Pistol Carbine for BOB

[Doctorr Fabulous]

I think that if you do not trust the terminal performance of FMJ 5.56/.223 ammo, then don't use FMJ ammo. Plenty of other 5.56/.223 ammo options out there at the same price point of defense 9mm ammo.

It's less that, more knowing your ideal engagement range, picking ammo to match your barrel length, and understanding that beyond a certain range your firearm will be less effective because of lost velocity. All the other bullshit was a riot to read, but the end result is that a 10" barrel AR has a smaller fragmentation envelope than a 16" than a 20" which will limit its peak effectiveness. Same is true of any caliber.

The rest of the hot air is meaningless without actual data, the bulk of which supports a Fackler and Roberts in saying that non-fragmenting 5.56 is not terribly devastating in people, but like any other bullet, will poke holes in stuff that will likely kill the recipient. Unless it doesn't, because bodies are weird sometimes.

[woodsghost]

Because I'm a douche.
If yawing doesn't cause a wound, explain this:
http://s881.photobucket.com/user/mickey ... b.gif.html

Permanent tissue destruction matters. Everything I see that I trust from Russians is that the round of choice when one does not have to carry all their ammo is the 7.62x39. The round of choice when one is carrying all your operational gear on your back is often (not always) the 5.45x39. Because it is lighter and you can carry more of it for a given weight. But the 7.62 was usually considered more effective than the 5.45. Some disagreed, sure, and felt the smaller round was terrific! That is fine. That is the nature of life.

Further evidence of the affects of yawing:
http://www.theakforum.net/forums/14-gen ... -pics.html
http://www.theakforum.net/forums/14-gen ... -pics.html
http://www.theakforum.net/forums/14-gen ... -pics.html

I love the War Poodle.

It seems to me I saw threads where this guy had used 7n6, but I could be totally wrong. The rounds used in the posted threads are Hornady hollow points. Not much yawing or tumbling there. Also, heart and lung shots tend to kill things, even with BB guns. I have an uncle who killed a deer on accident with a 900 fps air rifle. .177 caliber. He used those pellets with the copper piece in front. My guess is it slipped between the ribs and tagged the heart or lungs. It died about 100 yrds later. He was just trying to keep the deer out of his garden. He stopped shooting them after that.

EDIT:

General comment on lethality: We can talk about what different militaries use all we want. But the people to pay attention to are the people who kill a lot of stuff and who have access to a wide range of bullets and are inclined to experiment with a wide range of bullets.

I wrote some stuff about Russians in this post. I'm not trying to say "AKs are the best." I"m willing to bet those Russians would have used some other rounds if they had all the ammo in the world to choose from. I'm willing to bet if we let American soldiers experiment with all the civilian and military rounds in the world, they would eventually arrive at the ultimate rounds for putting down BGs. I'm willing to bet they would be 155mm rounds. But soldiers tend to be limited in their ammo selection, and this limits the generalizability of their experiences.

Also, like Doc said, pay attention to "performance envelopes." Whether one is using a 5.56 or a 9mm or .45 ACP PPC. Know where the round is most effective, less effective, and ineffective.

[Sworbeyegib]

I think that if you do not trust the terminal performance of FMJ 5.56/.223 ammo, then don't use FMJ ammo. Plenty of other 5.56/.223 ammo options out there at the same price point of defense 9mm ammo.

It's less that, more knowing your ideal engagement range, picking ammo to match your barrel length, and understanding that beyond a certain range your firearm will be less effective because of lost velocity. All the other bullshit was a riot to read, but the end result is that a 10" barrel AR has a smaller fragmentation envelope than a 16" than a 20" which will limit its peak effectiveness. Same is true of any caliber.

The rest of the hot air is meaningless without actual data, the bulk of which supports a Fackler and Roberts in saying that non-fragmenting 5.56 is not terribly devastating in people, but like any other bullet, will poke holes in stuff that will likely kill the recipient. Unless it doesn't, because bodies are weird sometimes.

I whole heartily agree. I was just bringing up the point that if we shift our focus to the other options civilians have when choosing a defensive round, it opens up more doors... and more debates.

[Dioxin]

I must say its been an enlightening discussion, to be fair I hadnt really considered the lethality question, I've spent my entire shooting career punching neat little holes in paper. I am aware of the wound characteristics but I'm standing on the shoulders of giants that have done the research.

What I am taking from this thread is that in my expected engagement range of less than 100m, Pistols, PCC and Rifle Carbines are all applicable. The Carbines are perhaps easier to get on target than pistols. It is interesting to note that shortening the barrel of the Rifle Carbine does have a material impact on its would characteristics, the worst case scenario we get to is that bullet placement still counts. Which is a given.

So from here I looked at the weight considerations, .45 got ruled out due to getting twice the loadout in 9mm/5.56 for the same weight.

Then 9mm vs 5.56 is almost a no brainer for extended range, due to the increased velocity(and other factors) of the 5.56 the groups you can print at 100m are generally smaller.

So in my not so humble opinion my initial premise was full of holes

[Mr. E. Monkey]

So in my not so humble opinion my initial premise was full of holes

But were they neat and clean holes, or jagged, tumbled and fragged holes?

[Gingerbread Man]

This is a first for me. I have not seen a 5.56 poodle round argument in a PCC thread before. I wonder if I can get a PCC in 5.56?

I'm also trying to wrap my head around how this divulged into a 5.56 debate too. I thought ZS got that out of it's system awhile ago.

I think that if you do not trust the terminal performance of FMJ 5.56/.223 ammo, then don't use FMJ ammo. Plenty of other 5.56/.223 ammo options out there at the same price point of defense 9mm ammo.

The pedantic comparision of 5.56 to a 22LR all over the place brought it in.

If it's all hot air without data then why did Falkner say this in regards to the 7N6? "Yawing doesn't add anything to the wounding capacity." Then turns right around and says "But might cause an occasional confusing path through tissue." Then "This bullet yaws after about 7cm of tissue penetration, ASSURING an increased temporary cavity stretch distruption in a higher percentage of extremity hits;" So he says it yaws quickly and violently creating a large wound but that's nothing to worry about because yawing doesn't have an effect. Well, which is it, yawing works or it doesn't. Obviously, yawing does work or the 7N6 would not have killed those deer out of a short barreled carbine (Bugarian Krink). The 5.56 does yaw (See gel test in super slomo), therefore that is it's wounding component if it's not fragmenting. There are plenty of dead folks who back up the 7N6 is effective, so is the 5.56.

Let's look at some reasons why he would have poopooed the 5.56 in 1980.
A. The Army really wanted to get rid of the M16 and the 5.56. They never wanted it, they hated it from the time it was shoved in their hands. He was paid to do this study, that right there is telling. Then he says OTM doesn't fragment well, ok, bull, it does. Way past the fragmentation thresholds of the FMJ. The Army is constantly trying to get away from the M16 and M4. Even more so then, they wanted their 30 caliber rifles back.
B. The Soviets just fielded the Ak74 and the 7N6. the Army was shitting itself. They also fielded a bunch of other new weapons and invaded yet another country. The Army want to get a new rifle ASAP before the big war kicked off. Nothing like a study by a Doctor to get the bean counters attention that says our boys are going to have an ineffective rifle to defend against the Soviet horde.
C. To reassure the big Army at that time that they were right in hating the M16, needed a new rifle and caliber to one up the nasty Soviet horde.

What was the result? The M855 and better ammo for the 5.56. Shocking.

[woodsghost]

If it's all hot air without data then why did Falkner say this in regards to the 7N6? "Yawing doesn't add anything to the wounding capacity." Then turns right around and says "But might cause an occasional confusing path through tissue." Then "This bullet yaws after about 7cm of tissue penetration, ASSURING an increased temporary cavity stretch distruption in a higher percentage of extremity hits;" So he says it yaws quickly and violently creating a large wound but that's nothing to worry about because yawing doesn't have an effect. Well, which is it, yawing works or it doesn't. Obviously, yawing does work or the 7N6 would not have killed those deer out of a short barreled carbine (Bugarian Krink). The 5.56 does yaw (See gel test in super slomo), therefore that is it's wounding component if it's not fragmenting. There are plenty of dead folks who back up the 7N6 is effective, so is the 5.56.

I"m going to guess you did not read my post above, or the deer tests you linked to. Hornady hollow points were used, not 7N6! No yawing! Heart and lung shots. Shot placement counts! With .22, 5.45, 5.56, & 7.62.

Now:

Yawing doesn't add anything to the wounding capacity.

But might cause an occasional confusing path through tissue.

This says yawing does not add to the ability to hurt someone, but doctors might have to search in unusual places to be able to find the bullet. If the bullet enters the shoulder, don't expect it to be on the other side. Search around the wrist, the other arm, the stomach, the neck, maybe even the feet. The stuff is weird and you don't know where it is going to end up.

This bullet yaws after about 7cm of tissue penetration, assuring an increased temporary cavity stretch disruption in a higher percentage of extremity hits.

You are less likely to have a neat pin hole in an arm or leg shot, like with M43 7.62x39. As I understand, temporary cavity stretch does not matter like they used to think. They found permanent tissue destruction does matter. A tumbling bullet is more likely to cause permanent tissue destruction in an arm or leg than M43 cuz it's going ass over teakettle in your extremity (arm or leg). This means getting hit in the arm or leg is going to matter more than it used to, before 7N6.

There is nothing in there saying "7N6 is a poor performer but also causes massive damage superior to M193." The language is all very consistent and not at all contradictory.

[Gingerbread Man]

Falkner was talking about 7N6. I know the deer was killed with hornady, regardless, it was a 5.45 bullet from a Krink. We don't know what the bullet did in the deer but we can see the results.

He said yawing doesn't matter then turns around and says it's how it works and does it well. They say the temp cavity doesn't matter. Ok, then why are people dying from yawing bullets? Because distrupting the homeostasis of the body shuts things down. Having high speed bullets in your body does that.

Still doesn't explain why yawing works with the 7N6. If the 5.56 is just a 22LR then just switch to 22LR. Right? Shot placement, right? There are fragementing 22LR, I have some.

Because it's not a 22LR, it doesn't wound like a 22LR.

Stop saying shot placement counts. Everyone knows that. It's not a mystery to me. It really doesn't need red bold text.

[woodsghost]

Falkner was talking about 7N6. I know the deer was killed with hornady, regardless, it was a 5.45 bullet from a Krink. We don't know what the bullet did in the deer but we can see the results.

So, if you shoot .22LR from an adapter in your 20 barreled AR, does that mean it will perform like MK262? It is fired out of an AR, after all. Or what if we fire M193, MK262, and a 40 gr JHP out of a 20 inch barreled AR? Will they all perform the same? They are all fired from an AR. No, they will not all perform the same. Just as different type of bullets, even if they are fired from a short barreled AK, will not all perform the same just because they were fired from the same gun. Different bullets cause different results regardless what weapon fires them. Velocity matters for some rounds.

He said yawing doesn't matter then turns around and says it's how it works and does it well. They say the temp cavity doesn't matter. Ok, then why are people dying from yawing bullets? Because distrupting the homeostasis of the body shuts things down. Having high speed bullets in your body does that.

It has been a while since I read the original reports. I should read them again. When I have time, hopefully later today, I will go through and more carefully explain.

Still doesn't explain why yawing works with the 7N6. If the 5.56 is just a 22LR then just switch to 22LR. Right? Shot placement, right? There are fragementing 22LR, I have some.

The points being made are that, within the performance envelope, 5.56 is way more devastating than .22. Outside the performance envelope, it is pretty similar to .22LR. Since studies in WW2 indicated most all hits occur within 100 yards, having a round which is effective out past 200 yards seemed plenty useful. I'll not touch on the leaps of logic, but in general, the 5.56 is just fine and within it's performance envelope, superior to most other rounds I am aware of.

Stop saying shot placement counts. Everyone knows that. It's not a mystery to me. It really doesn't need red bold text.

I feel like some points and arguments are not being understood, because the same misunderstandings keep getting repeated. But I'll stop using red when talking about shot placement.

[Gingerbread Man]

Here's the 69 gr FMJ 5.45 yawing and creating a permanent cavity/wound. Bullet ends up backwards, no fragmentation.



60 gr Hornady with jacket seperation.



7N6 not fragmenting but yawing.


5.45 VMAX from SBR.



Silver Bear 5.45 60 gr FMJ. No frag, yawing only yet leaves permanent wound cavity.



5.56 M856 Yawing, not fragmenting.



308 FMJ yawing, it does split in two about the same time it exits the block.



I knew I'd seen a 5.56 tumbling/yawing through a block. Huh, looks like to yawed twice and produced two permanent cavities with 21" of penetration. So the 5.56 does yaw at slower than fragmentation thresholds.

[Dioxin]

You guys may wish to take the discussion on bullets and yawing into a separate thread.
Its going a bit beyond the scope of the thread.

Kind Regards

Dioxin

[woodsghost]

You guys may wish to take the discussion on bullets and yawing into a separate thread.
Its going a bit beyond the scope of the thread.

Kind Regards

Dioxin

Heading in that direction. Sorry man.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

When I read "yawing doesn't add wounding capacity" followed by "yawing causes more temporary wound cavity" then the logical progression, IMO, is that temporary wound cavity doesn't mean a while lot.

[ashwednesday]

What it comes down to is that I don't want a pistol and another heavier pistol with a longer barrel and stock. I want to be carrying a pistol and a rifle.

A pistol caliber carbine is a submachine gun without the things that make a submachine gun great- super short barrel for small spaces, and full auto for overwhelming controllable firepower at close distances. Without those advantages and without it being under those circumstances, I'd much rather have a rifle.

If you want something faster, flatter shooting than a regular pistol, get one in 357 Sig. Then you can also carry a rifle in a proper rifle caliber.

This is from someone who owns Glock 23 and Keltec SUB2000 in .40SW with magazine compatibility. It's 'nifty' at best. I don't hate the Keltec, I just don't see that it's that much better than the Glock, which takes up 1/3 the space and weight.

Deciding that you just won't engage at longer distances assumes you will have a choice. Choosing a pistol caliber carbine instead of a rifle is like saying I'll bring a compressor but no spare tire because I just won't get flat tires.

The only thing sillier is those CAA and Sig "pistol into a carbine" shells. Pay for a tax stamp, and then get no additional barrel length at all?!? What a slap in the face. Those things are the neon running lights and giant spoiler people put on Mom's 93 Honda Civic.

[azrael99]

if i would get a pistol caliber rifle as a camp rifle , which one would be better (keep in mind that the rifle would probably be a sub-2000 ) the 9mm or the 40 S&W ? both aren't difficult to find over here for a reasonable price


i would love a 45 acp................but every rifle i saw are terribly expensive (the kriss vector is a beast, but DAMN if it expensive)

[woodsghost]

if i would get a pistol caliber rifle as a camp rifle , which one would be better (keep in mind that the rifle would probably be a sub-2000 ) the 9mm or the 40 S&W ? both aren't difficult to find over here for a reasonable price


i would love a 45 acp................but every rifle i saw are terribly expensive (the kriss vector is a beast, but DAMN if it expensive)

My thoughts are 9mm with this stuff:

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l ... tail&p=225

Just my $.02

[azrael99]

seem interesting gonna get some note

[Doctorr Fabulous]

I don't know that I'd stock a PCC as a camp-gun. Canada laws make shorty-shotguns easy to get. Something like a 14" 870 clone with a full stock would be nice and handy against Canada-sized wild beasties. Keep a spare longer barrel for birding if you feel like it.

[azrael99]

i was thinking maybe a dominion arms outlaw, but then, we are on a pistol caliber rifle thread so we should get back on subject.

[Dioxin]

Shotgun vs PCC is still on topic if the PCC doesnt have enough punch in your AO.

In my AO the wildlife is 2 legged and generally less than 100kg, pistol rounds and shotgun shells probably have similar engagement envelops,
and drop them all the same. But bear in mind I dont shoot Shotguns, but shoot a pistol fairly well.

[woodsghost]

Shotgun vs PCC is still on topic if the PCC doesnt have enough punch in your AO.

In my AO the wildlife is 2 legged and generally less than 100kg, pistol rounds and shotgun shells probably have similar engagement envelops,
and drop them all the same. But bear in mind I dont shoot Shotguns, but shoot a pistol fairly well.

You could always learn to get good with a shotgun and carry both a pistol and a shotgun.

You can turn to some threads we have on the shotgun, such as the "are shotguns overrated" thread. A shotgun will be better than a PCC at terminal performance and hit capability out to maybe 50 yards with shot, give or take. But capacity is lower, ammo is heavier, and if you have the opportunity to carry a rifle, I would recommend that all day long unless you live in a swamp or jungle which limits engagement ranges to 30 yards.

[Dioxin]

You could always learn to get good with a shotgun and carry both a pistol and a shotgun.

You can turn to some threads we have on the shotgun, such as the "are shotguns overrated" thread. A shotgun will be better than a PCC at terminal performance and hit capability out to maybe 50 yards with shot, give or take. But capacity is lower, ammo is heavier, and if you have the opportunity to carry a rifle, I would recommend that all day long unless you live in a swamp or jungle which limits engagement ranges to 30 yards.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=103469
Ok so from this thread we can roughly deduce that a 3" Shotgun shell in 12G is equivilent
in weight to 4 9mm rounds.

Does a Shotgun Shell outperform 4 9mm's in terminal performance and hit capability? I'm less convinced.

For Shotgun I would say Hunting > Defense
For PCC I would say Defense > Hunting.
Pick the right tool for the job.

[Stercutus]

You could always learn to get good with a shotgun and carry both a pistol and a shotgun.

You can turn to some threads we have on the shotgun, such as the "are shotguns overrated" thread. A shotgun will be better than a PCC at terminal performance and hit capability out to maybe 50 yards with shot, give or take. But capacity is lower, ammo is heavier, and if you have the opportunity to carry a rifle, I would recommend that all day long unless you live in a swamp or jungle which limits engagement ranges to 30 yards.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=103469
Ok so from this thread we can roughly deduce that a 3" Shotgun shell in 12G is equivilent
in weight to 4 9mm rounds.

Does a Shotgun Shell outperform 4 9mm's in terminal performance and hit capability? I'm less convinced.

For Shotgun I would say Hunting > Defense
For PCC I would say Defense > Hunting.
Pick the right tool for the job.

I am pulling for the MP5 over the 870 inside the house and the 870 with some slugs outside.

[woodsghost]

You could always learn to get good with a shotgun and carry both a pistol and a shotgun.

You can turn to some threads we have on the shotgun, such as the "are shotguns overrated" thread. A shotgun will be better than a PCC at terminal performance and hit capability out to maybe 50 yards with shot, give or take. But capacity is lower, ammo is heavier, and if you have the opportunity to carry a rifle, I would recommend that all day long unless you live in a swamp or jungle which limits engagement ranges to 30 yards.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=103469
Ok so from this thread we can roughly deduce that a 3" Shotgun shell in 12G is equivilent
in weight to 4 9mm rounds.

Does a Shotgun Shell outperform 4 9mm's in terminal performance and hit capability? I'm less convinced.

For Shotgun I would say Hunting > Defense
For PCC I would say Defense > Hunting.
Pick the right tool for the job.

Starting about here:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=113386&start=120

And moving on through the thread, I have to say I think hit probability inside 50 meters is going to be better with a shotgun on a human sized target and with flight control wads, hit probability will probably be better with a shotgun out to probably 80 meters. Unless your target is 76mm by 76mm, then I'm rooting for the 9mm at anything beyond 7 meters.

A good point to discuss is terminal performance. I have more confidence in 4 9mm than one 00 buck past 10 meters, IF all 4 9mm hit. The more misses with 9mm, the more confidence I have in 00 buck. A hit with something is better than a miss with something better, and a 3 inch 00 has a decent chance of tagging a target with 2-4 of the 15 pellets per shot out to a good distance. A really good distance with flight control wads.

A second point to discuss is ease of use. Third point: ease of loading.

Don't read me as saying the shotgun is superior in all respects. I was simply saying it is something to consider and does have advantages. As always though, I"m voting for the rifle.