Why pistol cartridges in a rifle?

[vito]

Other than the convenience of having to stock less varieties of ammunition, what is the reason for having rifles that fire handgun ammunition? It would seem that one gives up the advantages of the more powerful rifle round for the lesser powerful handgun round, even with the longer barrel as compared to a handgun. Is it just the novelty, or is just to make the handgun ammo seem more flexible in it use? Not being a rifle guy I think I may be missing something here but maybe you folks could enlighten me.

 

[35fan]

I find them fun to shoot! Very little recoil, and very accurate. I enjoy shooting squirrels and rabbits with a pistol, the same round in a short rifle extends my killing range and gives me offhand shooting practice with a rifle.

 

[jmorris]

You don't always want or need a 50 BMG or 30-06 to get the job done but might want a little more than a .22lr.

A pistol caliber carbine can be pretty handy in some cases and they cost less to feed in general.

 

[zb338]

The latest interest in cowboy shooting has forced the gun companies to produce lever action rifles chambered for pistol cartridges. There are people that just want rifles to
shoot at targets and tin cans in the back yard. .22 rimfire gets a little boring so guys want something with a little more snap than a .22. Some guys hunt deer in the woods
and a nice light little .44 magnum or a .357 is perfect for that stuff and for keeping in the back of a truck. Pistol cartridges are easy to load on modern loading equipment.
You can cast bullets and it's really quite inexpensive. I could go on and on, but the best reason is "I just want one".

Zeke

 

[Tommygunn]

Back in the 19th century when repeater rifles were developed it became common to have a revolver and a repeater in the same caliber. Leveractions were new then and it would take awhile to develop them into mechanisms that could withstand powerful calibers that the singles hot dropping block style and rolling blocks could easily use.
Today, people like the pistol caliber levers like the Rossi 92 and others for their utility, ease of use, accuracy over their pistol counterparts, and then there are the cowboy action shooters.
With modern rifles that chamber the .30 caliber centerfire calibers this utility does not exist. I've seen revolvers in .30-30.....but was never anxious to fire them. Then think what a .30-'06 handgun would be like.

 

[GBExpat]

I have a Marlin 1894S .44 lever-action rifle that is (as jmorris mentioned) a handy complement to my S&W 629 .44 during walkarounds.

I also have several vintage .32-20 pistols and a Marlin 27S pump-action rifle in .32-20 that provide me with handy pairs for walking the farm ... but in that case one could argue that the pistols are actually firing rifle cartridges, albeit of relatively low power.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I wanted a suppressed carbine, and .45ACP is subsonic so that made the most sense. .300 Blackout would work too, but since velocity will be the same I'd prefer the larger diameter, hollowpoint designed to work at subsonic velocities, and cheaper cost.

 

[MachIVshooter]

They are of limited utility, but are fun, and do have certain rolls they can fill well. Derek mentioned one of the primary advantages; At subsonic velocities, hollowpoint handgun rounds are both cheaper and more effective than subsonic .223, .300 BLK or similar.

In certain applications, having ammo and even magazine compatibility with your side arm is useful as well.

They can be good for small game hunting, providing far more practical accuracy than a handgun while offering a decided advantage in power over rimfire without the destructive tendencies of high velocity rifle rounds. It's hard to hit a 10 pound critter at 100 yards with a pistol, .22 LR may not anchor the larger small game critters very well, and rifle rounds just about turn them inside-out, which is no bueno if you want pelt or meat.

They're also a lot less blasty than rifle rounds, which appeals if you aren't suppressed, particularly if you're shooting in a more settled area. Massive difference in report between 9mm, .40, .45, etc from a rifle and .223 or 7.62x39mm.

 

[bannockburn]

vito

For me having a pistol caliber carbine in the same chambering as most of my single action revolvers (.45 Colt), just makes sense from a logistics standpoint. They go great together, especially on long hikes through the backwoods.

 

[jmr40]

You answered your own question. The ability to shoot the same ammo in a rifle and handgun is the only real reason. Most of the time you'll get a little more speed and a lot more accuracy when fired from a rifle or carbine.

 

[jmorris]

I keep one upstairs for when my game radio by the chicken coop goes off.

The suppressed 9mm loaded with 147's works great on coyotes and doesn't wake anyone up when shot from inside the house.

The subsonic bullets were intended to be driven at those speeds, unlike my 300 blk. Have enough energy to do the job and less recoil than my 458 socom and uses less powder and cheaper projectiles than either.

 

[Zebraranger]

vito

For me having a pistol caliber carbine in the same chambering as most of my single action revolvers (.45 Colt), just makes sense from a logistics standpoint. They go great together, especially on long hikes through the backwoods.

Same here, with using the same mags.

 

[Cannibul]

In some states they are the only rifles legal for hunting.

 

[Jason_W]

In addition to the practicality of having a long gun and hand gun that take the same round, as a hand loader, the revolver cal rifles are very versatile and I like that.

I can load light, fun, rounds that I can shoot all day without fatigue or will punch a clean hole in a small game animal without vaporizing it, or I can ramp things up for lager game.

A .44 mag, for instance, when appropriately loaded, is moose capable if ranges aren't to great.

It's also pretty easy to get ultra bored with "standard" rifle rounds. I'll catch a lot of flack for saying so, but the darlings of the American shooting and hunting world are just so milquetoast. If the .30-06 was a dinner, it would be overdone meatloaf and bland mashed potatoes. The .223 would be a greasy bag of McDonald's cheeseburgers.

 

[bannockburn]

Zebraranger

Nice Beretta combo there! That would probably be the same route I would take if I were looking for a pistol/carbine pairing in 9mm.

 

[1stmarine]

- Self defense in close quarters w/o worrying to kill someone next town over.
- Some can exchange pistol mags therefore providing more versatility yet delivering additional speed and accuracy
- Can practice more with low recoil and less dollars.
- Cartridge consolidation / simplification
- Easier to suppress for very quiet operation
- Some are very easy to convert giving additional versatility.
- Some pistol rounds provide plenty of power but w/o rifle speeds and associated blast ... 357sig, 9x25 dillon, 30 carbine +P, 7.62x25, 300 whisper/blackout, 10mm, etc...

 

[J-Bar]

Because you can do this with pistol cartridges in a rifle:

http://spencerhoglund.com/files/Video.MOV

 

[CraigC]

First thing we need to do is dispense with the idea that rifle cartridges are "more powerful" than magnum revolver cartridges. The notion of "power" is usually measured in kinetic energy, which places far too much importance on velocity. Inside 125yds, a .300Mag is not going to kill deer any deader than a .44Mag levergun. It will destroy more meat due to its velocity and rapidly expanding bullet but it won't work any better. Or even handle bigger critters. All the velocity gains you is range and more impressive energy figures that are only good as a marketing tool.

The pistol cartridge levergun is easier to hit with than a pistol and at greater ranges. It is plenty potent for virtually anything you might want to hunt. The added velocity gains you range over a handgun. It will typically be lighter than most full size rifles, shorter, have less recoil and less muzzle blast. They're also faster to manipulate than a boltgun. Big bore revolver bullets don't have to expand to be effective. A .44 or .45 cast bullet from a levergun is a whole lot more effective than a .300 that doesn't do what it's supposed to. They're also a lot more fun to shoot and practice with.

As a fighting rifle, they tend to have higher capacities, whether lever or auto. Less recoil means quicker follow-up shots. It also means they're friendlier to more slightly built shooters, such as the lady of the house or your children. Less blast means no blood from the ears if you have to use them indoors against an intruder.

The ability to shoot the same ammo in a rifle and handgun is the only real reason.

No it isn't. It's one of several.

 

[Varminterror]

Overall, I've been a fan of pistol-cartridge carbines since I was a kid; whether they were leverguns, bolt guns, or semiautomatics.

The two basic "types" are effectively divided by the cartridge types for which they are chambered - rimless cartridge autoloaders, and rimmed revolver cartridge autoloaders, bolts, and leverguns - of course, leverguns being the most common in this bunch. The cartridge types tend to dictate the utility of the carbine.

The revolver cartridge carbines tend to have greater utility than their autoloading rimless cartridge carbine cousins, obviously due to their greater power factor. We've recently seen a 44mag carbine thread here (which not surprisingly got pretty heated), noting utilizable range beyond the average hunter's typical need for "hunting range" of 0-100, maybe 150yrds. If a guy is the type to fancy a levergun, then he's also likely the type to fancy something different in his cartridge choice too - which I favor as the driving reason the BLR never took off, nor the Marlin Express cartridges, compared to the Win 94 and Marlin 1984 and their kin. The Ruger 77 Rotary series enjoyed a good following in its day (hate to see it go), and the old Deerfields really were a force in themselves - but obviously neither served large enough market to self-sustain, so it's the leverguns which prevail.

Rimless Pistol cartridge carbines are a bit different for practical utility. While I've hunted extensively with pistol cartridge carbines, it's a very specific application with strict limitations. For size, weight, and cost, the range is drastically limited compared to traditional hunting fare, even compared to revolver cartridge carbines. A 9mm carbine (or better still, a 357sig!) is quite likely the most effective "feed lot gun" I've ever used. It's application for deer is sparsely better than that of a pistol, very short range proposition. Precision for small game is typically lacking compared to rimfire firearms. For "tactical" applications, I don't tend to see semiautomatic 9mm carbines having much advantage at all over rifle cartridges, other than cheaper ammunition cost potential. They're effective, no doubt, but not as much so as a more versatile rifle cartridge carbine. In sub-machinegun application, I can be convinced the story is different.

In any form, I very much enjoy pistol and revolver cartridge carbines, and especially love painting myself into limited range hunts where I can use them.

 

[Malamute]

Back in the 19th century when repeater rifles were developed it became common to have a revolver and a repeater in the same caliber. Leveractions were new then and it would take awhile to develop them into mechanisms that could withstand powerful calibers that the singles hot dropping block style and rolling blocks could easily use.

Most other points I was thinking of were covered, so I'll pick on you in the name of history.

Actually, the pistol in the same caliber didn't happen until 1878, when Colt first began chambering their revolvers for the 44 WCF cartridge. Winchester was making fairly impressive repeaters in larger calibers in 1876 with that years model, made in 40-60(65?), 45-60, 45-75, and 50-95 calibers. Marlin wasn't far behind with its 1881 model in 45-70 and others.

The interchangeable pistol and rifle loads was handy, but the small calibers werent great for larger animals or longer range compared to the heavier calibers often used in single shots and the 76.

We often describe it as pistol calibers in rifles, but the 44 WCF(44-40), 38 WCF (38-40) and 32 WCF (32-20) are and were rifle calibers adapted to pistols. It was the reverse when the 357 and 44 mags came about. Very late in the game (1980s?), the 45 Colt started being made in rifles.

Shooting light loads in rifles is fun, doesn't bother neighbors or attract much attention when shooting varmints or pests about the home place. Being able to load them with carbide dies speeds and simplifies reloading compared to most rifles calibers and dies, and cast bullets generally work well, helping shoot more for less money. There are apparently some shooting ranges that don't allow rifles to be shot, a pistol caliber rifle/carbine solves that problem. They've become more common in modern shoots where such rules are in effect.

As many have found, despite being somewhat limited in power/range compared to other rifle chamberings, a pistol caliber rifles is often "enough" to do whatever the job is.

 

[MachIVshooter]

First thing we need to do is dispense with the idea that rifle cartridges are "more powerful" than magnum revolver cartridges. The notion of "power" is usually measured in kinetic energy, which places far too much importance on velocity. Inside 125yds, a .300Mag is not going to kill deer any deader than a .44Mag levergun. It will destroy more meat due to its velocity and rapidly expanding bullet but it won't work any better. Or even handle bigger critters. All the velocity gains you is range and more impressive energy figures that are only good as a marketing tool.

C'mon, Craig. You know better than that! You even counter your own argument within the same paragraph:

It will destroy more meat due to its velocity and rapidly expanding bullet but it won't work any better.

That is precisely what makes high velocity rifle cartridges more lethal. The velocity, not KE, is what creates the huge permanent cavities associated with HV rifle rounds that are not present at handgun bullet velocities.

And even if you do go with kinetic energy as your measure, even the most powerful handgun cartridges are considerably less "powerful" than common rifle rounds; The .44 mag, loaded hot as can be, develops only 2/3 the muzzle energy of a .270, .280, .30-06. And at range, even relatively close range, the disparity widens very quickly. .30-30 and .44 mag are pretty comparable at the muzzle in rifles, but at 100 yards, the .30-30 has a decided advantage in both trajectory and KE. At 200 the gap is huge.

Even the gargantuan .500 S&W mag can barely eclipse .30-06 energy levels at the muzzle, and the ol' '06 will overtake it at 100-150 yards.

PCCs have their place, but they simply do not compare to high velocity rifle rounds for energy, range or lethality.

 

[CraigC]

I contradicted nothing. A .300WinMag with a light, rapidly expanding bullet is going to destroy more edible meat than a .250Savage with a 100gr Barnes but will it kill deer any deader? No. Will either kill a deer any deader than a 900fps .45Colt load? No, dead is dead. The rifle cartridges simply have more effective range.

Like I said, energy is a poor gauge, useless in my opinion and your own post proves this. Why? Because cartridges producing vastly divergent levels of it are just as effective in some examples, while those producing comparable levels are vastly divergent in their game taking ability in other examples. In your own example, sure the .30-06 and .500S&W may produce similar energy levels but which makes a better dangerous game cartridge? The `06 if you believe in myths and pixie dust. The .500 if you believe in actual results.

 

[MachIVshooter]

like I said, energy is a poor gauge, useless in my opinion and your own post proves this.

You did not say that. You said:

The notion of "power" is usually measured in kinetic energy, which places far too much importance on velocity

I know that KE is pretty meaningless on it's own. I also know that this:

All the velocity gains you is range and more impressive energy figures that are only good as a marketing tool.

is a half truth. Yes, energy is used as a marketing tool. That's the true part. The statement that the only thing higher velocity does it increase energy is flat out wrong. If you don't believe me, then believe Dr. Martin Fackler or any number of other external ballistics experts who have demonstrated, documented and explained the lethality difference between handgun velocities and rifle velocities.

In your own example, sure the .30-06 and .500S&W may produce similar energy levels but which makes a better dangerous game cartridge? The `06 if you believe in myths and pixie dust. The .500 if you believe in actual results.

You wouldn't catch me using either for DG. That's like saying what's better for hauling lumber, a sedan or convertible? Neither is appropriate.

 

[Llama Bob]

Other than the convenience of having to stock less varieties of ammunition, what is the reason for having rifles that fire handgun ammunition?

Well, sometimes you want to combine the bulk and slow deployment of a rifle with the poor exterior and terminal ballistics of a pistol round. Sort of a worst of all possible worlds rig. Actually, you got me - I have no idea why anyone buys them.

There are some magnum pistol cartridges that overlap with light rifle cartridges in terms of functionality - those are a bit different.

 

[redneck2]

Up until this year, pistol caliber rifles were the only ones legal for deer here (with a very few goofy exceptions). My hunting partner killed a 183 score buck with a single shot from a .44 mag Ruger Deerfield.