Benefits of a Pistol Caliber Carbine?

[Marine Corporal]

Ever heard of the MP5? How about the Israeli Uzi? Those have been staples with CQB for decades. What are you guys talking about?

[Bang4Buck]

Ever heard of the MP5? How about the Israeli Uzi? Those have been staples with CQB for decades. What are you guys talking about?

We’re talking about not romanticizing something that is largely obsolete in modern combat situations. Look at what most soldiers and SWAT carry for their primary weapon for CQB and ranges out to xxx yards. The answer is a carbine and not a 9MM SMG. The carbine generates about 3 times the kinetic energy of the SMG. That’s just physics.

[Marine Corporal]

We’re talking about not romanticizing something that is largely obsolete in modern combat situations. Look at what most soldiers and SWAT carry for their primary weapon for CQB and ranges out to xxx yards. The answer is a carbine and not a 9MM SMG. The carbine generates about 3 times the kinetic energy of the SMG. That’s just physics.

You don’t seem to want to understand that for decades MP5’s killed people. Killed them dead. Many of them. Those same people if brought to life today aren’t going to suddenly sneeze at a PCC. They’ll die just the same way they died before. To this day the MP5 is still used in certain operations when silenced weapons are needed in super tight spaces like aboard ships.

It wouldn’t still be used if it didn’t kill anyone. If it killed people in the past, it can kill people today. To say that it’s obsolete is like saying that your Glock or 1911 is obsolete because it doesn’t fire a rifle round. And whether you know it or or not, with a rifle, you still have to put your bullets where they need to go. Too much emphasis is given to kinetic energy numbers these days. Striking vital organs is what kills someone.

[1168]

Interesting. Curious to know which special operations teams prefer PCC over a carbine, given the carbine will fire rounds with substantially higher kinetic energy?
.

You would find that list rather short.

[Wake27]

Ever heard of the MP5? How about the Israeli Uzi? Those have been staples with CQB for decades. What are you guys talking about?

Bro, 1997 called.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flenna]

I’d say the proliferation of body armor is what killed the SMG as a choice CQB weapon for tactical teams. Although it wouldn’t be my first choice I would not feel under gunned with a PCC in a home defense situation.

[1168]

I’d say the proliferation of body armor is what killed the SMG as a choice CQB weapon for tactical teams. Although it wouldn’t be my first choice I would not feel under gunned with a PCC in a home defense situation.

That, plus over-penetration with ball ammo (mil), the rise of the Mk18 and specialty 5.56 ammo, such as Mk262 and others. For putting in work, there’s just no good reason for 9mm carbines, in most cases. This includes typical CQB work in residential, industrial, and commercial structures. There are a few SMG’s still in use for particular niches in .mil SOF, such as the MP5k and MP7. But top level door kickers are rocking 5.56 when reasonably possible. For cops raiding meth labs, a suppressed MP5 may still have value to reduce risk of fire/explosion, but thats out of my wheelhouse, just something small fry “SWAT” type cops have discussed with me.

For home D, I’m sure a PCC works fine, but I reach for my M4, personally.

[ST911]

Marine Corporal- Check your lane. And if you're going to reference historical usage rather than current, make that and the foundation from which you speak clear.

Everyone else- Talk about info and issues, not people. No need for name-calling and swipes.

[Bang4Buck]

You don’t seem to want to understand that for decades MP5’s killed people. Killed them dead. Many of them. Those same people if brought to life today aren’t going to suddenly sneeze at a PCC. They’ll die just the same way they died before. To this day the MP5 is still used in certain operations when silenced weapons are needed in super tight spaces like aboard ships.

It wouldn’t still be used if it didn’t kill anyone. If it killed people in the past, it can kill people today. To say that it’s obsolete is like saying that your Glock or 1911 is obsolete because it doesn’t fire a rifle round. And whether you know it or or not, with a rifle, you still have to put your bullets where they need to go. Too much emphasis is given to kinetic energy numbers these days. Striking vital organs is what kills someone.

Spears and swords also killed people dead. For centuries. But they aren't exactly used as primary weapons in battle anymore, are they? I never suggested a PCC can't kill. I said there are better tools for the job in combat. And the primary weapon used by most soldiers and SWAT teams would support that.

And physics. Silly science. Who cares about kinetic energy and all that fluff? No one said glocks and 1911s are obsolete. But there is a reason they are secondary/backup weapons. If you're going to a gun fight, by all means bring your PCC. I'll bring my AR.

[titsonritz]

The only real benefit I can see is PCC are cheaper to shoot and perhaps a small nod to allow for the use of a single round between pistol and long gun.