Is the pistol-caliber carbine/sub-gun functionally obsolete?

[W.E.G.]

All the departments have AR's now.

There is no budget for training with more than one long gun.

There might be a few special units still training with other calibers (for so long as the grant money lasts).

Realistically, there is hardly any training budget for shotgun, let alone subgun.
Remember too, its not just about money for ammo. Its payroll money for training time for the operators too. Given the poor training that so many departments can provide, I think a lot of them are glad to be rid of anything with a happy switch. Less liability that way.

 

[chopinbloc]

For the loads I linked above, 995 ft/lbs for the .30 and 1,172 for the .223. And that's not considering the ready availability of good defensive ammo for the .223 versus very few quality loads for the .30 and they aren't readily available. But yeah, the "way more" part was more directed at the pistol cartridges.

 

[chopinbloc]

I don't think I want the legal challenges of shooting someone in my home or on my property with a suppressed AR.

The firearm shouldn't be an issue if you acted reasonably and it was a good shoot. Even Mas Ayoob who started the crap about not using the most effective tool for the job had a difficult time producing a case where the gun was an issue in an otherwise sound shooting.

I also don't live in occupied America.

 

[mavracer]

very few quality loads for the .30 and they aren't readily available.

A quick check on my ammo supply says thats not a universally true statement as I have about 500 rounds of 110gr soft points on the shelf.

But yeah, the "way more" part was more directed at the pistol cartridges.

Fair enough.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Deleted.

 

[torqem]

How would they ever know that you removed the "can"

(after the shooting) unless you left one or more of your attackers alive? Not only would I remove it, I'd also remove it, any other cans or valuable guns from the house, before the cops got there, if at all possible, by having somebody else take them, like a trusted neighbor. Even Ayoob said that they are likely to disappear on you while they are being held "in custody, as evidence".

 

[chopinbloc]

When was the last time you saw ANY .30 carbine at Walmart, let alone 110 gr JSP? .223/5.56mm is far more widely available.

.30 carbine can be a legitimate self defense choice but it is, in fact, less powerful than .223/5.56mm. It is intrinsically less accurate and the M1 is a less accurate rifle than most ARs. It cannot penetrate body armor. It is less readily available for sale.

But the post I replied to claimed that civilians didn't need a 300 yard rifle. I simply pointed out that range is only one of the advantages of a carbine chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The firearm shouldn't be an issue if you acted reasonably and it was a good shoot. Even Mas Ayoob who started the crap about not using the most effective tool for the job had a difficult time producing a case where the gun was an issue in an otherwise sound shooting.

I also don't live in occupied America.

Yes, I've heard that. There is no such thing as a "good shoot" and I would never use that term anywhere.

I'm just following the advice of my attorney and not something I've read online. Mas Ayoob isn't my attorney, I've never met the guy. My attorney lives in a 2 million dollar house. He knows the law but sometimes that's not enough to get you a pass in a shooting. The police also have a say in who gets charged and who doesn't. I'm just a USGI collector who may have to defend himself with a very old out dated weapon. I don't know anything about modern battle rifles.

 

[GEM]

A good shoot - baloney. If you are going to trial it is not a good shoot.

That's when the appearance issues operate and gun appearance, ammo and training have been brought up and documented. There are threads on TFL and THR that do that.

 

[chopinbloc]

If you are going to trial it is not a good shoot.

That's my point. If you live in a free state and you act like a reasonable and law abiding person, you shouldn't end up in a criminal court. If you live in a commie state or if use of force is some sort of "affirmative defense" or any number of complicating issues, then you might wind up in a court room even though you did everything right. Usually, though, people who wind up in court messed up somehow.



Now, I'm not claiming to be an attorney or anything but your lawyer is naturally going to view things from the perspective of defending you at trial, with less "big picture" perspective on the events that got you there in the first place.


First, the investigating police officers have to suspect some sort of crime has been committed. In many states, the fact that you are in your own home contraindicates wrong doing. They'll investigate, of course, but unless something is apparent, they are unlikely to file charges. After that, the DA will need to think that he or she has any real chance of winning the case. Say what you will about politically motivated DAs but not many are inclined to push for an indictment in a case they know they're going to lose (unless there is political pressure to "do something" a la Zimmerman). Then they have to convince a grand jury but from what I've heard, that's little more than a rubber stamp. There are a lot of things that have to go sideways before your attorney even gets involved in any material way.


More importantly, to wind up in a court room you've got to actually SURVIVE the encounter. Long before there is any question of wrong doing, you need to stop bad men from doing bad things to you and yours. I choose to use the most effective legal tool for that task.

 

[USAF_Vet]

When was the last time you saw ANY .30 carbine at Walmart, let alone 110 gr JSP? .223/5.56mm is far more widely available.

.30 carbine can be a legitimate self defense choice but it is, in fact, less powerful than .223/5.56mm. It is intrinsically less accurate and the M1 is a less accurate rifle than most ARs. It cannot penetrate body armor. It is less readily available for sale.

But the post I replied to claimed that civilians didn't need a 300 yard rifle. I simply pointed out that range is only one of the advantages of a carbine chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

Last time I checked the ammo shelves at Walmart and a couple LGS. .30 carbine is typically available. At my LGS, .30 carbine was more available than .223/5.56 during the height of the ammo scare.

 

[goon]

Ammo for the .30 carbine doesn't have to be readily available everywhere, all the time, if you have an ammo can full and the ability to reload.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Now, I'm not claiming to be an attorney or anything but your lawyer is naturally going to view things from the perspective of defending you at trial, with less "big picture" perspective on the events that got you there in the first place.

If you aren't an attorney how do you know how my lawyer is going to view things? I know him pretty well and I wouldn't have a clue how he planned to defend me.

 

[torqem]

Contrary to popular belief

Lawyers are human(oid) and their performance varies from day to day and case to case. So does their outlook on any given thing.

 

[Tommygunn]

When was the last time you saw ANY .30 carbine at Walmart, let alone 110 gr JSP? .223/5.56mm is far more widely available.

.30 carbine can be a legitimate self defense choice but it is, in fact, less powerful than .223/5.56mm. It is intrinsically less accurate and the M1 is a less accurate rifle than most ARs. It cannot penetrate body armor. It is less readily available for sale.

But the post I replied to claimed that civilians didn't need a 300 yard rifle. I simply pointed out that range is only one of the advantages of a carbine chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

"Can't penetrate body armor?" ??
That depends on what level of body armor your talking about.
It will penetrate armor intended to stop pistol ammo, but the heavy ceramic plates in the armor used for rifle ammo will of course stop it -- as well as a lot of rifle ammo.
During WW2 .30 carbine would pierce the metal ballistic vests that Japanese officers sometimes wore. .45ACP wouldn't penetrate this so the carbine round was atleast a superior penetrator.

 

[tarosean]

The firearm shouldn't be an issue if you acted reasonably and it was a good shoot. Even Mas Ayoob who started the crap about not using the most effective tool for the job had a difficult time producing a case where the gun was an issue in an otherwise sound shooting.

I also don't live in occupied America.

Harold Fish ring a bell in your non occupied state?

 

[chopinbloc]

During the panic, I saw more 10mm and .38 super than 9mm and .45 but that doesn't change the fact that they're oddball cartridges and so is .30 carbine. It can be useful for defense but for a whole host of reasons, .223 carbines are more effective.

Attorneys think like attorneys. You still have to SURVIVE to see a court room.

 

[CoalTrain49]

During the panic, I saw more 10mm and .38 super than 9mm and .45 but that doesn't change the fact that they're oddball cartridges and so is .30 carbine. It can be useful for defense but for a whole host of reasons, .223 carbines are more effective.

Getting back to the op's question. He's asking about pistol caliber carbines. The .223 doesn't fall in that category as it's a rifle caliber. I offered up the 30 carbine because it's really not a rifle caliber in the modern sense of the term and has been chambered for revolvers. As I pointed out earlier the Uzi was and probably still is the most popular PCC in use. According to Wiki if you believe what you read there the Uzi is or was in use in 90 different countries. Citizens in Israel carried them openly for many years for defense against terrorists because they are compact, light weight and a darn good defensive weapon as most PCC's are.

The AR 16 was originally a battle rifle that morphed into a civilian sporting rifle. All of the ones I've seen at the range have some type of optics mounted on them for better 300 yard accuracy. Some of them are suppressed because they are loud even with ear protection.

Somehow I think you are missing the whole concept of a defensive weapon here unless you believe black helicopters and para military units will be involved. That seems to be a popular scenario these days.

 

[mavracer]

When was the last time you saw ANY .30 carbine at Walmart, let alone 110 gr JSP? .223/5.56mm is far more widely available.

If running to Walmart for a resupply really a integral part of your home defense plan, then there are other choices I'd suggest you focus on before the caliber of gun you're going to use.

Getting back to the op's question. He's asking about pistol caliber carbines. The .223 doesn't fall in that category as it's a rifle caliber.

Of course if you can get rifle power and accuracy in a package that's the same size it would be germain to the "functionally obsolete" part of the question.

 

[Sam1911]

The AR 16 was originally a battle rifle that morphed into a civilian sporting rifle

To be more specific, originally an "Assault Rifle" in the true sense of the word. Part of that definition is that it fires an "intermediate" round, noticeably less powerful than the main battle rifles of the day.

All of the ones I've seen at the range have some type of optics mounted on them for better 300 yard accuracy.

Truth be told, most I see these days are fitted with low (0-4x) power red-dot optics which are very useful at close range, vastly increasing speed of hits at distances of just a few yards. ... Like in your home or property.

Some of them are suppressed because they are loud even with ear protection.

Which is very similar to a .30 Carbine. Snorty little round. I own a Blackhawk in that cartridge and the blast will cause folks to come asking, "WHAT was THAT?" Suppressors are a good idea on just about any defensive rifle.

Somehow I think you are missing the whole concept of a defensive weapon here unless you believe black helicopters and para military units will be involved. That seems to be a popular scenario these days.

This heavily overstates the case. The AR has proven to be a very effective and perfectly appropriate defensive weapon -- no more or less in the realm of "para military units" than an M1 Carbine or any other military weapon.

 

[CoalTrain49]

To be more specific, originally an "Assault Rifle" in the true sense of the word. Part of that definition is that it fires an "intermediate" round, noticeably less powerful than the main battle rifles of the day.

"Assault Rifle" is a leftist media term. The U.S. military does not use it. It is an M16 or rifle. I didn't see it anywhere in this training manual. Did I miss it?

http://www.usu.edu/armyrotc/tools/25m-m16-alt course range-cmds.pdf

Truth be told, most I see these days are fitted with low (0-4x) power red-dot optics which are very useful at close range, vastly increasing speed of hits at distances of just a few yards. ... Like in your home or property.

You don't need "optics" under 50 yards and certainly not at " a few yards". At least I don't. A ghost ring works real well at that range without batteries. I must be living in the past.

Which is very similar to a .30 Carbine. Snorty little round. I own a Blackhawk in that cartridge and the blast will cause folks to come asking, "WHAT was THAT?" Suppressors are a good idea on just about any defensive rifle.

I agree. 30 carbine is loud in 7" barrel. 5.56 is much louder than 30 carbine in a 16' barrel. Reason, higher velocity round. Compare for yourself.

This heavily overstates the case. The AR has proven to be a very effective and perfectly appropriate defensive weapon -- no more or less in the realm of "para military units" than an M1 Carbine or any other military weapon.

The M1 is not currently a military weapon, classified as a relic, at least in the U.S. The M15 and M16 has replaced it at all levels including "para military units" like SWAT. Where did we get off track here? The OP asked about PCC's.

 

[Sam1911]

"Assault Rifle" is a leftist media term. The U.S. military does not use it. It is an M16 or rifle. I didn't see it anywhere in this training manual. Did I miss it?

"Assault Rifle" is THE term for a select-fire carbine of intermediate chambering. It is NOT a term invented by the media, but is a direct translation of the original term sturmgewehr. This is "basic history of arms 101" stuff.

(You're thinking of "Assault Weapon" which is a nonsense term without any clear definition. Totally different thing.)

You don't need "optics" under 50 yards and certainly not at " a few yards". At least I don't. A ghost ring works real well at that range without batteries. I must be living in the past.

You don't "need" optics. However, you will be faster on target with them. That's not debatable, conditional, or worth arguing over. You can defend your self and your home with a pointy stick if you like, but don't say "it's just as good as..."

I agree. 30 carbine is loud in 7" barrel. 5.56 is much louder than 30 carbine in a 16' barrel. Reason, higher velocity round. Compare for yourself.

I may have done so, once or twice. I still say the differences are moot. Not worth making some grand distinction over. You DON'T want to fire either one indoors without hearing protection. Period.

The M1 is not currently a military weapon, classified as a relic, at least in the U.S.

Surprise, surprise, the earliest AR-15s are now C&Rs too. Isn't that cool?

 

[Zoogster]

I think the laws more than anything make the pistol caliber carbine obsolete.

These laws reduce R&D on new more modern SMG and pistol caliber weapons, further making them seem like a dated concept.

If you could have a SBR without a tax stamp pistol rounds make more sense in short barrels. They achieve most of their power and velocity in barrels under 10" because they are designed for pistols. Many in barrels close to 6".
Picture handy things like the MP7 in more typical calibers and you see how nice it would be to have something slightly bigger than a handgun which has good built in telescoping stocks, can be shouldered, stored in space you could put a handgun, used without hearing protection (with a suppressor), etc.


Then pistol caliber firearms are much better platforms for suppression. For several reasons. First is they obviously have lower muzzle report. They have lower volume of gas to suppress and lower pressure, allowing for smaller and highly effective suppressors.
Many pistol rounds are just as effective or come in rounds almost as effective in subsonic varieties as in varieties that break the sound barrier. Rifles rely on velocity and when made subsonic many perform worse than pistol rounds. Pistol rounds are optimized by design to work near such velocities.
A long barrel is also a waste when you are going to be using subsonic or low velocity rounds that could just as easily be brought up to intended velocity in handgun length barrels. Making rifles barrels unnecessarily bulky. Over half the length is just waste.




Short, compact, quiet, typically working on moderate or low pressures. Low flash. Also reliable in fully automatic and burst modes. In burst modes many modern subgun designs can be accurately fired by anyone even without much training. And with less powerful rounds than rifles benefit from putting more lead on target faster to compensate. Yet the law limits this option, making the power of the rounds in semi auto more important than it otherwise would be because of restrictions on select fire.
They would also be less expensive to produce than many rifles since they need to handle less pressure and less expensive actions can be used so the price point can be much lower and would be even more so if the laws didn't restrict the market by legislating against the features that best suit them.







So they may be less ideal for many tactical situations or militarily where everyone sharing the same ammunition and being able to engage targets at longer ranges is more important, but without legislation hindering how they can be sold from the store they would be one of the better options for many civilian uses.
It is barrel length restrictions on things with a stock, suppressor restrictions, and also select fire restrictions that have made pistol caliber carbines dated firearms.

If I could have an MP7 style firearm scaled up to .45ACP (already subsonic with many effective full power loads) with a suppressor, and which fully assembled would fit in your typical pistol case with the stock collapsed, and could be designed with an integral suppressor that is even more compact and shrouds the existing barrel rather than extending entirely past it like separately sold suppressors, it would probably be one of my most handy firearms that could go the most places and thus be more useful than most others.
However the NFA laws make it impractical and more costly. They also greatly reduce the market, the R&D, and the profit potential.

Once it must have a 16"+ barrel and be over 26" minimum, and can only be used semi auto, and won't be suppressed and as a result loud anyways, then you might as well be using at least an intermediate rifle caliber.
Also for those tactical roles where how small a space it can be stored or transported hardly matters, how easy it is to conceal is of less importance, and how light it is to carry for hours are of less importance, and where hearing protection would be worn anyways, you might as well also be using something more powerful. (Yet ironically such people are the only ones the law allows to even be equipped with modern subguns.)

 

[GEM]

You may live in a 'free state' but that doesn't guarantee your jury will agree with your view of reality. The appearance issue has been discussed into the ground and documented. Fantasies that a free state will be free of such influences are fantasies. Sorry to be rude - but that's reality. Please search the endless threads on the issue. Since Mas and I actually presented in the Texas Bar (free state?) CLE course on firearms issues and the lawyers thought we were reasonable in our analyses, I might give us some creds. No one jumped and yelled: In a free state - yeeehaaaa - that don't count here, pardner.

 

[CoalTrain49]

"Assault Rifle" is THE term for a select-fire carbine of intermediate chambering. It is NOT a term invented by the media, but is a direct translation of the original term sturmgewehr. This is "basic history of arms 101" stuff.

(You're thinking of "Assault Weapon" which is a nonsense term without any clear definition. Totally different thing.)

You don't "need" optics. However, you will be faster on target with them. That's not debatable, conditional, or worth arguing over. You can defend your self and your home with a pointy stick if you like, but don't say "it's just as good as..."

I may have done so, once or twice. I still say the differences are moot. Not worth making some grand distinction over. You DON'T want to fire either one indoors without hearing protection. Period.

Surprise, surprise, the earliest AR-15s are now C&Rs too. Isn't that cool?

Ok, I think I made my point. I don't use "assault" in my description of any type of weapon because of the politics that get dragged into it. You like Optics on you weapons for CQB, I don't. Some AR's are C&R now? That is cool. Where can I buy an AR with a C&R license? That would be some useful information to post here.