A Carbine in 9mm or .40? Are they Worth It?

[smince]

I have used a PCC (pistol-caliber carbine) for HD for years. I realize the limits of the weapon and live with it. Fire a rifle in your bedroom and see how that sounds (yeah, I know-we always have time to grab our electronic hearing protection ).

If you want them for something serious, and want serious performance from them, then you want a full auto gun.

Most of the sub-gun courses I've heard and read about use semi in 95% of the class. F/A is fun and has it's (limited) uses.

 

[bikerdoc]

my kind of thread. I like pistol caliber carbines

I own a

9mm Ruger PC 9

Hi-point 995

Marlin 357 lever gun

Good for HD sure but so is my Mossberg 20''.

Remember it is not the tool it is the mechanic.

 

[Centaur 1]

My son was thinking about buying the cx storm, but he decided to buy a 9mm upper for his AR-15. The gun is fun to shoot and since it's a pistol caliber we can shoot it at our local indoor range. I cast my own bullets, so I can reload the 9mm for under $50 per thousand rounds. I doubt that it would ever happen, but in a doomsday scenario it makes sense to have a high capacity rifle that shoots the same caliber ammo as my pistol.

 

[AK103K]

Fire a rifle in your bedroom and see how that sounds (yeah, I know-we always have time to grab our electronic hearing protection ).

Fire ANYTHING in your bedroom, or any room in your house for that matter, and its not going to matter after the first shot. I know it wont for me, the crickets in my head are screaming right now, and its quiet. One .22LR fired from my Mosquito, while shooting a critter in my carport, and I had trouble hearing people talking to me for a couple of days, and that was basically outdoors.

Most of the sub-gun courses I've heard and read about use semi in 95% of the class. F/A is fun and has it's (limited) uses.

Yes, there are usually specific uses and places for it, and at the the ranges most home defense scenarios occur, it would be one of them, or at least I'd use mine in that capacity. If you can shoot the target onces with a pistol caliber gun, you can shoot it two or three times with the same pull of the trigger with the SMG. Which do you think will be more effective?

Still, even though I have the choice, I'd still prefer one of my red dotted AK's over anything else. Basically the same size gun as the others, and I prefer to be able to shoot through things if I choose to do so.

 

[briansmithwins]

you can shoot it two or three times with the same pull of the trigger with the SMG.

The problem is that the shooting 'victim' (you know, the guy that broke into your house) is going to have a team of lawyers analyzing the effects of every bullet you fired, SA or FA. When their expert witness testifies that the 1st round that hit the 'victim' was incapacitating (but probably non-lethal) and that round 2-4 killed him, you might be in for a prosecution that you could have avoided.

Outside of a TEOTWAWKI situation, you're going to be judged on EVERY round you send downrange.

BSW

 

[AK103K]

You can argue the "every round downrange" thing no matter what the weapon. One pull of the trigger on a shotgun usually sends more than one pull on the SMG. The results are usually the same or similar though.

If you have just cause to defend yourself, and its declared a justifiable shooting afterward, the weapon you use, no matter what it is, may or may not cause you grief in a civil suit, if it ever gets to that, who knows. You can worry yourself to death over what "might could happen". Hopefully, you dont just worry yourself into being dead, because you hesitated over whether or not to pull the trigger, becasue the weapon at hand at the moment things happened, isnt an approved or preferred weapon on the bad guy shooting list.

If youre worried about the type of weapon you use, and what "might" occur afterward because of it, then maybe you shouldnt use any, and just accept the fact you need to be a victim. If you survive, and your lucky enough that your assailant should be caught, you can have your lawyer go on the offensive and go after them for the same thing you'd have us worry about.

 

[EAJ]

Fun, inexpensive to shoot, and as a bonus, legal on most indoor pistol ranges.

Beretta CX 4 Storm 9mm Carbine

Bushmaster Carbon 15 9mm Carbine

 

[esheato]

Worth it? Yes, although mine is usually a 75 yard and under plinking gun.

Unbelievably fun, cheap and as simple as an AR to accessorize. 32 round magazines sure help ya burn through the ammo though.

Prolly the best 2k I've spent yet. LOL

RRA LAR-9, Larue UDE furniture and rail, EOtech.

 

[Aaron2091]

Ranch gun...? 9mm will just piss off a hog...will kill a coyote though. Pistol calibers in general are normally only good to 100 yds.

6.5 Grendel or .260 Rem would work as a ranch rifle and kill just about anything you would run into.
.223/5.56 would work for plinking and is relatively cheap but dont try to kill hogs with it. Even the 69 gr stuff doesnt work very well.
I know some proud American gun enthusiasts aren't gonna like this but an 7.62 x 39 would work well as a ranch rifle and is good for 200+ yds or so.

 

[LoonWulf]

Ive been looking at a keltech or Hi-point for a while. .30 carbs are popular here as pig guns, but they are both pricy and ive already got .9mm rounds. Id really like to get an older ruger .44, that would be a nice gun for what id like to do with it.

 

[PT1911]

I have a puma 92 in 45 colt... I LIKE IT!!!!

I also want the Ruger 44 carbine... (tube fed older model NOT the newer detachable mag.)

 

[nwilliams]

9mm carbines are loads of fun!

I have an IMI Uzi and MKE AT-94 that I wouldn't consider parting with! Eventually I'd love to turn them both into SBR's but I haven't gotten around to going through the process yet.

MKE.....


IMI Uzi with dummy barrel installed.....

 

[zebco]

Thanks to everyone for their input. I appreciate the responses. Still undecided though.

 

[NWCP]

I have an HK USC in .45ACP. Within the confines of a house out to 75 yards it would be an effective weapon. Given my druthers I'd grab the shotgun for home use, but the carbine has its place.

 

[cleardiddion]

I had a Hi-point 995 a few years back.
Basically it played numerous roles that I've relegated to other guns now.
Plinking, varminting, HD/SD were a few of the roles that it played.

The nice thing I've found out about the pistol caliber carbines/uppers is that they are in many cases cheaper than many other arms used for the same purpose.
As many others have pointed out, the ammo cost (especially if you shoot a lot) can be significant. Cheaper ammo = more shooting = more fun/practice.
Less muzzle flash and recoil helped in learning to shoot and helped many another person at the range.
It was easy for me to store in my car with a few mags just in case the world went pear shaped.

Overall, they're economical and relatively efficient arms that'll do most tasks that you ask of them as long as you're aware of their limitations.

 

[zhyla]

I dunno, I think they have an advantage over handguns (easier to operate/aim under stress, especially for the untrained). I'd rather have an AK than a 9mm or .45 carbine, though the AK is going to weigh a bit more.

What is HK pushing these days? The USC? They're kind of the king of pistol caliber carbines.

 

[UnTainted]

The problem is that the shooting 'victim' (you know, the guy that broke into your house) is going to have a team of lawyers analyzing the effects of every bullet you fired, SA or FA. When their expert witness testifies that the 1st round that hit the 'victim' was incapacitating (but probably non-lethal) and that round 2-4 killed him, you might be in for a prosecution that you could have avoided.

Outside of a TEOTWAWKI situation, you're going to be judged on EVERY round you send downrange.

BSW

I love your choice of words: might be in for a prosecution.

Oh boy, I'm scared now because some lawyer somewhere is going to determine that the first shot incapacitated him anatomically. That's not what matters. What matters is what the shooter (home defender) percieved, and whether his response for each moment of perception was reasonable, i.e., being what a reasonable person would do in the scenario.

Now, if I shoot a person that has broken into my house, say, in keeping with the thread, with a 124g 9mm +p in a carbine, and the round impacts him in the chest, and he stumbles back into the wall, the lawyer at this point may anatomically be able to prove that this hit was "sufficient to incapacitate." Well, sufficient, huh? That's about all he'll be able to prove. Cause when the guy looks back up at me, leaning on the wall, and strains to lift his arm holding a weapon, shots two, three, and four will already have been fired, and five, six, and seven will be heading his way.

Until he is on the ground not moving.

Yes, that is reasonably what LETHAL FORCE affords. When you use lethal force, you can expect lethality, you can even attempt to achieve it. Shoot to kill isn't against the law, because you're using lethal force. It's the nature of the affirmative defense known as self defense.

If he's on the ground, unconscious and not moving, and then you put one in the noggin, that's not reasonable, now, is it? Nope.

On the ground motionless is where I'd draw the line to stop firing, maybe. It'll depend on my perception. If I think he's faking it (and another person would do so in my shoes), and it may be possible, a noggin shot is reasonable.

To sum up, if you have the right to use lethal force, use it. Let's get away from the "shoot-to-wound" or "shoot once, look and see" theories. They just put your life at risk unnecessarily. The last thing you should be worried about when shooting justifiably is this wives' tale about what a lawyer will do cause you killed the person instead of maiming them.

 

[General Geoff]

Yes, that is reasonably what LETHAL FORCE affords. When you use lethal force, you can expect lethality, you can even attempt to achieve it. Shoot to kill isn't against the law, because you're using lethal force.

This is bad advice. Never, ever shoot to kill; it will get you convicted for first or second degree murder, regardless of circumstances.

The reason behind using lethal force for self defense is to neutralize an attacker. Lethal force just happens to more reliably stop threats than many other, non-lethal types of force. Death caused by said lethal force is merely a potential side effect of its use in a self defense situation. The point (and the reason you fired) is that you stopped your attacker; no more, no less. Intent is everything.

 

[nelsonal]

Thanks for the opinions so far. I have mixed feelings right now about getting the Keltec. I'm sure it would be fun, but otherwise not sure of the purpose. I can see the home defense argument, although a high-capacity pistol or a shotgun should be fine. Does the longer barrel length actually add to the performance of the 9mm or .40? Or is it more of the better accuracy?

Ballistics by the inch puts it at under 200 fps from a full fram 5-6" barrel in 9mm and 150 or so for the .40 s&w.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/40sw.htmlhttp://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9mmluger.html
Real world guns are below the by the inch tables.

 

[briansmithwins]

Let's get away from the "shoot-to-wound" or "shoot once, look and see" theories. They just put your life at risk unnecessarily.

Agree 100%. I was never advocating shoot to wound or fire one, look. But, you do have to be aware of what the bad guy is doing too. If he's like one guy I saw shot, he took a (superficial) hit from a .25ACP and decided to lay down. Was he seriously injured? No. Was his assaultive behavior stopped? Yes. The shooter lost the justification for using deadly force to defend himself when his attacker dropped.

If somebody drops from your 1st hit and they aren't providing an immediate threat to life or of serious bodily injury anymore you can't shoot them. The scope for deadly force doesn’t increase just because you've shot someone.

To try to get back to the OP's original question: I'd (almost) always prefer a intermediate rifle cartridge (5.56 NATO or 7.62x39) to any pistol cal carbine. The wounding effects of good ammo in either rifle cartridge are just tremendously better than .45ACP, 40S&W, or 9mmP. BSW

 

[Kwanger]

I love my Sub2k - its a great little shooter, 'milk jug accurate' at 100 yards and folds in half to fit in a small daysack. If you have a pistol in one of the magazine configurations it takes, huge bonus. A 9mm carbine will never be anywhere near as good as a proper rifle, but that's not the aim. If you went to a pistol fight with one, on the other hand, you'd clean house. They definatley have their place....personally I think the sub2k more than the other options due to the compactness and mag interchangability.
,

 

[blitzen]

UnTainted, I like your thinkin!

 

[DNS]

I've got a 9mm Kel Tec and its a fun little toy. I wouldn't consider it a real hunting rifle but wild dogs, coyote, nutria, etc, don't stand a chance. I use it as an alternative to carrying a 22 mag riflle.

Mike

 

[stiletto raggio]

I own a KT Sub 2000 and CX4s in both 9mm and .40. The KT is the lightest, and when stowed, the most compact. Compactness is the only reason I still have it. It is rather uncomfortable to fire and it chews up the brass bad enough that it cannot be reloaded (this is why they specifically state that aluminum cases should never be used). It is the least effective centerfire "long gun" that I own, but I would rather use it at 50 yards than a pistol.

The CX4s have good sights, decent triggers, excellent ergonomics, light recoil and an abundance of high-quality accessories. 17 round PX4 .40 mags and Mec-Gar 20 round 92 mags are my mags of choice because they are high capacity and protrude just enough to make reloading easy. These are also my mags of choice for the accompanying pistols, so it makes the logistics easy. The .40 being a high-pressure round and having a larger bore than the 9mm, I think it sees a significant gain in velocity. The .40 is definitely my favorite pistol-caliber carbine, and I think it packs enough punch for most defensive scenarios.

Pigs? I prefer a .45/70.

 

[blutarsky]

Do they enhance the performance of a 9mm or .40?

following is some info taken right out of the sub 2000 manual:

BALLISTICS

Your SUB rifle has been test fired and sighted in at 100 yards before leaving the factory. However, due to different ammunitions, positions, shooters etc. your rifle should be zeroed to your personal preference. As seen from the graph on page 16 the bullet first crosses the line of sight at about 20 yards. This is normally sufficient, but if 100 yards are available the results should be verified at the actual range. Within this range the trajectory is flat, deviating less than two inches from the line of sight. At close range and high power ammunition the SUB rifle has the energy of a .357 Magnum.

The maximum range of a pistol bullet is about one mile. At 200 yards the projectile still has more energy than a .380 ACP fired at point blank range. However, at this distance the mid range trajectory is about 18" and the wind deflection is considerable when compared to a full power rifle.

It should be noted that ballistic precision of the pistol cartridge has a wide variation. During extensive tests of commercial ammunition in a Mann barrel, the best 10 shot groups were about 2.5 m.o.a., the worst up to 10. Premium US manufacture hollowpoints of medium bullet weight performed best. Worst were US generic FMJ and non-european imports.

there's also a graph (which is a little confusing) showing ballistics with various ammo as well as comparison points (in green) for what typical handgun rounds are at point blank range.