Pistol caliber carbines...for defense!?

[Model12Win]

Right, but it's also been shown the 5.56/.223 will pierce a few gypsum wall as well. Truth is most anything worthy of self defense will go through a wall or two. One benefit of 9mm or shotgun buckshot is that if God forbid it ever found it's way out of the house, it wouldn't travel as far as any rifle round.

[Dragger34]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

AR/AK penetrate more than pistol rounds when it comes to drywall and exterior walls. I live in an apartment. If I had to go to court to explain a round hitting an unintended target, it would be 100x's ealer to explain to a jury a pistol chambered carbine vs what people have been mislead to as an "assault rifle" among other B.S.

Any anyone that has fired an AR indoors without ear protection will tell you, you do NOT get all of your hearing back.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Model12Win

Right, but it's also been shown the 5.56/.223 will pierce a few gypsum wall as well. Truth is most anything worthy of self defense will go through a wall or two. One benefit of 9mm or shotgun buckshot is that if God forbid it ever found it's way out of the house, it wouldn't travel as far as any rifle round.

A ballistic-tipped hollow-point .223 round, especially a lightweight one (50 to 55 gr.), is great for home defense. Upon hitting most surfaces (a wall, a body, etc.) it will start to fragment immediately. It may make it though a wall or two, but it will most likely be in tiny pieces at that point, unlike most handgun rounds which can go through far more walls and stay mostly intact.

In most situations one of these .223 rounds would be in tiny pieces if it ever made it out of a house, and would therefore travel a much shorter distance than a handgun round.

Look up a YouTube video of a .223 hollow-point vs. a handgun hollow-point through walls - or just try it yourself. After one or maybe two walls the .223 is in many small fragments and the handgun round isn't.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Dragger34

AR/AK penetrate more than pistol rounds when it comes to drywall and exterior walls

That statement is completely wrong if you're actually using self-defense ammo. Sure, those guys in the link you provided were using FMJ rounds. Why in the world would you use FMJ rifle rounds for self-defense? Here's a test where they actually use self-defense ammo:

http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/test-parameters.html

[Model12Win]

Alright man we get it you've been drinking your fill of AR Kool-Aid!

JK of course

Really, everything is a compromise when you get right down to it. Even the vaunted AR-15 with it's legendary stopping power () does have some some issues for home defense. So does a pistol caliber carbine, so does any handgun, and so do shotguns.

This thread wasn't so much to say what gun is superior for this duty, but was made to access the general consensus on using pistol caliber carbines for home defense and if one would be comfortable with one if that's what they had. As we can see the vast majority of people would feel just fine with a CX4 Storm or other 9mm carbine to defend there homes and loved ones with. This is still a good discussion though, but one I doubt anybody is going to agree on anytime soon!

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Model12Win

Alright man we get it you've been drinking your fill of AR Kool-Aid!

But it's so tasty!

Originally Posted by Model12Win

Really, everything is a compromise when you get right down to it.

Exactly! In order to get the extra power and lower wall penetration of an AR, I need to accept a (potentially) slightly longer, heavier, and more expensive rifle that will be a lot louder indoors. I like the AR, and I'm willing to accept its disadvantages to get the advantages. I am also extremely familiar with the rifle having been in the Marine Corps infantry.

Originally Posted by Model12Win

This thread wasn't so much to say what gun is superior for this duty, but was made to access the general consensus on using pistol caliber carbines for home defense and if one would be comfortable with one if that's what they had.

I voted "Yes". I would feel completely comfortable with a good pistol-caliber carbine like the CX4 for home defense. And like I said before, the reasons you put forth in post #15 say it all: The CX4 is perfect for what you're looking for.

[Moloch]

A 9mm reaches .357 velocities and energy levels out of a long carbine barrel, so with a 9mm carbine you get a short little maneuverable rifle with .357 lethality (96% one shot stop rating) with pretty much zero recoil for ultra fast follow up shots.
And the 9mm out of a long barrel will not immediately blow your eardrums out when fired indoors.

Sounds like an excellent SD gun for me.

[kinoons]

Posted by Theohazard
That statement is completely wrong if you're actually using self-defense ammo. Sure, those guys in the link you provided were using FMJ rounds. Why in the world would you use FMJ rifle rounds for self-defense? Here's a test where they actually use self-defense ammo:

http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/test-parameters.html

What you failed to leave out is that the round in question, Hornady TAP also fails to penetrate 12" of bare gel as is greatly desired.

http://www.hornadyle.com/products/ri...5-gr-tap-urban

There is no magic with penetration -- you either get it or you don't. If it won't penetrate my walls it won't penetrate a bad buy. Personally, I want penetration. What I don't want is penetration coupled with enough velocity to go a mile afterwards. This is where a PCC comes in.

[Theohazard]

I would still rather have that TAP round; even with less penetration it will still be far more effective on target than almost any handgun round.

[kinoons]

Not always. The TAP ammo fails just as birdshot fails. No matter the amount of tissue damage you do, if it is too superficial to reach vital organs you are relying on your attacker choosing to stop fighting vs being unable to continue the fight. As such penetration is not optional, it is required.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by kinoons

Not always.

Sure, not always. But a large majority of the time. Any .223 round will be far more effective than a handgun most of the time.

Originally Posted by kinoons

No matter the amount of tissue damage you do, if it is too superficial to reach vital organs you are relying on your attacker choosing to stop fighting vs being unable to continue the fight. As such penetration is not optional, it is required.

Not necessarily. A .223 round is going fast enough that it can cause enough hydrostatic shock to stop the attacker without directly penetrating to the vital organs.

It's true that it's still better to penetrate to the vital organs. But, based on the gel tests I've seen, most .223 self-defense ammo will still penetrate far enough to reach vital organs most of the time.

[Justice06RR]

Originally Posted by 44 Amp

First, let's agree on a couple of points (assuming we can).

Pistol cartridges are useful (powerful enough) for self defense.

Pistol cartridges (all of them) are more powerful when fired out of a carbine than when fired out of a pistol. Everything gets an increase in velocity when fired from a longer barrel. The only variable is if the percentage of increase has a clear practical use.

Since there are carbines available in most common defensive pistol rounds (as well as some other calibers), then the choice between a carbine and a pistol in the same caliber is a choice between what size of gun best fills your needs/wants.

Pistols are best for carry, concealment, and tight quarters. Carbines are easier for the less skilled to make hits with, and easier to make hits at longer ranges, have less felt recoil, and are "quieter".

I know its ingrained in us that the more powerful the round, the "better" it is. But more power than a pistol class cartridge, while useful in many, many situations, may not be "better" in all situations.

Consider the classic home defense situation, intruder break in during the night. A rifle cartridge carbine could actually put you at a disadvantage over a pistol caliber carbine. Both are powerful enough to stop an assailant, at across the house ranges, so what do you gain from a rifle caliber carbine? What you get is more recoil, muzzle BLAST, and FLASH!

How many of you espousing the rifle caliber over the pistol caliber for carbine use have actually fired one of those shorty .223s inside a building? In the dark? Without ear protection???

"well, those things don't matter when your life is on the line"...true that, sort of. They aren't as important, but they can matter.

Are you going to have the presence of mind to close one eye (or both) when you shoot in the dark? Are you going to be able to function fully after the (literally) stunning concussion?

A pistol caliber round from a carbine generally has a lower flash and report than the same round from a pistol, and a much lower blast than a rifle caliber round. Inside a room, this can make a difference.

My contention with PCC's is that you are adding weight and reducing maneuverability vs staying with a handgun. I don't see a significant advantage of using a pcc, when you can use a standard pistol like Glock17 with 18rds of SD ammo.

For comparison, a 16-inch 5.56AR15 vs a 16-inch 9mm Carbine would have about the same length and weight, so why would one go with the lesser caliber? If I was to stick with a pistol caliber then I would use a pistol and not sacrifice weight and maneuverability, and still have the same basic effectiveness and and lesser muzzle flash. Moreover 223 AR15's have very manageable recoil...

In essence, if I'm going to use a rifle/carbine sized weapon I would prefer to have a rifle caliber. This is a personal choice of course. There are also other means to suppress the muzzle flash on rifles i.e. suppressors and flash hiders if that is something you worry about.

Not trying to argue, just bringing up some points on why I would not use a PCC over a 12g shotgun or AR15.

[kinoons]

Theo,

You stated that based on the gel tests you've seen that most fragible AR rounds will penetrate far enough to reach the vital organs. The 12" standard was established by the FBI for a reason; it takes 12" of gel to maxamize your chances of reaching those organs. Are there any frangible rounds that meet this standard?

Remember that penetration in tissue is not 1:1 equal to penetration in gel. Again, this is why the 12" standard was selected. Hydrostatic shock is another potential wounding factor, but again I want a round i fire to be deep within the human body when it delivers that energy, not in the surface tissue.

I'll stand by my statement -- if it doesn't penetrate my walls, I don't want to be defending my life with it.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by kinoons

Are there any frangible rounds that meet this standard?

I'm not talking about frangible rounds here. Frangible ammo tends to have issues framenting in soft tissue. We're taking abount soft-point and hollow-point self-defense .223 ammo, both of which have been proven time and again to be more effective on human targets than almost any self-defense handgun round and also to penetrate less though walls than almost any handgun round.

There are plenty of these rounds that regularly penetrate ballistics gel at or near the 12" mark. And considering how much damage and hydrostatic shock they cause along the way, even the ones that don't quite reach the 12" mark are going to be much more effective than any handgun round most of the time.

Originally Posted by kinoons

Hydrostatic shock is another potential wounding factor, but again I want a round i fire to be deep within the human body when it delivers that energy, not in the surface tissue.

Hydrostatic shock is not just a potential wounding factor, it's a potential killing factor, especially with a high-velocity round like the .223. And all of these rounds penetrate way past the surface tissue.

Originally Posted by kinoons

I'll stand by my statement -- if it doesn't penetrate my walls, I don't want to be defending my life with it.

Fair enough. All I'm saying is this: You may not like .223 hollow-points for self-defense, but saying that these .223 rounds in question are usually less effective than handgun rounds is just incorrect.

[9mmsnoopy]

If someone were to break into my home and i were able to grab my Beretta Cx4 .40 caliber, i would be feeling about as secure as you could feel under the circumstances, i have pumped a few thousand rounds thru it and its always been faultless, and its accurate as all getout too. I think they are almost $900 these days, i bought mine for around $500ish years ago.

[Auto5]

I know this is a semi auto thread, but living here in C(r)ook county, IL, where we're still fighting "assault weapons" bans, I went with a .44 mag lever action carbine. The ammo I use is a little milder than factory .44 mag, but hotter than .44 specials. 11 rounds of the stuff is probably enough for most home defense scenarios.

[gotthegoods]

Yes from me, but I like pistol caliber carbines because at 150 yards or less, they become very versatile.

Home defense - check
Varmint control (4 legged) - check
Plinking at an reasonably affordable price - check
Hunting medium sized game out to 100 yards (possibly a little farther in the right hands?) - check
Lower recoil for good teaching / training platform - check
Optics-ready and/or after-market rail friendly - check

Another benefit could be having handguns in the same caliber and ammo was usually accessible...need to get me a .38/.357 lever gun...

Depending on the platform, the downsides are ammo capacity and/or reload times.

If you want a PCC on steroids, consider an M1 Carbine; I love mine and have no doubt of it's reliability and effectiveness. Old School my ***. Ammo runs about $.50 for plinking and $1.00 for SD / Hunting-type rounds and is sometimes hard to find on the shelf in quantity.

[Deja vu]

I would rather have a 357 lever-action

I agree. The 357 gains much more from a long barrel than a 9mm...