Have you looked at the P90? Like I already posted (post #14, I'm always repeating myself), it's significantly shorter than anything with the magazine in the grip or in front of it.However, if you do the same with a pistol-cal, you actually make the gun bigger than if you kept the mag at the pistol grip.
Is that why FN developed the P90, HK developed the MP7, Sig developed the MPX and CZ completely redesigned the Scorpion???Look at all the pistol caliber rifles that have very soft sales. People would gravitate to these if they did perform... they don't.
It depends on the platform, but a 9mm carbine will often have about the same (or sometimes even more) felt recoil than an AR-15 in 5.56. That's because many pistol-caliber carbines are straight blowback, whereas the AR isn't. Lots of people who fire a 9mm AR-15 for the first time are surprised that the recoil is about the same as in 5.56, and that's because of the blowback system.CraigC said:I didn't say it had tremendous recoil, I said a 9mm will have less. Significantly less. Which might be an issue for some.
No. It isn't even a contest. A 5.56/.223 is FAR more effective in every single way than any defensive handgun round. Period. I can't even believe this is being debated in this thread.CraigC said:The .223 might be slightly more effective
Watch the videos on the SIG MPX, recoil is insignificant, even at full auto. Yes, a .223 AR has very little recoil but it does have recoil and one must recover from that recoil to make follow-up shots. Relax dude, this ain't a "measuring contest".I didn't say it had tremendous recoil, I said a 9mm will have less. Significantly less. Which might be an issue for some.
You can repeat yourself ad infinitum, it won't make your statement any more accurate. You used one example of one 9mm carbine that hasn't even hit the market yet, and that's just from watching a video.CraigC said:Must I repeat myself again???
OK, someone is getting a little upset here. Why are you so mad? I simply pointed out two incorrect statements you made. Are you so upset at being called out for incorrect statements? Your posts are beginning to look a little childish.CraigC said:We're not talking about 9mm AR's and no, dude who has proven that he thinks he's the only experienced shooter here, I'm not basing my statement solely on watching a friggin' video. I shot my first 9mm carbine 22yrs ago, how about you? The AR was never designed as a blowback and it's well known that the straight blowback 9mm AR has more pronounced recoil than it should.
You mentioned a video of someone shooting the MPX, so my comment was specifically regarding using the MPX as an example. If you read my statement, it's pretty obvious that I was just referring to the MPX and I didn't think you were basing your whole experience with 9mm carbines on that video.CraigC said:I'm not basing my statement solely on watching a friggin' video.
Guy, no reason to take personal offense. I've merely pointed out the fact that PCRs have extremely soft sales for many reasons. While there may be some minor merit to them, rational gun purchasing folks make rational gun buying decisions and largely reject PCRs - just as they do/would PCR bullpups. That's why there are very few offerings for PCRs and almost none in bullpups. Cost, ergos, no actual benefit at pistol distances, etc.That's a juvenile response and do not preach to me as if I just fell off the turnip truck.
What does an AR rifle do that an AR pistol does not? By your logic, why not dispose of the AR rifle in favor of an AR pistol??? The answer is that there is more advantage to a shoulder fired longarm than more powerful cartridges.
No thanks.
Really? It seems to me that there a plenty of folks buying pistol cartridge leverguns, which are also a very good option. I guess there ARE people who think a rifle chambered in a pistol cartridge has something to offer. Why? All the same reasons I listed above and you can NOT discredit them. Less recoil, less blast, smaller ammo, higher capacity and ENOUGH range to be effective. Do you think the pistol cartridge carbine kills anything any less dead than a .223 AR or .30-06 rifle? No. The latter simply have more range. If you don't need the range, you don't need a rifle cartridge with its associated muzzle blast, recoil, size, weight, etc..
Like I said, sales do not tell all. All that amounts to is a popularity test. We all know that what's popular is rarely the best of anything. There has been A LOT of good stuff produced by the shooting industry that has not sold well, for whatever reason. Besides, I'm not arguing that. I know they probably wouldn't sell. That doesn't mean it is a poor idea or that it would not perfectly serve its purpose. I could give a rat's posterior orifice what's popular.
This from the guy who doesn't understand the advantages of a shoulder fired longarm??? Does this mean that you can shoot a pistol as quickly and accurately as a rifle out to 50yds.I question whether you understand the difference between a rifle and pistol and actually what they do,...
Again, one more time, I never said the 5.56 had tremendous recoil, nor did I say I couldn't handle it. I'm contemplating buying a friggin' .416 and having it converted to .500Jeffery for God's sake. Maybe you can grasp the concept that the person needing to fire shots in the dark might be of the fairer sex, much younger, or for some other reason more recoil sensitive and would be better armed with a 9mm carbine than a .223 rifle??? Or that perhaps it would be easier to maintain sight picture while taking multiple shots. No, I guess those are all foreign concepts. I wonder what all those people using SMG's going back decades and world wars were thinking???It's a fact that for any healthy able bodied adult, the recoil of a PCR versus a AR/AK is negligible difference. I'm not the only one to point this out. Again - for noise, that's why we have ear pro.
Yes, definitely a hell of a rabbit hole comparing rifles to pistols using the idiotic energy factor. Sorry but anyone who has actually used rifles and handguns on flesh knows it's absurd.Lots to discuss here, and I don't want to go down a rabbit hole... but it's also fact that all things equal a rifle round is superior in stopping a threat over a pistol round, because of the delivery of energy and penetration.
I didn't make two incorrect statements. You're obviously comparing ONLY the 9mm AR which is NOT the topic of this discussion.I simply pointed out two incorrect statements you made.
How many 9mm carbines have you fired that were not AR's??? Genius, less powder, less pressure = less recoil. How can you not understand this?How can you not understand this?
It's actually a perfect example. Because it is a brand new design, so obviously SOMEBODY thinks a good pistol cartridge carbine has some merit. Despite the rhetoric of internet experts and self-proclaimed gurus who have spent a whopping 2-3yrs working in a gun shop.And once again, the MPX isn't even out yet, so it's not a great example to use...
I'm amazed that you continue to say this. I can't decide if you honestly believe this or if you're just trying to "win" the argument. OK, I'll keep playing; you said that a 5.56 is "slightly more effective" than a 9mm. That's a ridiculous statement and it's pretty far off the mark. I can't believe you're continuing to argue that point.CraigC said:I didn't make two incorrect statements.
No, I'm not. You're obviously having trouble with reading comprehension again. That was simply one example. Your statement was a blanket one. You implied that a 9mm carbine will always have less recoil. My examples show that's not always true. Sure, it's true sometimes, but not always like you claimed.CraigC said:You're obviously comparing ONLY the 9mm AR which is NOT the topic of this discussion.
I've fired plenty, but that's not the point here. And you're showing that you don't understand how these guns work. Most 9mm carbines are recoil-operated, and many are straight blowback. But almost all 5.56 rifles are gas operated, and that leads to less felt recoil in relation to power.CraigC said:How many 9mm carbines have you fired that were not AR's??? Genius, less powder, less pressure = less recoil. How can you not understand this?
Now you're being childish again. The funny thing here is that we probably don't disagree that much on the technicalities of this discussion. I agree that 9mm carbines -- on average -- have a little less recoil than than the average 5.56 carbine. But your statement was far more extreme than that, and it didn't allow for exceptions, and therefore it was incorrect.CraigC said:Despite the rhetoric of internet experts and self-proclaimed gurus who have spent a whopping 2-3yrs working in a gun shop.
Yep, I've got no experience around 9mm ... oh, except the tons of full auto training I went through on any of my 4 deployments or in garrison... lol... Uzi, MP5 (various configurations...), qualifying expert with my assigned M9, and the dozens of 9mm pistols I own, along with my own Uzi rifle... good grief...Oh okay, so my comments and opinions are disregarded because I don't understand, I can't read, I'm irrational or upset. I guess I have offended the AR true believers by suggesting they are not perfect for home defense, even though I use one for exactly that purpose.
This from the guy who doesn't understand the advantages of a shoulder fired longarm??? Does this mean that you can shoot a pistol as quickly and accurately as a rifle out to 50yds.
Again, one more time, I never said the 5.56 had tremendous recoil, nor did I say I couldn't handle it. I'm contemplating buying a friggin' .416 and having it converted to .500Jeffery for God's sake. Maybe you can grasp the concept that the person needing to fire shots in the dark might be of the fairer sex, much younger, or for some other reason more recoil sensitive and would be better armed with a 9mm carbine than a .223 rifle??? Or that perhaps it would be easier to maintain sight picture while taking multiple shots. No, I guess those are all foreign concepts. I wonder what all those people using SMG's going back decades and world wars were thinking???
And I'm sure you can wake from a dead sleep, slap on your hearing protection, turn it on and go to work.
Yes, definitely a hell of a rabbit hole comparing rifles to pistols using the idiotic energy factor. Sorry but anyone who has actually used rifles and handguns on flesh knows it's absurd.
I didn't make two incorrect statements. You're obviously comparing ONLY the 9mm AR which is NOT the topic of this discussion.
How many 9mm carbines have you fired that were not AR's??? Genius, less powder, less pressure = less recoil. How can you not understand this?
It's actually a perfect example. Because it is a brand new design, so obviously SOMEBODY thinks a good pistol cartridge carbine has some merit. Despite the rhetoric of internet experts and self-proclaimed gurus who have spent a whopping 2-3yrs working in a gun shop.
.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18 _" barrel 155.5dB
9mm 159.8 dB
.45 ACP 157.0 dB
Muzzle flash, that should be obvious.What does "daylight" have to do with anything?
If you can't tell the difference between a .223 and a 9mm carbine (not a short barreled SMG) fired indoors, then maybe you need YOUR hearing checked. A 9mm carbine is hardly louder than a .22Mag rifle. The .223 out of a 16" barrel is extremely unpleasant outdoors and deafening indoors.Oh, and by the way, something to consider: According to http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml which explains common decibles of various common guns, the DB for the 223, 9x19, and .45ACP are nearly identical.
No, it actually takes several seconds to get them on and adjusted. Even more to turn on electronic muffs and adjust the volume and that's time you might not have. You're going into a confrontation already deaf? Or are you also taking the time to turn on electronic muffs and adjust the volume so you can hear properly? Have you paid several hundred for your electronic muffs, or are you relying on less effective means of hearing what's going on? Do you have electronic muffs in every room of the house? Close to every firearm? Do you carrying them around with you all day? Real easy to poke plenty of holes in the "use hearing protection" argument.It takes 1/2 second to slip on earmuffs.
The 9mm has less recoil than the .223 is an "extreme" statement?The problem is that, once again, you're having trouble with reading comprehension and understanding the logic of extreme, blanket statements.
Gee, I wonder how many varmints I had to shoot to come up with that? Enough that I don't think the difference adds up to enough to offset the drawbacks of firing a .223 indoors. Bottom line, the .223 is hardly the Hammer of Thor. The .223 is a great varmint cartridge when you need to bust a coyote at 300yds but shooting a perpetrator across the room is a different game. See once you start hunting with handguns and actually kill some critters with them, you begin to UNDERSTAND that paper ballistics are meaningless. You begin to understand that velocity and energy are overrated and that there is no simple way to compare handgun and rifle cartridges.I'm amazed that you continue to say this. I can't decide if you honestly believe this or if you're just trying to "win" the argument. OK, I'll keep playing; you said that a 5.56 is "slightly more effective" than a 9mm. That's a ridiculous statement and it's pretty far off the mark. I can't believe you're continuing to argue that point.
Insults and vitriol??? You're about the most condescending person I've had an exchange with in a long time. You've called me childish, insulted my reading comprehension, my logic, my experience, everything. Your every post is littered with condescension and veiled insults. Which is fine, I've dealt with your type before. You spend a couple years in the military, spend a couple years working in a gun shop, now you're an expert. I worked in a gun shop 20yrs ago and guys like you took the fun out of it. Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect, that's you.I can see why you have so many posts; you like to make illogical arguments and then follow them up with insults and vitriol when people refute them.
Now we get to the real gist. You're carrying baggage from one thread to another.CraigC, just like in that other thread...
I'll take 30yrs worth of personal experience with dead bodies over the limited experience of a trauma surgeon, who probably has no interest whatsoever in terminal ballistics.The .223 does significantly more damage at all ranges than a .45acp.
You need more than 100yd range for home defense???The .45ACP is a 100 yard round, and after 100 yards loses enough velocity that it will not expand, will not cause hydrostatic shock, and drops like a rock.
Really??? So actually using the cartridge on live flesh is no longer valid experience???When you start dropping "varmint cartridge" in reference to the .223, it becomes clear that you are ignorant to the round and its capabilities.
Far from critical, bordering on insignificant.The .223 will overpenetrate less than the .45 in a HD situation. This in itself is critical.
Based on what, exactly?Again, this is not an arguable opinion. This is fact.
So the military is going to issue one rifle for clearing houses and another for clearing streets? How is this even a relevant point? If you are comfortable with the government making your self defense choices for you, that is your prerogative.If a shoulder mounted .45 were more effective in house clearing operations, the U.S. military would issue a shoulder mounted .45 weapon for house clearing, but they do not.
Reading comprehension not your thing either??? 10" is not significant???A bullpup in a pistol caliber would not offer the same advantages as a bullpup in a rifle caliber, as sticking the action behind the pistol grip does not save you a significant amount of length in a pistol caliber as it does in a rifle caliber.
I'll take 30yrs worth of personal experience with dead bodies over the limited experience of a trauma surgeon, who probably has no interest whatsoever in terminal ballistics. [/I]
You need more than 100yd range for home defense???[/I]
Really??? So actually using the cartridge on live flesh is no longer valid experience??? [/I]
I said the .223 is an excellent varmint cartridge, is it not?[/I]
The .223 is a great varmint cartridge when you need to bust a coyote at 300yds but shooting a perpetrator across the room is a different game[/I]
Far from critical, bordering on insignificant.[/I]
Based on what, exactly?[/I]
So the military is going to issue one rifle for clearing houses and another for clearing streets? How is this even a relevant point? If you are comfortable with the government making your self defense choices for you, that is your prerogative.[/I]
Reading comprehension not your thing either??? 10" is not significant???
"P90 with 10.4" barrel is 19.9" overall.
MP5 with 8.9" barrel is 27.0" extended.
MP7 with 7" is 25.1" extended."
Does your average trauma surgeon study terminal ballistics? Or do they just fix holes in people? I never said rifles don't do more damage or that they don't make bigger wounds. Like I said, had you spent a little time actually applying bullets to flesh, you wouldn't be preaching about the superiority of rifles with such conviction. You don't think I know the difference? The difference is that I KNOW what difference the difference makes and you only read about it. As I've said all along, whatever the advantage is, I'm giving it up because I don't believe it's enough to overcome the disadvantages. Like I said, the .45ACP is perfectly capable and that's all that matters. If you want to defend your home with a .300WinMag because "it's more effective", be my guest.And your limited personal experience means nothing compared to that of a trauma surgeon.
What???Oh, I thought we were talking about "around the homestead" as you mentioned. As the bar moves, so do the required capabilities.
What assertion would that be? That it's not enough to make up for the drawbacks of firing them indoors?I've read several reports by ER trauma surgeons about the effectiveness of rifles vs pistols that directly contradict your assertions.
You're obviously reading way more into my comments than was intended.Lets not play coy. You were obviously denouncing the .223 as suitable for nothing more.
What assumptions have you made now???Go ask your neighbors that. I know what mine would say.
What evidence?Evidence and results, particularly from those who have more experience with such things...like trauma surgeons, for instance.
Are you restricted to FMJ's due to international treaties??? Do you have to orchestrate logistics for millions of personnel? Do politics factor into your decision? Are you tied to a long term contract after making your choice? You obviously are willing to take things on face value without ever actually thinking about them. Different game, different rules, different parameters, different needs, different options. Very, very, very little common ground.Do you have a multi billion dollar budget for testing munitions and conducting studies?
Another lesson in math and reading comprehension. You said that pistol cartridges don't yield much of a reduction in length for bullpups. The info provided clearly and handily refutes that. Not just a couple inches but nearly a foot! Bumping them up to 16" barrels doesn't change that. The two HK's are going to be 34" and the PS90 only 26". The PS90 is still 9" shorter than a 16" AR. Is that not simple enough?None of these matters in the least for us civilians. Once the 16" barrel is added they are all pretty close to an AR15.