same as for a rifle) and then you have to add the length of magwell and bolt travel. Since bolt travel no longer overlaps the grip as in a typical layout, the basic "action length" ends up longer, but with a longer barrel. For most pistol cartridges, a 10" barrel is optimum (see countless examples of open-bolt SMGs that are all within an inch or two of this number in stock configuration). To bullpup the gun effectively, you'd shift the breech back at least 8", so your 10" 'ideal size' barrel would terminate essentially at your knuckles --no bueno if you expect to use your off-hand for anything gun-related. Not to mention the fact that 90% of the gun's weight is behind the pistol grip (and small SMG magwells even harder to find by feel during loading)

The fact of the matter is, that a pistol-grip magwell is a bullpup configuration. The trigger is linkaged to a remote hammer/striker group, and in the case of large "tactical pistols" built for full auto, the action is shifted sufficiently that it balances over the pistol grip, just like bullpup rifles.

The Erma PM9 action does a good job of showing how you'd actually lengthen the smallest possible firearm if you shift an SMG's magazine aft of the grip, and how gripping the mag itself get's you the shortest possible format (since grip length is subtracted from the equation)


TCB

 

[USAF_Vet]

IF you want to consider .22LR a pistol cartridge, there is the Walther G22. Looks like a Hi Point and an M-16A2 procreated into a disfigured abomination, though.

 

[CraigC]

However, if you do the same with a pistol-cal, you actually make the gun bigger than if you kept the mag at the pistol grip.

Have you looked at the P90? Like I already posted (post #14, I'm always repeating myself), it's significantly shorter than anything with the magazine in the grip or in front of it.

Look at all the pistol caliber rifles that have very soft sales. People would gravitate to these if they did perform... they don't.

Is that why FN developed the P90, HK developed the MP7, Sig developed the MPX and CZ completely redesigned the Scorpion???

 

[Theohazard]

I didn't say it had tremendous recoil, I said a 9mm will have less. Significantly less. Which might be an issue for some.

It depends on the platform, but a 9mm carbine will often have about the same (or sometimes even more) felt recoil than an AR-15 in 5.56. That's because many pistol-caliber carbines are straight blowback, whereas the AR isn't. Lots of people who fire a 9mm AR-15 for the first time are surprised that the recoil is about the same as in 5.56, and that's because of the blowback system.

And regardless, the recoil on a 5.56 is minuscule anyway, so this whole argument over which has less recoil is pretty much meaningless; they both have very little.

The .223 might be slightly more effective

No. It isn't even a contest. A 5.56/.223 is FAR more effective in every single way than any defensive handgun round. Period. I can't even believe this is being debated in this thread.

A 5.56/.223 has FAR more velocity and energy, and when using a defensive .223 load like Hornady TAP, that velocity and energy combined with a small JHP bullet causes massive wound cavities due to fragmentation, something that's just not possible with a defensive pistol round.

If you need penetration, you can pick a .223 load that will penetrate far more than a pistol round, and if you're worried about over-penetration you can use defensive .223 JHP loads and limit over-penetration to much less than you'd get with any defensive handgun round, while still having far more effectiveness than any handgun.

The only advantage to a pistol-caliber carbine is they're quieter, the ammo is cheaper (in the case of 9mm), and you can shoot them at indoor ranges that limit rifle use. Sure, some pistol-caliber carbines are shorter and lighter than some .223 rifles, but there are a lot of exceptions to that. You can get (or build) an AR-15 that's pretty darn light, and the Tavor is shorter than almost all Title I 9mm carbines out there.

 

[CraigC]

It's not being debated, don't take my comments out of context. Fact is, a 9mm carbine is extremely effective with proper ammo and we don't know this from shooting paper at the indoor range or reading ballistics tables. A .50BMG is "more" effective than either but we're not going to sit here and argue its use for this application. The 9mm is plenty and that's all that matters.

Must I repeat myself again???

I didn't say it had tremendous recoil, I said a 9mm will have less. Significantly less. Which might be an issue for some.

Watch the videos on the SIG MPX, recoil is insignificant, even at full auto. Yes, a .223 AR has very little recoil but it does have recoil and one must recover from that recoil to make follow-up shots. Relax dude, this ain't a "measuring contest".


Like I already said, I'd take something like the P90 chambered in 9mm, .40S&W or .45ACP over THE AR THAT I ALREADY USE FOR HOME DEFENSE any day of the week. It pays to look beyond paper ballistics.

 

[Theohazard]

Must I repeat myself again???

You can repeat yourself ad infinitum, it won't make your statement any more accurate. You used one example of one 9mm carbine that hasn't even hit the market yet, and that's just from watching a video.

Instead, try this: Shoot a 5.56 AR-15 and then shoot a 9mm AR-15. Then try to tell me that the 9mm has "significantly less" recoil.

An 5.56 AR-15 with a good muzzle brake will have zero muzzle rise. You can't get much less than that. Sure, that means the AR will also be significantly louder, but that's already an admitted advantage of a pistol-caliber carbine.

Once again, I'm not saying that no 9mm carbines have less recoil than any 5.56 rifles, I'm simply saying that your general statement that a 9mm carbine will have "significantly less" recoil than a 5.56 rifle is incorrect.

I agree that a 9mm carbine is a good choice for HD, and I also agree that it will do the job just fine. I simply had an issue with the two incorrect statements I quoted in post # 30.

 

[CraigC]

We're not talking about 9mm AR's and no, dude who has proven that he thinks he's the only experienced shooter here, I'm not basing my statement solely on watching a friggin' video. I shot my first 9mm carbine 22yrs ago, how about you? The AR was never designed as a blowback and it's well known that the straight blowback 9mm AR has more pronounced recoil than it should.

The MPX is gas operated. That's a big difference.

 

[Theohazard]

We're not talking about 9mm AR's and no, dude who has proven that he thinks he's the only experienced shooter here, I'm not basing my statement solely on watching a friggin' video. I shot my first 9mm carbine 22yrs ago, how about you? The AR was never designed as a blowback and it's well known that the straight blowback 9mm AR has more pronounced recoil than it should.

OK, someone is getting a little upset here. Why are you so mad? I simply pointed out two incorrect statements you made. Are you so upset at being called out for incorrect statements? Your posts are beginning to look a little childish.

There are plenty of 9mm carbines that have a little less recoil than an average AR, but there are plenty of ARs that have little less recoil than many 9mm carbines. And they all have low recoil, so none have "significantly less" recoil than any other.

So your blanket statement that a 9mm carbine will have "significantly less" recoil than a 5.56 carbine is incorrect. How can you not understand this?

And once again, the MPX isn't even out yet, so it's not a great example to use...

I'm not basing my statement solely on watching a friggin' video.

You mentioned a video of someone shooting the MPX, so my comment was specifically regarding using the MPX as an example. If you read my statement, it's pretty obvious that I was just referring to the MPX and I didn't think you were basing your whole experience with 9mm carbines on that video.

So either you're having issues with reading comprehension or you're saying you've shot the MPX. If you've shot it, that's impressive; there aren't many people who have.

 

[leadcounsel]

That's a juvenile response and do not preach to me as if I just fell off the turnip truck.



What does an AR rifle do that an AR pistol does not? By your logic, why not dispose of the AR rifle in favor of an AR pistol??? The answer is that there is more advantage to a shoulder fired longarm than more powerful cartridges.



No thanks.



Really? It seems to me that there a plenty of folks buying pistol cartridge leverguns, which are also a very good option. I guess there ARE people who think a rifle chambered in a pistol cartridge has something to offer. Why? All the same reasons I listed above and you can NOT discredit them. Less recoil, less blast, smaller ammo, higher capacity and ENOUGH range to be effective. Do you think the pistol cartridge carbine kills anything any less dead than a .223 AR or .30-06 rifle? No. The latter simply have more range. If you don't need the range, you don't need a rifle cartridge with its associated muzzle blast, recoil, size, weight, etc..



Like I said, sales do not tell all. All that amounts to is a popularity test. We all know that what's popular is rarely the best of anything. There has been A LOT of good stuff produced by the shooting industry that has not sold well, for whatever reason. Besides, I'm not arguing that. I know they probably wouldn't sell. That doesn't mean it is a poor idea or that it would not perfectly serve its purpose. I could give a rat's posterior orifice what's popular.

Guy, no reason to take personal offense. I've merely pointed out the fact that PCRs have extremely soft sales for many reasons. While there may be some minor merit to them, rational gun purchasing folks make rational gun buying decisions and largely reject PCRs - just as they do/would PCR bullpups. That's why there are very few offerings for PCRs and almost none in bullpups. Cost, ergos, no actual benefit at pistol distances, etc.

I question whether you understand the difference between a rifle and pistol and actually what they do, given the statement about "my logic" and eliminating the AR rifle in favor of the pistol - unless you are just trying to mis-represent my words. Not even going to attempt to fix your mis-understanding or mis-representations...

Pistol - adequate for short range and home defense. Putting it into a rifle configuration gains some distance and power, but nowhere near the benefit of a rifle with a rifle caliber.

Rifle - excellent for short range, excellent for home defense, and excellent for long range.

You've argued about "enough range to be effective." Given this statement, and typical home defense distances of a room or hallway, call it 10-30 feet, a pistol will deliver nearly identical accuracy and energy as a pistol caliber rifle or bullpup (which are inferior to rifle rounds). Stated otherwise, there is nearly no benefit other than perhaps marginal benefit to having the shoulder stock. OAL of stance is identical. To demonstrate my point, using unloaded guns, stand with your back against a wall, and aim a rifle and a bullpup as you normally would. Repeat with a pistol. The difference in reach is nearly identical. So, all this uproar and when you're in your stance, the length is nearly identical, yet you are lugging around a longer/heavier/more awkward/more expensive weapon...

It's a fact that for any healthy able bodied adult, the recoil of a PCR versus a AR/AK is negligible difference. I'm not the only one to point this out. Again - for noise, that's why we have ear pro.

Seems to also be a misunderstanding of the wide spectrum between living and dead, overlooking entire categories of injured or incapacitated.... Lots to discuss here, and I don't want to go down a rabbit hole... but it's also fact that all things equal a rifle round is superior in stopping a threat over a pistol round, because of the delivery of energy and penetration.

At the end of the day, I also don't care what people use or prefer, as we all live in a free nation with freedom to choose. I'm merely pointing out the reason WHY PCR BPs are not common or popular.... in answer to the thread discussion.

 

[kBob]

The Swedes considered adopting a .223/5.56 rifle that used the magazine as the grip. Weird looking thing but they almost went for it.

I suppose all this sniping at one another is expected, but wonder that it takes place on a board with a name like "The High Road" .

All of us have different experiences and experiences are subjective. I stopped argueing with the AR crowd a long time ago. My personal experiences just did not match the polular opinion,. They won't make me forget my expeirences and I can't make them forget theirs.

Lets knock off the ya-ya at one another.

I think the main reason there are likely to be few Pistol caliber Bull pups on the market is that they would have to have barrels that might actually slow down their bullets to make required length for un stamp taxed firearms.

Take a look at what FN has to do to the barrels of P90s to sell them to the common folks.

So go by a hipoint and equip it with a forward grip and linked trigger system and cut off the existing butt stock......how long do you have to make the barrel to keep uncle sugar happy?

Not that I would not like someone to give me something along the lines of a P90 but in .44 Auto mag with a dot type scope with back up irons and the name "Thumper" tastefully scripted on the off side and all papered up for a 10 inch barrel......

-kBob

 

[CraigC]

Oh okay, so my comments and opinions are disregarded because I don't understand, I can't read, I'm irrational or upset. I guess I have offended the AR true believers by suggesting they are not perfect for home defense, even though I use one for exactly that purpose.

I question whether you understand the difference between a rifle and pistol and actually what they do,...

This from the guy who doesn't understand the advantages of a shoulder fired longarm??? Does this mean that you can shoot a pistol as quickly and accurately as a rifle out to 50yds.

It's a fact that for any healthy able bodied adult, the recoil of a PCR versus a AR/AK is negligible difference. I'm not the only one to point this out. Again - for noise, that's why we have ear pro.

Again, one more time, I never said the 5.56 had tremendous recoil, nor did I say I couldn't handle it. I'm contemplating buying a friggin' .416 and having it converted to .500Jeffery for God's sake. Maybe you can grasp the concept that the person needing to fire shots in the dark might be of the fairer sex, much younger, or for some other reason more recoil sensitive and would be better armed with a 9mm carbine than a .223 rifle??? Or that perhaps it would be easier to maintain sight picture while taking multiple shots. No, I guess those are all foreign concepts. I wonder what all those people using SMG's going back decades and world wars were thinking???

And I'm sure you can wake from a dead sleep, slap on your hearing protection, turn it on and go to work.

Lots to discuss here, and I don't want to go down a rabbit hole... but it's also fact that all things equal a rifle round is superior in stopping a threat over a pistol round, because of the delivery of energy and penetration.

Yes, definitely a hell of a rabbit hole comparing rifles to pistols using the idiotic energy factor. Sorry but anyone who has actually used rifles and handguns on flesh knows it's absurd.

I simply pointed out two incorrect statements you made.

I didn't make two incorrect statements. You're obviously comparing ONLY the 9mm AR which is NOT the topic of this discussion.

How can you not understand this?

How many 9mm carbines have you fired that were not AR's??? Genius, less powder, less pressure = less recoil. How can you not understand this?

And once again, the MPX isn't even out yet, so it's not a great example to use...

It's actually a perfect example. Because it is a brand new design, so obviously SOMEBODY thinks a good pistol cartridge carbine has some merit. Despite the rhetoric of internet experts and self-proclaimed gurus who have spent a whopping 2-3yrs working in a gun shop.

 

[Theohazard]

I didn't make two incorrect statements.

I'm amazed that you continue to say this. I can't decide if you honestly believe this or if you're just trying to "win" the argument. OK, I'll keep playing; you said that a 5.56 is "slightly more effective" than a 9mm. That's a ridiculous statement and it's pretty far off the mark. I can't believe you're continuing to argue that point.

You also said a 9mm carbine will have "significantly less" recoil than a 5.56 rifle. You didn't use specific guns, so your statement has to be taken as a blanket one. And I pointed out that there are many 5.56 carbines that have virtually zero recoil, and there are many 9mm carbine that have more. So, that means your statement is false. Again, how can you not understand this?. This is elementary school level logic here.

You're obviously comparing ONLY the 9mm AR which is NOT the topic of this discussion.

No, I'm not. You're obviously having trouble with reading comprehension again. That was simply one example. Your statement was a blanket one. You implied that a 9mm carbine will always have less recoil. My examples show that's not always true. Sure, it's true sometimes, but not always like you claimed.

How many 9mm carbines have you fired that were not AR's??? Genius, less powder, less pressure = less recoil. How can you not understand this?

I've fired plenty, but that's not the point here. And you're showing that you don't understand how these guns work. Most 9mm carbines are recoil-operated, and many are straight blowback. But almost all 5.56 rifles are gas operated, and that leads to less felt recoil in relation to power.

Despite the rhetoric of internet experts and self-proclaimed gurus who have spent a whopping 2-3yrs working in a gun shop.

Now you're being childish again. The funny thing here is that we probably don't disagree that much on the technicalities of this discussion. I agree that 9mm carbines -- on average -- have a little less recoil than than the average 5.56 carbine. But your statement was far more extreme than that, and it didn't allow for exceptions, and therefore it was incorrect.

 

[Theohazard]

CraigC, just like in that other thread, we don't disagree all that much on the technicalities being discussed. The problem is that, once again, you're having trouble with reading comprehension and understanding the logic of extreme, blanket statements. I can see why you have so many posts; you like to make illogical arguments and then follow them up with insults and vitriol when people refute them.

 

[leadcounsel]

Oh okay, so my comments and opinions are disregarded because I don't understand, I can't read, I'm irrational or upset. I guess I have offended the AR true believers by suggesting they are not perfect for home defense, even though I use one for exactly that purpose.



This from the guy who doesn't understand the advantages of a shoulder fired longarm??? Does this mean that you can shoot a pistol as quickly and accurately as a rifle out to 50yds.



Again, one more time, I never said the 5.56 had tremendous recoil, nor did I say I couldn't handle it. I'm contemplating buying a friggin' .416 and having it converted to .500Jeffery for God's sake. Maybe you can grasp the concept that the person needing to fire shots in the dark might be of the fairer sex, much younger, or for some other reason more recoil sensitive and would be better armed with a 9mm carbine than a .223 rifle??? Or that perhaps it would be easier to maintain sight picture while taking multiple shots. No, I guess those are all foreign concepts. I wonder what all those people using SMG's going back decades and world wars were thinking???

And I'm sure you can wake from a dead sleep, slap on your hearing protection, turn it on and go to work.



Yes, definitely a hell of a rabbit hole comparing rifles to pistols using the idiotic energy factor. Sorry but anyone who has actually used rifles and handguns on flesh knows it's absurd.



I didn't make two incorrect statements. You're obviously comparing ONLY the 9mm AR which is NOT the topic of this discussion.



How many 9mm carbines have you fired that were not AR's??? Genius, less powder, less pressure = less recoil. How can you not understand this?



It's actually a perfect example. Because it is a brand new design, so obviously SOMEBODY thinks a good pistol cartridge carbine has some merit. Despite the rhetoric of internet experts and self-proclaimed gurus who have spent a whopping 2-3yrs working in a gun shop.

Yep, I've got no experience around 9mm ... oh, except the tons of full auto training I went through on any of my 4 deployments or in garrison... lol... Uzi, MP5 (various configurations...), qualifying expert with my assigned M9, and the dozens of 9mm pistols I own, along with my own Uzi rifle... good grief...

CraigC - you're really twisting and swirming in your arguments, failing to convince me (or most others) of the merits of a pistol caliber bullpup over a rifle caliber... At close range, medium range and long range, a pistol caliber is inferior in performance...

I'll add that I've done mag dumps with a full auto Uzi, full auto MP5, full auto M4 (and many others). These three weapons - the Uzi was the most tame, next the MP5, and then the M4. But all were easily within the realm of controllable and the differences were mild, even after a full mag dump. So, in semi-auto, there is going to be negligible difference.

Military and police tend to gravitate toward what makes sense. It's interesting that nearly no military or police (with minor exception to some special ops units) adopts or uses any variant of a .45 ACP for sidearms or bullpups or long arms. Not for entry. Not for field use. Not for defensive roles. HK used to make a SMG that fired the .45, but that and the 9x19 has been largely abandoned in favor of the 556. Go figure.

 

[barnbwt]

Hmmm, can't help but notice you are outside, in daylight, with earpro on in all those photos. So the same thing in a shoothouse isn't blinding, concussing, and (immediately/permanently) deafening with an M4 more than a PCC? I know I can hardly stand to be adjacent to an M4-gery shooter at the range; I can only imagine how bad an SBR is.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"Military and police tend to gravitate toward what makes sense."
Especially when both guns and employees are subsidized by the government (surplus M4s and veterans preferred hiring practices), and the latter come already trained for the former

TCB

 

[leadcounsel]

Any firearm is going to be damaging if fired indoors. It takes 1/2 second to slip on earmuffs. If you're relying on an unsuppressed "quiet 9mm or .45" as your defensive plan, that's a bad plan.

What does "daylight" have to do with anything?

"Blinding, concussing..." give us a break!?!? These's aren't firing thunderous lighting bolts from the hand of God... Clearly they are quite manageable given the high use and popularity...

Oh, and by the way, something to consider: According to http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml which explains common decibles of various common guns, the DB for the 223, 9x19, and .45ACP are nearly identical.

.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18 _" barrel 155.5dB
9mm 159.8 dB
.45 ACP 157.0 dB

"Subsidized..." The POINT I brought up about the expense of bullpups if you read is as follows:

AR15/AK47 - around $800 -/+
Bullpups in 556/762 - around twice that price $1600 -/+

Pistol caliber rifles - around $500 -/+
PCR bullpups - presumably around 2-3x the price given the costs of rifle bullpups.

The design and ammunition chosen by LEO/Police is relatively inexpensive per unit, as compared to overall budgets. And certainly more fiscally responsible than a lot of other purchases and wastes... so I'm not seeing the artificial point attempting to be made...

 

[CraigC]

More rhetoric about how if the government chooses it, it must be the right choice. Do you REALLY think that the government chooses the right tool for the job, with no other factors involved? Interested in some Arizona swamp land? I could give a rat's patooty what the government chooses. They can't make money running a brothel. They have their needs, their considerations and we have ours. The FMJ requirement makes military use even more irrelevant.

What does "daylight" have to do with anything?

Muzzle flash, that should be obvious.

Oh, and by the way, something to consider: According to http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml which explains common decibles of various common guns, the DB for the 223, 9x19, and .45ACP are nearly identical.

If you can't tell the difference between a .223 and a 9mm carbine (not a short barreled SMG) fired indoors, then maybe you need YOUR hearing checked. A 9mm carbine is hardly louder than a .22Mag rifle. The .223 out of a 16" barrel is extremely unpleasant outdoors and deafening indoors.

It takes 1/2 second to slip on earmuffs.

No, it actually takes several seconds to get them on and adjusted. Even more to turn on electronic muffs and adjust the volume and that's time you might not have. You're going into a confrontation already deaf? Or are you also taking the time to turn on electronic muffs and adjust the volume so you can hear properly? Have you paid several hundred for your electronic muffs, or are you relying on less effective means of hearing what's going on? Do you have electronic muffs in every room of the house? Close to every firearm? Do you carrying them around with you all day? Real easy to poke plenty of holes in the "use hearing protection" argument.

The problem is that, once again, you're having trouble with reading comprehension and understanding the logic of extreme, blanket statements.

The 9mm has less recoil than the .223 is an "extreme" statement?

I'm amazed that you continue to say this. I can't decide if you honestly believe this or if you're just trying to "win" the argument. OK, I'll keep playing; you said that a 5.56 is "slightly more effective" than a 9mm. That's a ridiculous statement and it's pretty far off the mark. I can't believe you're continuing to argue that point.

Gee, I wonder how many varmints I had to shoot to come up with that? Enough that I don't think the difference adds up to enough to offset the drawbacks of firing a .223 indoors. Bottom line, the .223 is hardly the Hammer of Thor. The .223 is a great varmint cartridge when you need to bust a coyote at 300yds but shooting a perpetrator across the room is a different game. See once you start hunting with handguns and actually kill some critters with them, you begin to UNDERSTAND that paper ballistics are meaningless. You begin to understand that velocity and energy are overrated and that there is no simple way to compare handgun and rifle cartridges.

I can see why you have so many posts; you like to make illogical arguments and then follow them up with insults and vitriol when people refute them.

Insults and vitriol??? You're about the most condescending person I've had an exchange with in a long time. You've called me childish, insulted my reading comprehension, my logic, my experience, everything. Your every post is littered with condescension and veiled insults. Which is fine, I've dealt with your type before. You spend a couple years in the military, spend a couple years working in a gun shop, now you're an expert. I worked in a gun shop 20yrs ago and guys like you took the fun out of it. Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect, that's you.

I have a lot of posts because firearms and shooting are my life's passion and have been since childhood. I have a lot of posts because I like to talk about guns and shooting. I don't fish, I don't play golf, I don't drink beer, I don't smoke cigarettes, I don't watch football. I shoot. I hunt. I handload. I read. I make gunleather.

CraigC, just like in that other thread...

Now we get to the real gist. You're carrying baggage from one thread to another.

 

[CraigC]

You guys are stuck on descriptors used to make two minor points and ignoring the rest. Here's what matters to me.

P90 with 10.4" barrel is 19.9" overall.
MP5 with 8.9" barrel is 27.0" extended.
MP7 with 7" is 25.1" extended.
My 16" AR is 35.5" at shooting length.

In light of those numbers (I wouldn't even consider a 10" .223), I would rather defend the homestead with something that resembled a 10" PS90, only in .45ACP with a capacity of 20-30rds. Because it would be shorter, lighter, more maneuverable in tight spaces, with less noise and muzzle blast. The cartridge is plenty capable. This based on my experience killing critters of all sizes with .45's and .223's, not reading about it or studying ballistics tables. I don't believe the .223 has enough advantage in effectiveness to overcome its inherent drawbacks.

That said, I may replace the AR with an SBR'd CZ or SIG in the near future as my go-to home defense weapon. Disagree or not, it makes no difference. I don't care what is or isn't popular for military, law enforcement or civilian use, what is or isn't socially acceptable to the internet experts. I'd rather think for myself.

 

[silicosys4]

my $0.02.
My Uzi does not have "significantly less" recoil than my carbine AR. They are almost exactly the same.

The .223 with the right bullet does significantly more damage at all ranges than a .45acp with the right bullet. This is an undisputed fact confirmed by any experienced trauma surgeon you'd care to ask. Arguing otherwise just makes you look foolish.

The .45ACP is a 100 yard round, and after 100 yards loses enough velocity that it will not expand, and drops like a rock. The .223 has about 4x the effective range of the .45, along with the advantage of being able to cause hydrostatic shock and permanent wound cavities...something the .45 doesn't.

When you start dropping "varmint cartridge" in reference to the .223, it becomes clear that you are ignorant to the round and its capabilities.
The .223 will overpenetrate less than the .45 in a HD situation. This in itself is critical.
The .223 will prove more effective at in house range. Again, this is not an arguable opinion. This is fact. If a shoulder mounted .45 were more effective in house clearing operations, the U.S. military would issue a shoulder mounted .45 weapon for house clearing, but they do not.

Back to the OP,
A bullpup in a pistol caliber would not offer the same advantages as a bullpup in a rifle caliber, as sticking the action behind the pistol grip does not save you a significant amount of length in a pistol caliber as it does in a rifle caliber.

 

[CraigC]

The .223 does significantly more damage at all ranges than a .45acp.

I'll take 30yrs worth of personal experience with dead bodies over the limited experience of a trauma surgeon, who probably has no interest whatsoever in terminal ballistics.

The .45ACP is a 100 yard round, and after 100 yards loses enough velocity that it will not expand, will not cause hydrostatic shock, and drops like a rock.

You need more than 100yd range for home defense???

When you start dropping "varmint cartridge" in reference to the .223, it becomes clear that you are ignorant to the round and its capabilities.

Really??? So actually using the cartridge on live flesh is no longer valid experience???

I said the .223 is an excellent varmint cartridge, is it not?

The .223 will overpenetrate less than the .45 in a HD situation. This in itself is critical.

Far from critical, bordering on insignificant.

Again, this is not an arguable opinion. This is fact.

Based on what, exactly?

If a shoulder mounted .45 were more effective in house clearing operations, the U.S. military would issue a shoulder mounted .45 weapon for house clearing, but they do not.

So the military is going to issue one rifle for clearing houses and another for clearing streets? How is this even a relevant point? If you are comfortable with the government making your self defense choices for you, that is your prerogative.

A bullpup in a pistol caliber would not offer the same advantages as a bullpup in a rifle caliber, as sticking the action behind the pistol grip does not save you a significant amount of length in a pistol caliber as it does in a rifle caliber.

Reading comprehension not your thing either??? 10" is not significant???

"P90 with 10.4" barrel is 19.9" overall.
MP5 with 8.9" barrel is 27.0" extended.
MP7 with 7" is 25.1" extended."

 

[silicosys4]

I'll take 30yrs worth of personal experience with dead bodies over the limited experience of a trauma surgeon, who probably has no interest whatsoever in terminal ballistics. [/I]

And your limited personal experience means nothing compared to that of a trauma surgeon. Are you a trauma surgeon? Have you studied even ONE wound channel in a human?
Lets see you release a paper about wound channels with your impeccable credentials and massive experience and see what the reception is in the medical community.

You need more than 100yd range for home defense???[/I]

Oh, I thought we were talking about "around the homestead" as you mentioned. As the bar moves, so do the required capabilities.

Really??? So actually using the cartridge on live flesh is no longer valid experience??? [/I]

No matter what you may feel, your experiences do not render you more knowledgeable about gunshot wounds than a trauma surgeon, and I've read several reports by ER trauma surgeons about the effectiveness of rifles vs pistols that directly contradict your assertions. I tend to take them as a better reference than you.

I said the .223 is an excellent varmint cartridge, is it not?[/I]

Lets not play coy. You were obviously denouncing the .223 as suitable for nothing more.

The .223 is a great varmint cartridge when you need to bust a coyote at 300yds but shooting a perpetrator across the room is a different game[/I]

Far from critical, bordering on insignificant.[/I]

Concerning overpenetration....Go tell your neighbors that. I know what mine would say.

Based on what, exactly?[/I]

Evidence and results, particularly from those who have more experience with such things...like trauma surgeons, for instance.

So the military is going to issue one rifle for clearing houses and another for clearing streets? How is this even a relevant point? If you are comfortable with the government making your self defense choices for you, that is your prerogative.[/I]

I don't let the government make my sd decisions for me. I watch what works for others, and the military is a primary source of info for that sort of thing. Do you have a multi billion dollar budget for testing munitions and conducting studies? Have you fielded tens of thousands of weapons of each caliber in several war zones, enflicting serious casualties on the enemy?
Didn't think so.

Reading comprehension not your thing either??? 10" is not significant???

"P90 with 10.4" barrel is 19.9" overall.
MP5 with 8.9" barrel is 27.0" extended.
MP7 with 7" is 25.1" extended."

None of these matters in the least for us civilians. Once the 16" barrel is added they are all pretty close to an AR15.

 

[CraigC]

And your limited personal experience means nothing compared to that of a trauma surgeon.

Does your average trauma surgeon study terminal ballistics? Or do they just fix holes in people? I never said rifles don't do more damage or that they don't make bigger wounds. Like I said, had you spent a little time actually applying bullets to flesh, you wouldn't be preaching about the superiority of rifles with such conviction. You don't think I know the difference? The difference is that I KNOW what difference the difference makes and you only read about it. As I've said all along, whatever the advantage is, I'm giving it up because I don't believe it's enough to overcome the disadvantages. Like I said, the .45ACP is perfectly capable and that's all that matters. If you want to defend your home with a .300WinMag because "it's more effective", be my guest.

Oh, I thought we were talking about "around the homestead" as you mentioned. As the bar moves, so do the required capabilities.

What???

I've read several reports by ER trauma surgeons about the effectiveness of rifles vs pistols that directly contradict your assertions.

What assertion would that be? That it's not enough to make up for the drawbacks of firing them indoors?

Lets not play coy. You were obviously denouncing the .223 as suitable for nothing more.

You're obviously reading way more into my comments than was intended.

Go ask your neighbors that. I know what mine would say.

What assumptions have you made now???

Evidence and results, particularly from those who have more experience with such things...like trauma surgeons, for instance.

What evidence?

Do you have a multi billion dollar budget for testing munitions and conducting studies?

Are you restricted to FMJ's due to international treaties??? Do you have to orchestrate logistics for millions of personnel? Do politics factor into your decision? Are you tied to a long term contract after making your choice? You obviously are willing to take things on face value without ever actually thinking about them. Different game, different rules, different parameters, different needs, different options. Very, very, very little common ground.

None of these matters in the least for us civilians. Once the 16" barrel is added they are all pretty close to an AR15.

Another lesson in math and reading comprehension. You said that pistol cartridges don't yield much of a reduction in length for bullpups. The info provided clearly and handily refutes that. Not just a couple inches but nearly a foot! Bumping them up to 16" barrels doesn't change that. The two HK's are going to be 34" and the PS90 only 26". The PS90 is still 9" shorter than a 16" AR. Is that not simple enough?

 

[ttarp]

Ok, yall are taking this way too personally.

The reason there are so few pistol caliber bullpups is for two primary reasons.

1. Bullpups themselves are viewed with suspicion and trepidation by many, partly because they're just different, partly because they cost as much as a basic BCM AR.

2. The mindset of todays shooter is if anything other than an AR/.223 is brought up, it must prove that it has some distinct/major advantage over the .223 AR. The concept of having something different because you simply like it better is foreign to many.

Thats my take on this mess of a thread anyway.