Carbine vs handgun

[Kevin B.]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

I had the misfortune (through my own stupidity) of being a partipant in a pistol (G19) v. rifle (AK-47). I would consider myself reasonably well-trained and my opponent to be untrained. Distance involved was approximately 100 yards. In the end, it was a draw.

What really made the difference was my ability to place reasonably accurate fire on his position, in return. My training program at the time included a significant amount of shooting at 50 yards plus and it paid off.

Distance was my friend. It exploited his lack of training and allowed me to put my superior training to work to close the capability cap between my pistol and his rifle.

Closing the distance was not really a viable option for me. However, doing so really would have put me at a significant disadvantage.

[okie john]

The distance of the engagement obviously plays into any hypothetical comparison, but I think it's an undeniable fact that long-guns (in almost every guise) are superior weapons in all but the closest encounters ... all things being equal. As previously stated, long-guns aren't weapons of convenience so their use isn't very relevant to the defensive scenarios most citizens would likely encounter outside of their home or business.

I can say this with some certainty, I've seen some pretty unskilled users - armed with long-guns - absolutely dominate their opponent(s) that were only armed with handguns. Anyone that encounters an opponent so armed is a fool if he doesn't recognize the disparity in the ability to project force.

This. The whole issue falls into the ticket-to-Valhalla category, but if you've gotta go, then you might as well go in style.


Okie John

[TGS]

We shot the same qualification course with M4s and MP5s. At distance it is much easier for me to get repetitive A zone hits with a subgun/carbine than a pistol.

At close range there is no advantage save increased ammo capacity and there are a few potential problems.

What are you considering "close range" with this statement? I ask, because there's more than one advantage that a long gun has over handguns even at 3-7 yards.

That's a pretty wild statement to make given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

How much does an optic-equipped pistol change the balance in the 20-50-100 meter engagement (if that is distance in consideration)?

For me personally, at 20m it's a bit of an advantage but not much.

At 50m it's a huge advantage.

At 100m it's night and day. With irons I'd be very hesitant to make a 100m shot on a hostile human that wasn't aware of my presence, because I'd rather keep the surprise factor than risk missing, which I could easily do at that range.

With the optic I've been using, I wouldn't hesitate at all to make that shot because I'd be extremely confident that the first shot would be a debilitating hit.

[John Hearne]

You would have to be a pretty bad ass hand with a pistol to even make this close unless your opponent really sucks. Beyond 5 yards, I am hard pressed to think of a situation where I couldn't hit faster and better with the carbine.

I know you wanted to discount terminal ballistics - the logical progression of "all service calibers are the same" - but what about the psychological effects. The agent in the FBI Miami shooting described "the psychologically devastating" effect of taking 5.56 fire when armed with a pistol.

Since a number of us have been to Rogers, what does Bill do with the tests for short range rifle versus pistol? Bill obviously thinks the rifle is easier because the carbine tests are harder and include shooting on the move. After chasing those damn plates all day with a pistol, it was an absolute joy to smack them with that 9mm carbine.

FWIW, the best I shot with a pistol was 106/125 (84.8%) or a high intermediate score. I was happy with that 106 because it was the best I could shoot - that was my flawless performance level. I was pissed at my carbine test performance because I almost cleaned it every time I shot it, missing clean for stupid mistakes, not raw ability. I repeatedly shot 73/75 (97.3%) with far less rifle training than pistol training at the time I took the course.

[Hambo]

What are you considering "close range" with this statement? I ask, because there's more than one advantage that a long gun has over handguns even at 3-7 yards.

That's a pretty wild statement to make given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The OP referenced a 9mm Colt carbine, so I was thinking specifically of my experience with subguns. There was no ballistic advantage to them. In fact, for reasons never explained, we ran hotter 9mm in handguns than subguns. At housing project apartment distances I could shoot my pistol as well as the HK. At some point I started wondering if the 7 pound/30 round HK was worth it or if a second pistol would be a better idea.

[Gray222]

This. The whole issue falls into the ticket-to-Valhalla category, but if you've gotta go, then you might as well go in style.


Okie John

There are plenty of ways to go, and we all have a ticket, its up to us which table we end up sitting at.

[Nephrology]

In tight quarters and at close distances I can see a handgun having an advantage over a carbine (unless it's a handy SBR). That said, as a regular old civilian, I invest far more time/money/practice/etc with my handguns. They are the guns I will have with me if the proverbial balloon ever goes up.

[nwhpfan]

In many cases I can be faster accurate with a handgun over a rifle. 1:, I practice 10x with handgun vs. a rifle so that of course has a lot to do with it. From 25 yards, standing and a retention duty holster I can....most of the time put 2 rounds in the A zone in under 2 seconds. Just "going for tan" I can cut that by a couple tenths. For me it is much easier to index a handgun on a target then refine the aim than it is for me to do the same with a rifle. I suppose the equivalent to a holstered pistol is slung, not touching, hands at sides...again, I'm just able to things much quicker with a handgun; perhaps with training. But I would like to see a proficient rifaliero vs. a proficient pistolero at 25 yards...holstered vs. slung hands off weapon and see who is faster on target. I have a suspicion given comparable skill the handgun will be faster. At some point distance becomes a significant disadvantage to the pistol.

[GJM]

You would have to be a pretty bad ass hand with a pistol to even make this close unless your opponent really sucks. Beyond 5 yards, I am hard pressed to think of a situation where I couldn't hit faster and better with the carbine.

I know you wanted to discount terminal ballistics - the logical progression of "all service calibers are the same" - but what about the psychological effects. The agent in the FBI Miami shooting described "the psychologically devastating" effect of taking 5.56 fire when armed with a pistol.

Since a number of us have been to Rogers, what does Bill do with the tests for short range rifle versus pistol? Bill obviously thinks the rifle is easier because the carbine tests are harder and include shooting on the move. After chasing those damn plates all day with a pistol, it was an absolute joy to smack them with that 9mm carbine.

FWIW, the best I shot with a pistol was 106/125 (84.8%) or a high intermediate score. I was happy with that 106 because it was the best I could shoot - that was my flawless performance level. I was pissed at my carbine test performance because I almost cleaned it every time I shot it, missing clean for stupid mistakes, not raw ability. I repeatedly shot 73/75 (97.3%) with far less rifle training than pistol training at the time I took the course.

The OP referenced a 9mm Colt carbine, so I was thinking specifically of my experience with subguns. There was no ballistic advantage to them. In fact, for reasons never explained, we ran hotter 9mm in handguns than subguns. At housing project apartment distances I could shoot my pistol as well as the HK. At some point I started wondering if the 7 pound/30 round HK was worth it or if a second pistol would be a better idea.

1) Overall, I am not discounting at all the difference in terminal ballistics between rifle and pistol cartridges. I am the guy who carries a USP 45 with .45 Super ammo in AK, backed up with a Benelli with Brenneke slugs, or a Guide Gun with Garrett ammo. Discounting the difference in terminal ballistics here, purely to focus on the technical shooting problem of placing hits on target.

2) The idea for this thread came out of several discussions with Gabe on your chances, if you encountered a terrorist/active shooter situation. Most of us don't walk around with our carbines, so that means your concealed handgun is likely what you have to try to solve the problem.

3) What I was hoping for was to have some theoretical discussion, hear about actual experiences like Kevin B posted on, and then for folks to run some drills to try to quantify the technical shooting delta (not terminal ballistics difference) between the carbine your terrorist is likely to have, and the handgun, you are likely to have.

4) The reason for the Colt 9mm AR, was so we could shoot steel targets at pistol distances, and not tear up the steel. I feel like the 5.56 AR cycles faster for me than the 9mm AR, but I don't think the differences are likely to be significant in this testing.

5) Here is test one that we did. We set up three paper targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards. A Pistol Forum paper target at 10 and two IPSC cardboard targets at 12 and 14 yards. The drill was to draw the pistol and place two body shots on the eight inch circle, and then two head shots on each cardboard IPSC target. With the pistol, we settled on a 4.5 second par time for a clean run, based on several runs by my wife and me. My first run with the 9mm AR was 2.9 seconds clean, and my second run was also right at 2.9. My wife was 5.5 seconds on run one and right at 5 seconds on run 2 with the carbine. So, both slower than her pistol runs. (As a comp, she has E tickets in rifle and carbine from Gunsite, and shot a 114 and 115 with the pistol on the Rogers School test, last time she was there in April.) One difference was the AR started from the low ready and the pistol from the holster, so that obviously benefitted the AR.

6) Test two was to hit three eight inch steel plates, with one at 30 yards and the other two at 35 yards. With the pistol, we settled on a par time of six seconds, again based on multiple runs. It took a lot of concentration to do that consistently with the pistol. With the carbine, my best runs were at 2.0 seconds, and I was consistently under 3.0 seconds. My wife didn't shoot that one as it was getting late, and she still wanted to shoot her pistol.

We hope to drag a carbine out with us over upcoming range sessions and gather more data. Hope to work in the (D)AUG and AR pistol in .300 bulk.