Concealing rifle-caliber pistols

[Rally_Vincent]

A discussion on open versus concealed carry put me on a train of thought to public perception on not just gun ownership, but firearms carrying in practice.

How do you ladies and gentlemen feel about concealing rifle-caliber pistols like a Kel-Tec PLR16, AK/AR pistol, or other rifle caliber pistol oddities -- be it vehicle, on one's person, or in a briefcase/bag/etc?

I'm not talking about what you think would happen to the person who does and it's found out. We all know that police, the public, and the media will jump all over that mess if someone actually did it and used it in self-defense (even in a 100% legit circumstance) -- or conversely if someone simply found out (concealed is concealed, I know). I'm just asking you for your personal opinions on it, in practice.

I'll start off. Besides the obvious with regard to public and police perception (results will vary on your locale), there are potential issues with over penetration, powder flash, and noise. And if you consider carrying on your person, there's obvious issues with size and concealment.

But... on the other hand, I do think they would make great vehicle guns (i.e. truck gun, or briefcase gun). Magazine capacity is a plus, and if it's in a vehicular situation, velocity and penetration are both pros and cons..

Carrying on one's own person is the question, though. Not sure how I feel about it, personally. At first, it sounds like a great idea. But once I start thinking about it... a good hi-cap handgun and a spare mag or two is enough (in most cases, more than enough).

But that's what I think. How about you? I'm not thinking of doing it, myself. It's just a musing little topic, that's all.

 

[General Geoff]

Not very practical. If I were going to spend the time and effort necessary to conceal an AR-type pistol, I'd rather just use a short barrel rifle with collapsible butt stock. More controllable, and more accurate in practice.

 

[Rally_Vincent]

Mmm... I'm thinking more along the lines of what is generally "legal" -- since most states that allow concealed carry apply the provision to pistols only (in quotes because, technically, force on force self-defense is allowed by the law, but it doesn't stop people from getting prosecuted....).

 

[BlackBearME]

I think it would be useless. Carrying is for one reason - defense/security. The only reason I can see to carry one of these would be to show it off - which would defeat the doctrine of concealed is concealed.

As for vehicle carry, it would be walking a thin line. Here in ME a CCW allows having a loaded handgun in the vehicle, but you cannot have a loaded longarm in the vehicle whether you have a CCW or no. I understand the technicalities inherent in an AK/AR pistol, but I know that there are plenty of LEOs that aren't exactly...up to snuff on current laws. My fear would be that it would be more hassle than would be worth it, if an officer saw a magazine in an AK/AR receiver.

ETA: Besides, it's too much firepower to apply in a self-defense scenario. If you need the power of an x39/5.56 cartridge, then a) you should stay away, and b) if you can't stay away you should bring a full rifle (because I've never fired one, but I can't imagine controlling them is easy)

 

[General Geoff]

Well, in your jurisdiction, any pistol would be illegal.


In Pennsylvania, a short barrel rifle is considered to be the equivalent of a hand gun for purposes of carrying and self defense.

 

[Rally_Vincent]

I don't really live in Chicago, IL. It's a joke user name.

But wow, I didn't know that about PA. That makes a lot more sense.

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

Not really practical, at least in MY OPINION (had to say that so no one would jump on my rear about it).

The biggest thing is yes, you can carry it (that should keep the RTKBA folks okay) but its an issue of why. (Because I can is not a reasonable excuse). The media would jump all over it and ruin the idea. There was a guy who sold books at our local gunshow here. A few of them dealt with drug creation and usage (how to cultivate marijuana, make meth, etc...). I asked him why he had books like that. He claimed, "because I can, its my RIGHT". I told him that he was so preoccupied with whether he can, didnt stop to think if he should. He got pissed and ranted on about me stepping on his rights (and other blather, half incomprehensible). I said, the media and public opinion were already working hard against gun owners everywhere and he wants to intesify it b/c he doesnt realize that the media would connect the idea that his books are tying gun ownership to drug possession/selling (I mean, come on! Seriously? Drug books at a gunshow, who wants that?). There is an image issue that gunowners seem to over look b/c they want to look "cool" or feel "prepared". A good ol'fashioned handgun will serve you well. Pistol in a rifle caliber (keltec, AK, etc..)? What are you trying to face down? The armies of the throne?

The idea of a rifle is to have a rifle. The idea of a handgun is to have a handgun. To own a cut down rifle (factory or otherwise) is simply ridiculous. If you need a rifle, a trunk monkey (carbine, etc...) works fine.

BTW, I love you name Rally. Gunsmith Cats, wasnt it? Ive got a zippo pertaining to that.

 

[IllHunter]

I can't carry concealed...

legally, so I can only tell you what I've experienced. I've used a .44 Caliber handgun to hunt deer for the last two years, full season. Before that late season and whatever season, I continue because it's less weight than a shotgun or rifle. I carry a Ruger Super Redhawk, 9" barrel with a 2x Leupold scope. This is a load! The only way to effectively carry is in a bandolier, cross chest, shoulder strap and waist belt affixed. The weight of this "rifle caliber" gun and it's bulk (even with scope removed) have convinced me that I would rather carry the rifle if allowed. Just bringing the gun to bear is a consideration, I favor a stick rest, and the kick, noise and cost per shot are relatively larger for this versus most "concealed" calibers. Unless you like toting an extra 5 pounds around, stick to .380, .38, 9MM, .40Compact etc. I'm 6' 175, and concealing a .45 is possible in winter only. Having it in a briefcase, bag etc. are unwieldy and mostly defeat the premise of having it "at hand". IMHO

 

[Rally_Vincent]

While it is not a rifle caliber pistol, I've carried my MPA30 9mm (M-11 clone that takes sten-mags) in a briefcase in the passenger seat of my vehicle plenty of times before -- and not for any particular high-security reason. Simply because I felt like doing it (much to the chagrin of BattleChimp ) -- while I simultaneously carried my USP .45. Since all I have to do is snap the locks off with the push of a button and open the case, accessibility is not an issue. I have no problem with public perception on having on-hand what has been effectively glorified as an "assault pistol."

I don't buy into the linear concept that a rifle should be a rifle and a handgun should be a handgun. Just like I don't buy into the notion that ARs are better to use than AKs or handguns for home defense just because of overpenetration -- a missed round is going to penetrate regardless of its caliber. Alas, that's just me.

Interesting responses, though. I wonder if there are some people who really do carry short barreled rifles in their vehicles in the same background-principle...

 

[LightningMan]

Well I'm not sure if I understand the question but if you want a small high velocity rifle caliber with a high capacity magazine in a pistol, this one comes to mind; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seveN

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

But the thing is the USP and the MPA30 are handguns or carbines using ahndgun ammunition. They are not Keltec .223 pistols or AK pistols. You used the carbine to what a carbine is perfect for: Vehicle protection and emergency trunk monkey duties.

As for ARs, AKs or pistols in home defense, not terribly sure. I use me side by side, but thats a PERSONAL choice. Most folks will disagree, saying a handgun is better or a rifle is better.

Your point is correct. A missed shot is a missed shot. Overpenetration should not be a factor if you DONT miss. Spraying down a dark room is not my (nor my consul's) idea of a good concept. It doesnt matter if it's .22 or .223 or whatever round. Its that ONE missed round that (even though the internet commandos say it wont overpenetrate) would hit that one screwy thin part in a wall and hit a church or something on the other side. Its Murpheys law, something most folks forget when innundated with laws of physics. Someone breaks in, use a darn gun. Dont worry about which round does what or should I aim here or there or everywhere. Shoot the sucker until he/she falls and discontinues movement/breathing (please note, stops moving! Falls, then crawls around can be a very very bad thing).

 

[Rally_Vincent]

LOL.. that made my day.