leadcounsel
member
Wow, a lot of rhetoric and insults being thrown around. I'll weigh in an remind people to be civil. I'll also remind that the .45 cartridge has been around for over a century and used in significant military, police, and civilian platforms - handguns, smgs, and long guns. It's served in many wars.
It's been used and had several platforms developed for it. Let's see, in .45 ACP, off the cuff there was the Thompson smg, the 1911, the HK smgs, Uzi in .45, a handful of modern polymer guns like Glock and S&W and Springfield, HiPoint, Ruger and a few others.
Let's look at the facts and it's performance, not opinion. The .45 ACP is a premier PISTOL cartridge. In spite of that, the bean-counters and experts at the proving grounds have determined that the .45 ACP doesn't perform as well as others on balance. Hench, I'm unaware of any major military or law enforcement that en masse issues or uses the .45 in any platform for any regular tasks. It is selected from time to time for specific purposes but it typically loses out. Why? One reason. Effectiveness. Plain and simple.
Again, you can argue "opinion" all day long. But when the experts are selecting the best available platform and weapon and caliber, it simply generally isn't the .45. Nor is it any pistol caliber. It's rifle calibers. RIFLE calibers.
That's the primary reason that PISTOL caliber bullpups aren't made. They won't sell. The only crowd that has a NEED for a bullpup can use short barreled rifles, and would chose these over any pistol calibers anyway. Civilians don't want to pay high prices (which they would be) for a pointless pistol caliber bullpup, given the soft sales of pistol caliber rifles.
Innovation occurs when there is a demand or otherwise need, generally speaking. There simply is little/no need from consumers for a pistol caliber bullpup. Simple law of economics. Pistol calibers in both rifles and bullpups suffer very soft sales or simply no sales. Economy of scale is another principle, which drives/keeps these products priced high, working against their popularity. Look at the KRISS for example. It's innovative and cool. http://www.tombstonetactical.com/ca...03801-vector-crb-rifle-45acp-16in-13rd-black/ But it's $1600!!! What reasonable average gun owner is going to pay TWICE the cost of a proven, off the shelf AR in 556 for a pistol caliber rifle? Not many...
These are facts, not opinions. Draw your own conclusions why it was determined that rifle calibers are more effective or desirable than pistol calibers.
Now, if you just want to go plink with a cheap pistol round, then buy a Hi Point PCR and have at it. They're around $300. http://www.tombstonetactical.com/catalog/hi-point/4595tsrd-4595-ts-carbine-45acp-17.5in-9rd-red-dot/ and fill every roll you want, except perhaps being a few inches longer. For home defense this difference is again trivial when you factor in overall length/reach of pistol stance versus rifle stance.
It's been used and had several platforms developed for it. Let's see, in .45 ACP, off the cuff there was the Thompson smg, the 1911, the HK smgs, Uzi in .45, a handful of modern polymer guns like Glock and S&W and Springfield, HiPoint, Ruger and a few others.
Let's look at the facts and it's performance, not opinion. The .45 ACP is a premier PISTOL cartridge. In spite of that, the bean-counters and experts at the proving grounds have determined that the .45 ACP doesn't perform as well as others on balance. Hench, I'm unaware of any major military or law enforcement that en masse issues or uses the .45 in any platform for any regular tasks. It is selected from time to time for specific purposes but it typically loses out. Why? One reason. Effectiveness. Plain and simple.
Again, you can argue "opinion" all day long. But when the experts are selecting the best available platform and weapon and caliber, it simply generally isn't the .45. Nor is it any pistol caliber. It's rifle calibers. RIFLE calibers.
That's the primary reason that PISTOL caliber bullpups aren't made. They won't sell. The only crowd that has a NEED for a bullpup can use short barreled rifles, and would chose these over any pistol calibers anyway. Civilians don't want to pay high prices (which they would be) for a pointless pistol caliber bullpup, given the soft sales of pistol caliber rifles.
Innovation occurs when there is a demand or otherwise need, generally speaking. There simply is little/no need from consumers for a pistol caliber bullpup. Simple law of economics. Pistol calibers in both rifles and bullpups suffer very soft sales or simply no sales. Economy of scale is another principle, which drives/keeps these products priced high, working against their popularity. Look at the KRISS for example. It's innovative and cool. http://www.tombstonetactical.com/ca...03801-vector-crb-rifle-45acp-16in-13rd-black/ But it's $1600!!! What reasonable average gun owner is going to pay TWICE the cost of a proven, off the shelf AR in 556 for a pistol caliber rifle? Not many...
These are facts, not opinions. Draw your own conclusions why it was determined that rifle calibers are more effective or desirable than pistol calibers.
Now, if you just want to go plink with a cheap pistol round, then buy a Hi Point PCR and have at it. They're around $300. http://www.tombstonetactical.com/catalog/hi-point/4595tsrd-4595-ts-carbine-45acp-17.5in-9rd-red-dot/ and fill every roll you want, except perhaps being a few inches longer. For home defense this difference is again trivial when you factor in overall length/reach of pistol stance versus rifle stance.
Last edited: