I have been thinking of the old saying "Use your pistol to fight to your rifle!" I have been thinking about a pack rifle/pistol since I read THIS. Not saying I agree with what all is said but made me think of a few things.

If you work far from your vehicle time to time and can't carry a rifle but can carry your pistol it might be a a few yards or miles between you and your rifle! So would not a pack rifle/pistol fill your needs? I think of LEO who work in rural areas or even ones who work in the big city could see a backpack small pistol/rifle very useful tool! I'm not going to get into any debate over this idea right now as I'm just trying to get information.

How short of a barrel can you go before ballistics and accuracy makes it not worth having? Not looking for any sub -MOA accuracy here but would have to be able to keep all round in a B-27E in the 10 or 9 ring at 50 yards sure that is not to tall of an order.

I skimmed that article. I don't disagree with everything in it, but to me a 7.5 inch barreled 5.56 AR is stupid as shit. That's what .300 BLK is for.

5.56 should be a minimum of 10.5" barrel, in my opinion. It's hard to argue with the extreme velocity loss from shorter barrels in this caliber.

A 7.5 inch .300 BLK would be cool though.

Agree! I'm more of a larger bullet type person myself and love the 300 BLK only problem is as we all know lack of ammo! I did not state but I'm looking at something that can use the same ammo as your rifle. Yet 300 BLK would be great idea for people who want to make there own pack rifle/pistol that used a 300 BLK in there main rifle! These are the ideas that I'm looking for heck someone might say just go 7x62x39 or other pistol calibers. Would like to see a 460 Rowland upper for short barreled AR!

What I have been looking at is the 10.5 barrel vs 7.5 barrel so far in 223.

If anyone were going to be talked into making it my guess would be Thureon. They already make a 10mm carbine.

There's always 6.8 as well, just another option.

I'd like to see a 460 Rowland in a short barrel rifle

glad to see it's catching on...

i posted it (in 300blk) almost a year ago  https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/700513_Takedown-pistol---law---dolos---shockwave.html&page=1

including a video...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpZ1R6iZk-8[/youtube]


i'm a big fan so far

Out of a barrel less than 10in, 5.56 performance drops considerably.  .300blk would be more efficient there.
Alternately, a pistol caliber carbine (especially if compatible with your carry gun) might also work (if you are willing to accept the lesser power/distance involved with pistol rounds).

That was hyperbole meant to make a point, not intended for everyday regular citizens going about their daily lives.

If there was unavoidable civil unrest or some similar reason for carrying a long gun toward which I'd use my handgun to fight, I'd have a long gun that didn't need any unfolding.  

I don't disagree, but between daily work environment and all-out civil unrest, there is a large spectrum of preparedness.  While I agree .300BO is far superior than 5.56 out of a short barrel, 5.56 out of a short barrel is still more superior to pistol caliber in the same-size platform.  The issue I have is that my 5.56 is just too damn loud outside of use on a range with proper ear pro.  I still like it for range use and training, but the most optimum caliber in this size package (pseudo SBR/pistol) is .300BO...this is my goal and with the addition of a suppressor just makes that much better.

So, there is a vast difference between a daily commute and navigating through a warzone.  Aside from the difference between these types pistols with rifle calibers and full-size carbines/rifles, size and compactness are their biggest virtues.  While most just advocate for an SBR, traveling across state lines for some is just too cumbersome, making the same-size "pistol" versions legally easier.  This is where I find the value of one of these pistols.  Not as a replacement to my daily CCW or as a replacement for a rifle; it's a situational gap solution.  It's much easier to throw one of these larger type pistols in a bag to discreetly E&E out of a potentially bag situation, but still offers better ballistics, better range, better firepower, and better accuracy than a hanghn.  Even the larger pistol-caliber pistols offer superior performance over regular CCWs (ala my CZ Evo and ATI AR15 9mm pistol).  These aren't rifles, they're pseudo SBR pistols that offer capabilities beyond a typical CCW but a more compact package than a full size rifle.  All my firearms in this category are really only effective and accurate out to 100-150 yards; better than a handgun and adequate for most engagement scenarios.  The best advantage is again, the ability to carry in a small backpack or shoulder bag if the situation hasn't escalated to open carry for self-defense.  









I'll concede, this isn't a firearm for all situations and not for everyone.  It's just another tool option in the tool box.

ROCK6

I too merely skimmed the article which is the basis of this seemingly pointless discussion, as that seemed to be all the attention it was worth. You can't shrink a rifle and rifle ammo into a pistol-size envelope, and expect rifle-like results, in terms of terminal energy, mostly, and accuracy to a lesser degree, but you'll never get even close to handgun "envelope" dimensions for all your "shrinking" effort. However, the reciprocal is not true, especially  so in the context and parameters of the initial discussion ---adequate energy delivered at modest ranges, i.e., out to +/- 100 yards. Serious terminal ballistic performance and reasonable accuracy are achievable in quite compact platforms/envelopes, e.g., a S&W 629 8-3/8" .44 Magnum, which  lobs great big bullets, still steaming along, into easy 4" groups at 100 yards --- this from a gun conveniently carried in a shoulder style holster. Comparable performance could be expected from even larger revolver chamberings, with similar length barrels. Yes, I'm talking about "big" revolvers, but yet not anywhere near so large as "shrunken" rifles. Perhaps (I hope) someone with more time on their hands than I have will compile some ballistic comparisons, and maybe prove me wrong, but, I'm betting that won't happen, and that in any reasonable comparison of terminal ballistics, and platform size, big, long-barrelled  revolvers outperform pistol-size rifles...

For most people, it's not the firearm's accuracy that is improved so much as the user's.  Big revolvers don't help very much with that.  
Further, in a iffy situation, I'd rather have an AR-derivative/MP5/CZ with a 20-30 round magazine and optic than a big bore revolver with 6.

This seems to endorse unaimed, "spray & pray" fire of low-powered pistol rounds from high-cap mags, vs., accurate, deliberate, aimed fired from more potent guns. Prima Facie, this is tactically unsound. Moreover, if you can't consistently achieve accurate shot placement with whatever gun/caliber/load/sight system /rig you're contemplating, you're way off track, and  maybe ought to trade your firearms for "bear spray" or something that doesn't require much competence to use.

I don't think we're talking hunting or big-game defense scenarios.  I too would be interested in the terminal performance between a rifle-caliber pistol and a big-bore revolver at distance...that would be interesting.  I see them as different tools for different situations.  I wouldn't take an AR or AK pistol in the back-country, but I would prefer one over a revolver for traveling through states that make it harder to travel with a rifle.  The whole 'arm brace' circumvents the SBR process, but their is no denying that I know I could engage far more targets far more accurately with one of my above platforms than my Ruger Redhawk (5.5" bbl) .44 magnum at a hundred yards...there is just no comparison in those types of drills. However, if I'm fly fishing in bear country, I would much rather pack that Redhawk than a rifle-caliber pistol; it carries much better is much faster in the tighter confines of heavy vegetation along a river's bank or from a sitting position in a canoe.    

Even though both have similar barrel lengths (considering the S&W Model 28 with 8-3/8" barrel), it takes far more practice with a traditional handgun than a pseudo SBR type platform to achieve consistent accuracy at distance.  Scopes and red dots may even that out, but there is a larger learning curve with a big-bore pistol.

Still, it would be interesting to chronograph and compare the AR (5.56, 300BO, even 9mm) and AK pistol against a long-barreled .44 Magnum at 100 yards...

ROCK6

My situation is going to be a little different I'm going to have a pistol as I'm LEO in the park most people would not flinch seeing a uniform officer with a pistol but with a M4 on the pack they might think they are not someplace safe even if they are. I'll always have a pack on me medical gear food water with enough room for a SBR and yes looking for it suppresser.

Also I'm along the border so I have a chance to run into drug runners. Not a high chance but chance enough for me!

I'm sure policy would influence much of your decision, but if sticking strictly to a pistol (not an SBR), these would very much make a solid choice to pair with your off-duty or on-duty service pistol.  Compactness is their biggest virtue, but they still pack an accurate punch out to 100-150 yards with the potential for more significant firepower and better ballistics than pistol rounds out of a standard pistol.

The platform itself offers inherently better accuracy at longer ranges than a standard handgun.  If suppressed, you lengthen it a bit (a QD mount would solve that as well), but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantage IMHO.  A 300BO is probably your best ballistics choice; as much as a I like my 556 AR pistol, noise and flash are significant considerations.  If a rifle (or SBR) are not viable options, these "pistols" provide a pretty solid replacement within 100-150 yards in a far more compact package and (depending on the State, local restrictions, or department rules) legally easier option to augment your CCW or service handgun.  Having done a number of drills with these pistols, I'm pretty convinced they have their place in one's arsenal.  They also really wet the appetite to eventually upgrade to registered SBRs once we finally figure out our residence status when I retire (military).  

There are valid ballistics concerns for rifle caliber pistols, but they're not new as SBRs have been around a long time.  I don't find accuracy from the short barrels an issue, but you just have to realize your ability to defeat armor, certain barriers, and the drop in terminal ballistics past 100 yards is just a fact of reality.  Understanding those limitations, these "pistols" may or may not be your best choice, but I've found them the perfect niche tool in my arsenal toolbox.  

ROCK6

A firearm held with four points of contact and aimed via an optic beats a pistol with 1-2 points of contact and no optic in practical accuracy.
Considering most pistol calibers are not even close to a "guaranteed one-shot stop," and most people's accuracy suffers under life-threatening situations, it is wise to have more ammo on hand.  I am NOT arguing for "spray and pray," I am arguing for multiple, rapid, and accurate shots--which is very difficult with a big bore revolver!

Let me correct, and perhaps clarify for you, my proposition... First, I referenced "big bore" revolvers, not "pistols", which implies semi-autos, which in turn implies relatively low pressure/velocity loads. Even ignorant champions of the 10MM pistol round have failed to compare its ballistics to big revolver rounds. Those of us who hunt with optic-equipped revolvers of "guaranteed one-shot stop" adequacy will dispute your assertion, as we have experience to prove otherwise. I don't think any of your criteria "multiple, rapid, and accurate shots" amount to anything except wishful thinking, and are mutually exclusive --- "multiple, rapid, and accurate" are unlikely results, and in any case, don't address the terminal ballistics of accurately aimed fire --- shots fired don't count, only hits count, and only hits with adequate results count... Heavy bullets, at high speed, trump all alternatives...

poster above nailed it
we are in the security business over seas a lot also

our every day pistol is the m&p in 9mm +p-9mm
we just got some keltec's in same caliber/mags.     are not allowed mp-5's  politic's  as usual. i woould kill for the 10m.m.
with extensions the 17 rds become 27  rds  taylor free lance mag extensions
folds into small package. we seldom move w/o bacl packs any way.  folded weapon 4 mags of "hot stuff" if no long guns
red dot on the side flips over to top  or Larue's q/r seems to mantaing  zero, well
+p+9mm  from corbon 4 mags @27 rds each goes thru 4 -5gal rubber jugs and fat pig.
it can be used in side arm just hold on to something when u pull the trigger. BUT CAN BE USED
folds into a small back pack
we still carry  ar's  h&k-416's/10.3"  but they are damn heavy  no choice
we can use the  kel-tec at 100 but 50 is what it's for
i am the owner and tasked with meeting our regs from uncle sugar.
so far so good.   email me privately for more.

1texan
p.s. u the TEXAS guy looking for snakeproof boots  in big bend ???????  mail me ur number will call on my dime
can add some to both needs  but  opsec.

All else being equal, the bigger, faster, heavier bullet is preferred...but all else is NOT equal.

Compare a Super Redhawk in .454 (scoped) to a Scorpion Evo with an micro-aimpoint and brace.  Weight advantage goes to the Redhawk (but not by a whole lot), as well as size, but I can shoot the Scorpion with both hands, a cheek weld, and shouldered.  I also have 5 times as many follow-up shots available.  Yes, one well placed .454 is likely to stop a fight, but so are 3-5 124gn JHPs...
Most people in a fight will miss with 50% or more of their pistol shots past a few yards.  Rifles (or pseudo-rifles in this case) are inherently much easier to be accurate with.  If you don't think 9x19 is good enough, you can go with a 7.62x39 and still have a legal "pistol."
If you are hunting deer, go with the Super Redhawk.  If you are trying to defend yourself, I'd go the other way.

Speed and accuracy are possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrFAaVXQmKY

I think some perspective and specified requirements are in order.  I don't think "multiple, rapid, and accurate" fire is mutually exclusive, even for a big bore revolver.  The key is purpose and practice.  Purpose is different from a PCC type pistol as opposed to a large bore hunting revolver.  To discount purpose negates the whole argument for or against as firearms can be very niche by design and purpose.  Hits do count and they are the most relative factor before the ballistics debate.  Would I take a 9mm EVO pistol to hunt bear or hog?  Likely not, I would much rather have my big bore revolver.  Would I take my Redhawk .44 magnum to a short range, multiple target, speed-focused self-defensive class?  It wouldn't be the best choice.  Completely different purposes.  

ROCK6