Pistol Caliber Carbines For Patrol Use?

[SWAT Lt.]

If ARs are already in place it make no sense to also go with a PCC. Range and effectiveness will be reduced and difficulty in training, qualifications, and maintenance will be increased by adding another caliber and operating system into the mix. Different magazines and parts would further complicate things from a logistical standpoint. While I enjoy shooting PCCs and the hit potential is higher than with a service pistol, I believe a patrol rifle should be in a rifle caliber. When an officer deploys a rifle he is either expecting a gunfight or in one. I would never choose to bring a pistol, even a big one like a PCC, to a gunfight if a rifle was available.

[HeavyDuty]

Fantasy. At least in my mind.

We aren't getting involved in protracted gun fights or long range patrols where ammo sharing is a thing. Could it happen? Sure. Has it happened? I would imagine it has. To me, this is not a reason to select a weapon for domestic Law Enforcement purposes. Just my two cents on that one.

I’m not LE, but I’m an analyst. When I think of potential logistic advantages to a PCC that uses the same magazines as the primary duty handgun I don’t think of the ability to share ammunition between officers, but for an individual officer to have commonality of magazines. Whether PCCs are advantageous for patrol, I have no opinion.

[ST911]

Sorry, but I have to ask: Is this a serious venture, or is it really just an excuse for the training division to have some fun with guns and ammo on the agency's dime?

Yeah, that was my thought too. Lots of "evaluations" and demos out there.

[mmc45414]

One reasoning I've seen stated for PCCs is the ability for some to use the same mags as the standard service pistol.

Fantasy. At least in my mind.

A year or two ago a Cincinnati officer was in a group getting ready to make entry on an active shooter when he looked down at his carbine with no magazine in it. There was no audio on the BWC but it did not take a person trained in lip reading to know what he said...

I am not LE, but it seems to me like PCCs get a lot of hate that I am not sure they deserve. For sure not optimal, and not up to all of what a 5.56 is capable of, but they bring in the three points of contact and an easily indexable red dot optic, can maybe/probably compatible with mags already on the belt. From a training perspective a less familiar office might be able to get twice as many rounds in training from a cost perspective. Most LE firearms are not suppressed, and patrol officers do not appear to be wearing hearing protection very often. If you need to shoot one indoors 9mm will be a lot quieter, and if you need to shoot one outside it will just sound like a pistol (quieter). Or maybe instead of spending on the suppressors maybe a SBR the 9mm might be handier and cheaper. Dunno about reliability, mine (simple Colt pattern AR) has been reliable.

I understand the hate if somebody might be expected to transition away from their suppressed 5.56, but it seems like the PCC might be a bridge style solution for somebody that is not a well trained (potentially GWOT veteran) carbine user already.

[Trooper224]

Going with a PCC over a rifle is magnitudes of stupid. Introducing it as an additional weapon in a battery, for officers who already have trouble comprehending their existing weapons, isn't much better.

[Lowspeed_highdrag]

I can see arguments being made for certain units in certain areas having access to a lethal shotgun. I think all patrol officers need access to a quality carbine.

But a PCC? It fills no role, solves no problems, and does nothing for the patrol officer.

[Magsz]

I’m not LE, but I’m an analyst. When I think of potential logistic advantages to a PCC that uses the same magazines as the primary duty handgun I don’t think of the ability to share ammunition between officers, but for an individual officer to have commonality of magazines. Whether PCCs are advantageous for patrol, I have no opinion.

Too academic. The rifle is a different tool than a handgun. Ultimately, they solve the same problem but they offer different pathways to achieve the same conclusion.

Sure, it would be awesome from a logistics standpoint to only have to purchase 9mm ammunition. Having said that, the two systems support each other. Long gun for threats that require it and the handgun as a backup.

A year or two ago a Cincinnati officer was in a group getting ready to make entry on an active shooter when he looked down at his carbine with no magazine in it. There was no audio on the BWC but it did not take a person trained in lip reading to know what he said...

I am not LE, but it seems to me like PCCs get a lot of hate that I am not sure they deserve. For sure not optimal, and not up to all of what a 5.56 is capable of, but they bring in the three points of contact and an easily indexable red dot optic, can maybe/probably compatible with mags already on the belt. From a training perspective a less familiar office might be able to get twice as many rounds in training from a cost perspective. Most LE firearms are not suppressed, and patrol officers do not appear to be wearing hearing protection very often. If you need to shoot one indoors 9mm will be a lot quieter, and if you need to shoot one outside it will just sound like a pistol (quieter). Or maybe instead of spending on the suppressors maybe a SBR the 9mm might be handier and cheaper. Dunno about reliability, mine (simple Colt pattern AR) has been reliable.

I understand the hate if somebody might be expected to transition away from their suppressed 5.56, but it seems like the PCC might be a bridge style solution for somebody that is not a well trained (potentially GWOT veteran) carbine user already.

That officer failed himself and his squad. Revamping industry standards to "fix" that problem should only occur in the realm of teaching officers how to do PFI's (pre flight inspections) prior to shift. Other than that, he fucked up on multiple levels and I hope that he learned from his mistakes.

Your other points are well articulated and truthful to an extent. Most of the issues that are raised can be solved easily. Higher cut helmets that allow ballistic protection and hearing protection to integrate should be offered. There is no real cost differential.

Hearing protection on the road should be encouraged. It's not expensive and if an officer balks at having to spend 2 cents on foam ear plugs or forty five dollars on howard leights, they're just a penny pincher. Anything over 140 DB is going to cause long term hearing damage. The order of magnitude greater via a rifle shot probably cant really be measured but i'm not an audiologist. It sucks either way. Like I said earlier, the money could be spent on SBR's and rifle cans to mitigate that just the same as it could be spent on PCC's and Suppressors. There is no real cost differential there.

I can see arguments being made for certain units in certain areas having access to a lethal shotgun. I think all patrol officers need access to a quality carbine.

But a PCC? It fills no role, solves no problems, and does nothing for the patrol officer.

Please expand upon your thoughts bro. I want to know more about why you think that way. Please.

[jnc36rcpd]

If memory serves, command staff had considered replacing my former employer's shotguns with 9mm semiautomatic AR-15's in the late around 1990. We ended up purchasing two carbines and authorizing officers to purchase their own and keeping the shotguns. This was an era in which we were convinced a rifle had too much range and penetration. We also believed that only sergeants and OIC's could be trusted with the carbines (and the 37mm less-lethal launcher).

While I qualified with the carbine, I opted for the shotgun on the street. The PCC does have some advantages if you don't have a rifle, but we also authorized slugs for the shotgun. Had we put more thought and effort into the PCC, I might have carried it, but they had simple carry slings and no lights, optics, or provision for extra ammunition.

I last carried the PCC the day the Beltway snipers shot multiple victims near our jurisdiction in 2002. Another officer called to meet me. When we met, he presented me with a PCC and said he had been directed to take my shotgun and leave me the PCC since I was qualified on that weapon. I vividly remember approaching the cabin of one of the mysterious white box trucks, really wishing I had my 870 in hand rather than I weapon I didn't really trust. (You can see pictures of my cruiser and that box truck in a couple of the books on the case; happy to sign autographs).

The fallout of that case was immediate replacement of the 9mm carbines with 5.56 caliber AR-15's.

I don't think there is much hate for PCC's on this forum, but a realization that today it is a specialized tool for specific missions. From the OP's description, it doesn't sound like his department has a need for the PCC. I suspect it will complicate training and logistics as well as delay upgrades to the rifle program.

[TGS]

Please expand upon your thoughts bro. I want to know more about why you think that way. Please.

I agree with him.

A shotgun has lots of limitations but is very useful as a dedicated niche tool, like an entry gun, where it offers a high potential for 1-shot stops and due to its role as an entry gun on a team serving warrants is unlikely to face it's range limitation, and can be swapped out for a rifle beforehand if there's a strong possibility the targets of the operation are armored up. If an agency were running two man patrol cars, having a rifle/shotgun pair on the car seems like the best setup for solving problems on the street.

A PCC/SMG is a niche tool that if selected properly can offer the advantages of weight and concealment compared to shotguns or carbines. This is an advantage for LEOs tasked with protection, surveillance, or specific entry roles like @WobblyPossum mentioned, where his agency does not only a lot of small-dewlling entries but also confined space searches and unlike most other LEAs, commonly hits locations with 20, 40, or more individuals on site which need to be handled; in those uses, a PCC/SMG has an advantage at the expense of terminal ballistics, and is why his agency has a 4" MPX available to agents, why PFPA has the 4" MPX for their agents doing PSD, and why Army CID has the B&T APC9K for agents doing PSD, and why we have a small amount of MP5-K PDWs for a specific unit and are trying to procure a new PDW to supplement our Mk18s.

My agency seems to be stuck in analysis paralysis in replacing the old MP5K-PDW/supplementing the Mk18, since we know we need a PDW but at the same time there's an aversion to issuing people another SMG...while at the same time there isn't a whole lot of great options for 5.56 PDWs which have their own significant shortcomings, and we have a genuine logistical problem with choosing a 300 Blackout. It's like that meme of superman sweating while trying to press a button choosing between two bad decisions. If I were king I'd buy an SMG, but, in rela life decisions are made by committee and the committee can't decide on something.

I guess the one role patrol might have where a PCC/SMG is reasonable is if you want to offer the motors guys some sort of long gun but needed something to fit inside their storage containers on their motors. Otherwise, the PCC/SMG offers no advantage for patrol officers that justifies the compromise in terminal ballistics over a shotgun or carbine.

I think it's pretty absurd to issue guys PCCs/SMGs in 2023, instead of a carbine or even shotgun when they have zero need necessitating the compromise in ballistics.

ETA: sorry for constant updates or if anything is rambling. I'm currently in Africa and am posting while still adjusting timezones.

[El Cid]

I agree with him.

A shotgun has lots of limitations but is very useful as a dedicated niche tool, like an entry gun, where it offers a high potential for 1-shot stops and due to its role as an entry gun on a team serving warrants is unlikely to face it's range limitation, and can be swapped out for a rifle beforehand if there's a strong possibility the targets of the operation are armored up. If an agency were running two man patrol cars, having a rifle/shotgun pair on the car seems like the best setup for solving problems on the street.

A PCC/SMG is a niche tool that if selected properly can offer the advantages of weight and concealment compared to shotguns or carbines. This is an advantage for LEOs tasked with protection, surveillance, or specific entry roles like @Wobbly Possum mentioned, where his agency does not only a lot of small-dewlling entries but also confined space searches and unlike most other LEAs, commonly hits locations with 20, 40, or more individuals on site which need to be handled; in those uses, a PCC/SMG has an advantage at the expense of terminal ballistics, and is why his agency has a 4" MPX available to agents, why PFPA has the 4" MPX for their agents doing PSD, and why Army CID has the B&T APC9K for agents doing PSD, and why we have a small amount of MP5-K PDWs for a specific unit and are trying to procure a new PDW to supplement our Mk18s.

My agency seems to be stuck in analysis paralysis in replacing the old MP5K-PDW/supplementing the Mk18, since we know we need a PDW but at the same time there's an aversion to issuing people another SMG...while at the same time there isn't a whole lot of great options for 5.56 PDWs which have their own significant shortcomings, and we have a genuine logistical problem with choosing a 300 Blackout. It's like that meme of superman sweating while trying to press a button choosing between two bad decisions. If I were king I'd buy an SMG, but, in rela life decisions are made by committee and the committee can't decide on something.

I guess the one role patrol might have where a PCC/SMG is reasonable is if you want to offer the motors guys some sort of long gun but needed something to fit inside their storage containers on their motors. Otherwise, the PCC/SMG offers no advantage for patrol officers that justifies the compromise in terminal ballistics over a shotgun or carbine.

I think it's pretty absurd to issue guys PCCs/SMGs in 2023, instead of a carbine or even shotgun when they have zero need necessitating the compromise in ballistics.

ETA: sorry for constant updates or if anything is rambling. I'm currently in Africa and am posting while still adjusting timezones.

Agreed. If I am sporting a PCC it should because I want a shoulder weapon I can conceal. So a PDW really.
Replacing rifles with PCC’s is a step backwards especially in a world where handguns with red dots are so common.

But then I’d want every patrol shift to have at least one officer with a .308 gas carbine with a LPVO. So administrators don’t usually like me anyway. Lol!