Author Topic: Pistol caliber carbines.  (Read 6592 times)

Dave_M

  • Guest
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2011, 07:38:55 PM »
Unless it's select fire, no, I don't see a reason.

Ghost

  • Guest
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2011, 09:07:53 PM »
Way down the WROL road I could see having a revolver and a levergun in the same caliber, you'll be reloading staight cases with homemade powder, hardcast bullets on remanufactered primers so having a closed bolt will help you get more power out of the round and revolvers work.
I've been looking at that option actually.

Dave_M

  • Guest
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2011, 10:01:07 PM »
I would like to quantify my answer a little bit:

Ever since we had both longarms and pistols, we've been looking for an, 'in-between'. Through the years these have come in many forms. Early forms were short muskets and rifles. Later on they were relatively low-powered rifles with revolving cylinders.

Pre and post WWI pistols with rifle stocks were the answer (like the C96 Mauser and later the BHP). Right around and during WWII the submachinegun was concurrently developed in many different nations with several different designs.

During WWII, the first sub and assault rifles were developed. The US wanted a new PDW. It is notable that the M1 carbine was initially thought up as a pistol. However, the learning curve of a pistol was too was steep so a short rifle was developed. Of course, we all know about the German STG-44.

Post WWII we got into the idea that very small rounds at a very high cyclic rate would be just as effective at close range as a rifle with a slower cyclic rate due to cumulative damage. The most extreme example of this is the American-180 (.22lr at 1200RPM with drums ranging in capacity from 165 to 275 rounds each).

Right around the same time, more modern designs were developed (the Uzi dates from 1950 and the MP5 from the mid-60's). These stayed in favor until the late 1990's/early 2000's. Since then, M4's and CQBR's have come more into favor for several reasons:
-Better long range capability
-Better ballistics at short range
-Reduced risk of collateral damage
-Overall more flexible platform which is easier to adapt to dynamic situations

These are the reasons why federal, state, and local entry teams have switched from MP5's to shorty M16's. It is conspicuous that new rounds and projectiles have been developed to increase lethality and effectiveness at both short and long range even when utilizing a short barrel (such as the Mk318 Mod 0 SOST 5.56)

The PDW/carbine continues to evolve and will do so long into the future. One of the reasons I dislike PCC's in general and full size, non-FA PCC's in particular is the following:
-Pistol rounds use a fast burning powder. Any rifling beyond maximum powder burn hinders, not helps, ballistics.
-If you're going to shoot a target multiple times with a lower powered round (which is the intent) it makes sense to do so as fast as possible--this is where FA shines.

For example: When using something like an IMI Uzi with a 16" barrel and then SBR it to proper length (10.2") group sizes are reduced. This is because of the first point about fast powder and also because a shorter barrel of the same diameter is stiffer and therefore less prone to flexing.
[/long winded]

Yep. I don't see a point outside of FA. Even then (I own a registered FA Mac) it'll be the SBR AR first.

Offline Currahee

  • Senior Prepper
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Karma: +9/-1
  • "Stands Alone"
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2011, 11:52:37 PM »
I think they have a very limited usefulness.  If you can't have optimal defensive rifles where you live (AK/AR types) then a pistol caliber lever gun might be a good idea - carry more ammo and easier to hit with at range then a shotgun, and of course less recoil.  You might be in to CAS, and then it would really be optimal.  However, a semi high capacity rifle beats one in most any category.

I have a KelTec Sub2000 which has some serious advantages though - It easily folds into a briefcase and it takes my Glock magazines and on range days with my wife we can shoot it at the pistol range (she's not into rifle shooting.)  So it is a good thing to have in the car on trips and it is her primary in a SHTF event.  It was also pretty cheap.

There might be a set of resons like this why one would be good for you.
Every citizen should be a soldier.  This was the case for the Greeks and Romans ans must be that of every free state. - T Jefferson

Offline themighty9mm

  • Novice Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2011, 09:59:02 PM »
I think it greatly depends on ones situation. I know alot of places around the city are limited to pistol calibers only at the shooting range (indoor). In this case I think it is a great idea. Extended range, the longer barrel will give higher velocities, more controll andin the average shooters hands will be more accurate than a pistol of the same caliber. Another situation may be cost savings. As it is far better to be proficient with a pistol caliber carine that you can shoot often than a rifle caliber that you never or hardly ever shoot because you simply cant afford to. Also where applicaple the option to use the same mags is very convenient. Then to go back along with cost saving, it could be a cost savings trainer. Giving somewhat similar recoil, and near if not identical manual of arms as its rifle caliber companion. Also a good trainer for many indoor ranges
.

Offline Currahee

  • Senior Prepper
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Karma: +9/-1
  • "Stands Alone"
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2011, 10:09:48 PM »
I would rather see a pistol caliber carbine than a rifle caliber pistol ie draco or pistol AR
Every citizen should be a soldier.  This was the case for the Greeks and Romans ans must be that of every free state. - T Jefferson

Offline rah45

  • Community Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Live Free, or Die.
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2011, 10:30:22 PM »
Wow. I'm diggin' the info on this thread. Personally, unless you're looking at TEOTWAWKI permanently, I don't see a great need for this. Rifles will suit me for a long arm. Anything less powerful than a 5.56 isn't worth carrying, IMO (whatever little it's worth).

Dave_M

  • Guest
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2011, 12:19:24 AM »
Extended range, the longer barrel will give higher velocities

Not really and not always. Pistols use very fast burning powders. As such, once full powder burn is achieved, the rifling only serves to slow down the projectile via friction rather than help it.

Offline themighty9mm

  • Novice Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pistol caliber carbines.
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2011, 11:34:16 PM »
Extended range, the longer barrel will give higher velocities

Not really and not always. Pistols use very fast burning powders. As such, once full powder burn is achieved, the rifling only serves to slow down the projectile via friction rather than help it.

Not really extended range in the average shooters hand? From what I have seen it has proven true. More stability and longer sight radius and the average, from what I have seen can acheive longer distance shots with far more frequency. While I have not chronoed pistol bullets from a carbine barrel I remember seeing a web page that had. In almost all cases IIRC the velocity from the carbine barrel was a few houndred fps faster than that from a pistol barrel. It may not always prove to be true and I'm sure many of cases where you are right. Judging based on that website (can't remember the page, figures right?) the info is mostly true. To go with that I do not recal the barrel length for the carbine data. For a civillian 16 inch barrel, your data may very well prove to be more often true than mine. For the most part
.