pistol carbine rifle system

[obijohn]

Mission dictates gear. Not the other way around.

well said.

 

[Justus]

They have their niche.
I keep a Ruger PC4 around for home defense.
I picked it because the mags match my handguns and the wife
is more confident with it than a pistol.

IMO, in the most likely encounters I will ever see, a rifle caliber would be "overkill" and
could endanger the neighbors.

 

[Disposable Heart]

While I like the Camp Carbines, the days of the 400-500 dollar ones are over. The only ones I have seen for that price are damaged or worn guns. Last one I saw in a store was going for 600, unbelievable.

My carbine choices:
PX4/Beretta 92
Marlin lever action .357/Quality double or single action .357, A Blackhawk would be great as you can really extend the range of the levergun with hot loadings, the Blackhawk would ensure compatibility with these loads .
Pistol caliber AR with similar caliber pistol (Olympic used to make lowers that took Glock mags, dont know what happened to them!).

I kept the Keltec off the list as I have owned one. I am not impressed with it. It was flimsy, the sights stunk and were always broken and the "scope mount" NEVER held zero. If you can find a Ruger PC4, GO FOR IT! Its a well built carbine.

Heck, if you use the Blackhawk pistol with a good Lever gun (note I left off Rossi and other cheaper lever guns), if it gets really bad, you can always wear a sillhouette shooting rig on your leg. Rifle messes up or "goes dry", hit the dirt backwards, set up and begin shooting with the leg as the support. Impractical, but hey, why not!

 

[cosermann]

I did some calculations just so folks would know what the weight tradoff might be for a couple of hypothetical loadouts. According to the US military ammunition data sheets M193 (5.56) and 9 mm ball weigh exactly the same amount per round - 182 gr. So, here are the load outs I compared. They're designed to be as much of an apples to apples comparison as possible with the same number of cartriges and similarly constructed long guns. The chief differences are in the long gun and magazine weights.

Loadout #1
Glock 17 Pistol
Kel-tec Sub2000 carbine
22 G17 magazines
368 rnds of 115 gr ball ammo

Loadout #2:
Glock 17 Pistol
4 G17 magazines
Kel-tec SU-16C rifle
10 30 rnd Pmags for SU16
300 rnds of M193 ammo
68 rnds of 115 gr 9 mm ball

The weight difference between these two loadouts is 0.731 lbs or 11.7 oz. with #1 being lighter. Loadout #2, however, has 8 fewer total parts (due to requiring 8 fewer magazines.

Is the tradeoff worth it? Only you can decide for your situation.

 

[Richard]

Cosermann,

Dang, that's an awful lot of rounds, my personal loadout is half of that! (2 extra G17 & 5 extra AR15 magazines).

 

[kel-tecfan]

I currently have a 9mm Pistol (Kel-Tec PF9). I like it because it's small, thin, light, and easy to conceal. I have a Mossberg 500a Cruiser 12 Gauge (Useful for defense and can be used for hunting) I plan to add a top folding stock to it. My last but not final gun is a Kel-Tec Sub 2000 9mm Carbine (It was inexpensive, it was small, foldable, light weight, uses Glock 17 magazines, and it's 9mm). I like the 9mnm carbine because the ammunition is cheaper then .40 S&W.

 

[052.5GT]

I did some calculations just so folks would know what the weight tradoff might be for a couple of hypothetical loadouts. According to the US military ammunition data sheets M193 (5.56) and 9 mm ball weigh exactly the same amount per round - 182 gr. So, here are the load outs I compared. They're designed to be as much of an apples to apples comparison as possible with the same number of cartriges and similarly constructed long guns. The chief differences are in the long gun and magazine weights.

Loadout #1
Glock 17 Pistol
Kel-tec Sub2000 carbine
22 G17 magazines
368 rnds of 115 gr ball ammo

Loadout #2:
Glock 17 Pistol
4 G17 magazines
Kel-tec SU-16C rifle
10 30 rnd Pmags for SU16
300 rnds of M193 ammo
68 rnds of 115 gr 9 mm ball

The weight difference between these two loadouts is 0.731 lbs or 11.7 oz. with #1 being lighter. Loadout #2, however, has 8 fewer total parts (due to requiring 8 fewer magazines.

Is the tradeoff worth it? Only you can decide for your situation.

Another thing to consider, which i do not know how much they run is the cost of G17 mags, how much are 30 rounders? pmags are 15 bucks.

 

[cosermann]

To answer the questions, G17 mags are more expensive, generally, than AR mags. The 33 round G18s are around $40.

In terms of the number of rounds in the load out: The cartridges in the example above have the same weight, so the only effect on the comparitive loadout weight is on the number of magazines carried. The fewer mags carried, the less significant the weight difference becomes.

The details are only there to illustrate that the assumed significant weight "savings" of the pistol caliber carbine approach is insignificant. Unless you're paying attention to every piece of gear, from your underwear on up, you simply will not notice 11 oz. If one wants to sell the pistol caliber carbine approach, one will have to look elsewhere for a compelling reason. Unless there's a paradigm shift in technology, there's no free ride here in terms of total weight.

I should also add that it's easy to go HEAVIER with the pistol caliber carbine setup. I tried to do as much of an apples to apples comparison as I could. But, if you start going with a Winchester or Marlin lever action you're already 2 to 2.5 pounds over loadout #1 above with just the rifle, plus the .357/45/44 ammo will weigh significantly more (with the 40 cal plus stuff is getting close to the weight of .308 cartridges).

As said above, "mission dictates gear."

 

[DarkLight]

Loadout #1
Glock 17 Pistol
Kel-tec Sub2000 carbine
22 G17 magazines
368 rnds of 115 gr ball ammo

Loadout #2:
Glock 17 Pistol
4 G17 magazines
Kel-tec SU-16C rifle
10 30 rnd Pmags for SU16
300 rnds of M193 ammo
68 rnds of 115 gr 9 mm ball

The weight difference between these two loadouts is 0.731 lbs or 11.7 oz. with #1 being lighter. Loadout #2, however, has 8 fewer total parts (due to requiring 8 fewer magazines.

Is the tradeoff worth it? Only you can decide for your situation.

First Off Rep Added to cosermann for that very logical analytical approach.

Personally, I always thought a 3 gun SHTF setup if for example I'm by my lonesome and I need to get to a meeting point with other 'survivalists'. I figured I have a medium range 'battle' rifle slung to my back (probably an AR in either .223 or 6.8). A short range carbine constantly in my hands (I love my Cx4 storm, either 9mm or 40 cal). Finally, a pistol strapped to my thigh for last resorts (gotta be a glock 9mm, 40 cal, or 45 all are acceptable).

My reasoning for a setup like this is as follows:
1) Even if 1 or 2 guns jam or are some way disabled, there is still a backup.
2) Varying range, if I'm alone I'm gonna take it slow take lots of cover and be extra careful around corners. That being said, I would be in the most danger from a close range target just behind the next bend (carbine, pistol range). Anything further and I hope to either see the danger before it sees me or at least have some sort of cover to duck behind while I bring my rifle up in front of me.
3) I can only carry sooo much ammunition while maintaining mobility. 30 freaking mags not only weighs a lot, but its bulky. Now of course this part is very situation dependant; but I plan to 'live off the land', aka every cop car, every abandoned soldier's pack I come across. A rifle in .223 will easily find lots of ammo off the military and law enforcement. Same goes for pistols and carbines in those 3 common calibers I mentioned. This is why I may want a pistol in a Different caliber than my carbine.

As a last note, the pistol is there for the same reason we still put guns on our fighter jets even though there shouldn't be any need for them with our +90 mile range self guiding air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles; something WILL always go wrong. In the case of the pistol I want it well secured to my person so that, say I take a tumble down a long hill and lose or break my longer weapons, I will still have a reliable and durable pistol to help me go get some more.

That's my .

 

[Cpt Caveman]

Redundancy in weaponry is a good thing! Darklight nailed it for me. Don't wanna perish for lack of shooting back!" No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy" Handgun is good for fighting your way to a bigger weapon.
Solo, in a situation like we are discussing would be purty hairy. 2 folks sure would make things easier.One providing cover fire for the other to move under.
To be honest I'm not concerned with weight. I'm more concerned with ease of use and compatibility of magazines. That way I can hand my non gun shooting father in law my carbine and hand gun and expect him to be able to make the weapons run without my help.