I would venture to say yes, a pistol caliber carbine has it's place, but not for everyone. If a person wants to keep it simple, owning a carbine and a handgun that share not only ammunition, but magazines as well, would be benificial, say, something like a S&W 59 and a Marlin Camp-9 or Sub-2000.

I'm currently trying to swap my 9mm carbine for another 9mm handgun, I already have carbines that will do the job of my pistol caliber carbine far more effectively, so in my case, it doesn't make sense to keep it.

 

Hell yes they have a place.

I have matching carbine and pistol in 357. They are simple and reliable

 

Definitely has a place. I've got .357 lever action and revolver that would be my bug out weapons. There are limitations no matter what guns you choose, but light weight, share ammo, reliable, easy, cheap... They are definitely a good option for survival and prepping.

 

Definatly. Two weapons that use the same ammo and magazines is a logistical plus.

And logistics win wars.

 

357 in a carbine packs a real punch - 1700 fps with a 158gr SWC will take down anything in the SE under 125 yards. Makes real good sense to minimize your logistics and one caliber for pistol and rifle will go a long way toward that goal.

 

I dont think it does....the ammo is heavier than .223 and has half the energy

 

Are you talking about the .357 Magnum? If so, then you are dead wrong on the energy levels. I handload 158 XTP's with 16.5g of lil' gun and I chrono them at 1850fps out of my Marlin 1894CSS and 1250fps out of my 4" Ruger GP100. If you look up those energy levels it puts the .357 at 1,200 ft-lbs out of the carbine and 550 ft-lbs out of the pistol. The 55g 5.56X45 @ 3100 fps is just around 1,100 ft-lbs.

The point is, the .357 Magnum out of a rifle is an intermediate rifle caliber. It does very well out of a pistol as well, overall these factors make it an excellent general purpose caliber.

 

I guess I take the other tack. I feel everyone needs a mag fed semi auto rifle caliber defense weapon. If I can have one why get a rifle with a weaker pistol caliber. Now if I cannot get a AR or AK or Mini due to laws or something or cost then go SKS or lever action with matching revolver. But I prefer the AK. I guess if someone is shooting at me I want to return the best.

 

Like my Marlin .357 lever gun. Lightweight, handy, and guaranteed to make someone's day a little more interesting within 100 yards or so. .30-30 is even nicer.

Carbines have a useful role for work in those intermediate ranges between shotgun and rifle.

 

I have a Bulgarian AK47 and RRA AR15 either of which could be accompanied by either a Glock 19 or a Glock 22. With that being said for most SHTF scenarios I would prefer this combo

GP100 and Marlin 94c

 

PCC's definatly have a role, just not as your primary defensive weapons. The are good choices for handout weapons as long as they aren't too heavy or expensive. Other than that, make sure you have a serious defensive rifle before aquiring a PCC.

 

Kriss has some decent Carbines that I believe use Glock magazines... http://www.kriss-usa.com/carbines/vector-crb-45-acp-tacpac

There is also the Coonan .357 Mag a 1911 style pistol. As far as a .357 carbine enlighten me please. Here is the Coonan.... http://www.coonaninc.com/index.php/cPath,5

Personaly I like .357 better than .45 cal but I'm a big fan of .40 cal the Vector used to come in .40 cal.

 

Rule #1. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a "4."

Lever action in .44 Mag will go with the .44 mag in your holster.

 

.357 Mag is not happy.

 

If I've given up the advantage of concealability, I'll have a rifle cartridge.

 

I'm not going to bother carrying a large, heavy rifle around unless it's in a rifle caliber, with a possible exception for magnum revolver cartridges. Even then, they definitely wouldn't be my first choice.

 

For SOME tactical operations a pistol caliber carbine will serve you well. For hunting feral hogs and deer, not so well. A PCC is a good handout firearm, practice firearm, CQC/CQB firearm when coupled with a pistol of the same caliber. Sort of like a SEAL using a 9 mm MP-5 and a Beretta 92FS pistol, same sort of idea.

Any more, most combat shooters prefer to use a rifle like a M-4 carbine because it weighs about the same as the carbine, delivers a rifle/more powerful bullet and shoots further when needed. Why limit yourself to a carbine when you can have a rifle for the same effort and trouble?

 

Uh, let's see... compared to carrying rifle cartidges, using a good rifle/pistol combo that shares ammo gives you versatility, light weight, cheap, and redundancy. I don't need to pack 200 pistol rounds and 200 rifle rounds in a bob. If one weapon breaks I can still use the rounds in the other gun. I put 400 rounds of .357 in my BOB and that gives me 400 rifle rounds, or 400 revolver rounds, or any ratio in between.

 

Very true, but, on the other hand, my 9mm rounds I use in my old 59 aren't nearly as effective as the 7.62X39 rounds I use in my AK, and they're not even close to the 7.62X54R rounds in my M44.

Yes, pistol caliber carbines have their place, but if you have something that does the job better, you would tend to use it.

It's like having a chainsaw in the garage and using a double bit to cut down the tree in the front yard.

 

Yes, if you're under 21; hell yeah. However me still being older than 21 have the desire for one; it's a matter of cost and not wanting to give in to California's ridiculous handgun laws.

 

All weapons are situational. Until fairly recently, my only rifle was .22LR, but I had 9mm handguns, so a 9mm carbine made sense. For outdoor/SHTF home defense purposes, the longest shot I would be able to make without shooting my neighbors' homes is 50 yards, which is quite feasible with a carbine but not something I'd care to attempt with a handgun. Beyond that, I would definitely switch to .223, but at that point, I'd be standing in the street and an easy target myself. Bugging out is another story, but in an urban/suburban area, "long range" can mean anything beyond arm's reach.

All things considered, a PCC isn't a must-have gun, but if you can share ammo (or better yet, mags) between a handgun and a carbine, what's the downside? You will lack the range and velocity of a true rifle caliber, but I see no appreciable reason to doubt the capabilities of a quality handgun round combined with the increased range and accuracy of a carbine, however slight those increases might be.

 

They make as much sense to me as putting a VW engine in a Dodge Ram. It may look like a truck, but it ain't gonna get the job of a truck done. If you insist your sidearm and long gun use the same ammo, at least have the cartridge end in "magnum".

 

.44 mag. In my lever gun and my S&W 629 need nothing else as my wife is a 45/70 nut with a Marlin guide gun and a draco as her side arm, daughter is a 12 gage pump girl with a colt 1911 on her hip.

 

If you consider the number of people who think a .22 is fine for self defense, then I'd definately have to say yes to a pistol caliber carbine. It's going to be a LOT more effective within a similar range limit.

I have a Marlin Camp 9 that is a good shooter inside 100 yards. It has virtually no recoil and is easily handled by small framed or new shooters. So that's something to consider.

I also think the levergun/revolver combo makes a lot of sense out in the sticks. You have a long gun capable of hunting and defense within reasonable range, and a handgun capable of self defense closer in.

Neither setup fits my particular survival needs since I have to consider longer distances and open spaces. But if they fit a person's needs, then they're a viable choice. This is pretty much how I view the M1 carbine also.

 

I have a Marlin Camp 9 that is a good shooter inside 100 yards. It has virtually no recoil and is easily handled by small framed or new shooters. So that's something to consider.

Neither setup fits my particular survival needs since I have to consider longer distances and open spaces. But if they fit a person's needs, then they're a viable choice. This is pretty much how I view the M1 carbine also.

If you happen to have an XD9 and you make a small modification to the magazine, it will work in both the pistol and the camp9. Same ammo, same mags. Kinda nice.
Like said before, it is a personal thing. They fit into some people's plans and thoughts and not into others. Kind of like the saying" what do you think is going to happen"

 

I guess I would say yes depending on the price. Beretta has their 9mm for like 700 to 800 bucks. I am sorry, but I could buy two Saiga's for that price. Now for the Hi point 9mm, .40 , or .45. I would surely take when I can get it on a good deal. Overall, It may have a place, but not on my top five list.

 

In most case it will make sense.Consider a hsband and wife team BO. He can take a 9mm pistol and a long rifle (.308, 5.56. 7.62 etc) she can carry the carbine and and the 10/22. CArbine and pistol same caliber same mags makes it a lot easier. I have considered the Beretta 9 mm carbine (CX4) to match my px4, but at this point I need to get read of some of my weapons not add to the collection

 

but at this point I need to get read of some of my weapons not add to the collection

Blasphemer! ;-)

 

I would think that if I were traveling a long distance, say, for purposes of barter or similar, I would think that as my 4 pound SUB2K carbine and 26 ounce P2022 (both in 9mm) collectively weight less than any other single rifle I own, they would be preferable to humping the AK or the CETME. That combo is even lighter than my rifle pistol combo in .22lr, both f which are made by Ruger .

Purely from a standpoint of weight, a carbine is a good option. It has a lighter ammunition load out than a rifle caliber carbine but packs more punch than a handgun of the same bore. Oh yeah, and mine folds in half for easier concealment. This is, after all, post SHFT so I'm not too worried about the local traffic cop giving me static over a rifle under my coat.

 

9mm, 124Gr.