So what changed over time to have so much hate on pistol calibers as capable man stoppers?

I have been mulling over picking up a PCC, either the Scorpion or a MP5 clone but everyone I talk to makes a remark about the 9mm being inefficient at doing its job. I started to buy into the thought but then I started to think about how many casualties where suffered in WWII from PCC like the MP-40 (9mm), the Thompson (.45) and the PPSH.

So what changed over the years to have such negative connotations between pistol calibers and their man stopping capabilities? Is it just that intermediate rounds are now such an improvement? Would you trust your life to a PCC over 5.56 rounds in any situation?

Nothing...

The examples you give are weapons that have traditionally used full ball ammo.  Ball ammo has the worst reliability as a fight stopper.

...and humans are quite durable!

The MP5 is the only one that reliably can use JHP ammo.

Pistol ammo in general has improved in the last 30 years (+ - )... but still is bad as a fight stopper!


As the story goes... a lady at a Texas BBQ asks the cowboy/LEO if he is carrying his pistol because he is expecting trouble.

His response was... No ma'am, if I were expecting trouble I would have brought a rifle and a bunch of friends with rifles.


The draw is often cheaper ammo.  I built my 9mm AR to use as cheap practice... and my .22lr AR too.

When I carried an MP5 and later on a HK UMP .40, they were select fire for multiple hit capability and CQB situations.

I would have preferred an M4, but I did not generally have things my way.

Thanks for the reply!

I am asking this question because I have near zero education on true bullet ballistics besides what I have read on the internet. But my question stems from the fact that if pistol ammo is so shitty at killing then how were so many people killed during WWII when a large number of the issued weapons fired pistol rounds? Besides the obvious bombings and others. But take Stalingrad where close quarter fighting and a large issuing of PPSH and MP40 ended up killing tens upon tens of thousands.

Hollowpoint ammunition has more consistent performance these days...but it's still a pistol vs rifle.

Prevalent use of soft body armor is really what forced the change. Prior to that (late 20th century), SMGs were still in widespread use by military and police forces as CQB weapons. SMGs work great (especially at close range). It's just that assault rifles are better (at close through medium range). The only downside to assault rifles is size, but they continued to get smaller. I don't think it's really about FMJ/HP bullets. Production cost was a big factor during and immediately following WWII. Assault rifles had just been invented, and were more expensive and time consuming to produce than SMGs. Now an MP5 costs more than most assault rifles. Some newer designs such as the MP7 and P90 are extremely relevant and capable of defeating body armor, but still are more expensive than most 5.56mm assault rifle designs (which continue to defeat body armor even better than them). They also fill a specific niche role as PDWs, either as a secondary weapon or for those who cannot be burdened with even a compact 5.56mm weapon. Basically, assault rifles (including the tiny compact ones) are simply more versatile, less expensive, and more commonly available than SMGs.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

From the standpoint of ballistics, pistol calibers are inferior to rifle calibers in almost every instance. (You'd have to be comparing an exceptionally powerful handgun round to an exceptionally weak rifle round for this to not be true.)

As far as trusting my life to a specific caliber, unless I know my aggressor won't be wearing armor (which is impossible to know these days), I would prefer a 5.56mm or 7.62mm rifle round to any SMG round.

If I'm the aggressor, and I know my target(s), and plan to fight them only in confined spaces, then I could afford to be a bit more selective.


 

IMHO. There are too many factors to figure on a human. Drugs, some people are just bad asses, where the bullet hits  etc.  

The only way to be 100% sure of a stop is a shot to the CNS.

These days a rifle caliber Carbine/PDW can be had in the same weight/size profile as most SMG's

Remember KE is calculated 1/2*m*(v^2), so velocity is your "muscle" when it comes to terminal ballistics.

Rifle round > Pistol round

It's that simple.

 
It really is that simple.


Added to that, the now debunked fear that rifle rounds, specifically .223, will over-penetrate building materials. Used to be that everyone thought you needed to use pistol calibers to prevent a stray round from sailing through multiple houses. Now we know the opposite is usually true.

Shit, who cares?  If you want it, buy it.  Don't let theoretical arguments about caliber efficacy enter into it.   You have about the same chance of using your PCC in a self-defense situation as being struck by lightning and a meteor simultaneously.

A Hi-Point carbine can be purchased for less than most handguns, and I've seen footage on the news where a lady in Detroit used one to defend her home.

Surplus soft body armor is pretty easy to come by and easy to conceal. If you stick with a rifle you don't have to worry about soft body armor.

I'm aware that it happens, but it isn't a situation 99.5% of us will ever find ourselves in.

Pistol rds poke holes in things....Rifle rds tear shit up....Velocity is King.

easy answer we switched to autos the best pistol calibers 47lc, 357, mag 44 mag are not easy in autos

I carry 357 125  grain  hornady critical defense I have no fear a hit will drop the assailant and it will blast through a windshield to boot

but I see the opposite happening bullet design has become so advanced many here sear 9mm is equal to 45acp. and appear to have good supporting evidence

Yup, traumatic tissue damage is where it's at.  That being said, when it is time to do work, do work with what you have in your hands.

Just because it's not probable doesn't mean it's not possible. Break-ins have been on the rise in my area for the last 10 years.  I used to work a job that require me to switch over to second shift from time to time, and with my car in the garage, there would be no signs from the outside I was home or not.  If I was upstairs when the house was broken into, I would have quick access to a firearm, whether it's a pistol, rifle, or shotgun.

And I'd bet that the firearm that happened to be handiest was not a PCC.   Look, I'm not saying nobody will ever have to defend themselves.  It's just that a PCC tends to be way down the list of options when shit jumps off.   So, for most of us, PCCs tend to be range toys, and as a result, agonizing over the relative terminal effectiveness is just a waste of mental energy.

It still beats a sharp stick and harsh language, at any rate.

I think the big difference between the effectiveness of the smg over the pcc is the fact that you can "zipper" your target. so even if they are wearing soft body armour at cqb distances you just work your way up to the CPU and shut down the threat. with a pcc this would not be a consious thought. the by product though would be the average round count per bg with a smg is what 5-7? where 2-3 rounds of 5.56, 300blk, 7.62x39 would end the fight much faster thus allowing ammo to go further if you were in a multiple assailant fight. The uncertainty of BG's wearing soft body armour are very real. I hear it on the news a few times a year. so definitly a worthy consideration to keep in the back of your mind.

In my case and probably many others here, we have a wider choice of firearms to choose from.

Although from a training point of view, a carbine (PC or rifle caliber) requires less training and range time to be proficient at than a handgun.  This is the reasoning behind issuing firearms such as the M1 carbine, the P90, and other PDW's other than issuing a handgun to a support soldier.

That's pretty much the reason why I wouldn't write off a PCC.  For about the same price as a handgun, you get a longer sight radius, a bit more gun to hold onto, and a charging handle that may be easier to manipulate than a slide on a handgun.

IMHO, and no on will probably agree with me. . . . but I think ever since those shockwave/Sig arm braces came out that the folks who originally thought they were in an elite SBR pistol cal carbine club now are too cool for it

Hipster affect

There is one group that does not hate the PCC.

Those who don't like muzzle flash and blast.

Yes, some people react adversely to what you probably think is fun.

PCCs can be fed quite cheaply.  Cast bullets are great, brass can often be found for free, and they take just a pinch of powder.

If you can only have one, a rifle caliber is probably the best choice

Fortunately, living in America, I can have more than one.

I really enjoy my CavOly .45 and my 9mm Lightweight Sporter.

And my Rossi M92 in .45 Colt, although here we have a strange situation.  A heavy bullet hot loaded .45 Colt will provide good penetration.

Might be better medicine against large animals than a 5.56 carbine.

Not that many of us have to worry about that.

All things being equal rifle > pistol.

But, for home defense where the bad guy intruder is not likely to be wearing body armor, bullet design and maneuverability are important considerations.

Terminal ballistics demonstrated in ballistic gel, including tests through fabric and various barriers, tell us much useful information.

I use monolithic expanding all copper Barnes TAC (TSX) bullets in my bedside 40 S&W handgun.  They expand rapidly, penetrate deeply, and leave a good permanent wound channel.  They are far more effective than FMJ type bullets or bullets that expand too rapidly and unreliably and lack adequate penetration, have jackets too thin, or shed their jackets, regardless of whether in a pistol or rifle.

Bullet design has changed dramatically in recent years and it matters when comparing terminal performance.

Even so, if time will permit, I'll use the handgun to hold me until I can get to my AR, which also has Barnes TSX bullets,  62 grain 5.56 velocity handloads.

Don't underestimate the performance of this particular handgun load, though.

Didn't read all the responses but if it hasn't been said already...

15 years of warfare pushed the development of the AR platform by leaps and bounds.  We went from full sized M16A2's pushing M855 with iron sights to dozens of M4 variants, specialized ammo, modular accessories, etc.  Nowadays, the improvements between a good Glock with good hollowpoints in 1999 vs a good Glock with good hollowpoints in 2016 are minimal.  The difference between a good AR with good upgrades and ammo, 2000 vs now?  Huge difference.  So there's a shrinking role of handgun effectiveness.  You could use a pistol for HD... or you can use a suppressed SBR in .300 blackout.  You can use a pistol for SD... or you could use a trunk gun small enough to fit into a tennis bag.  PDWs switched from pistol to rifle cartridges too.

So because it's true that "a rifle is always superior to a pistol," rifles have been moving into "pistol" roles for a while now.

PCC's would also be more popular and practical if it weren't for the NFA.  Rifles would still be superior, but 16" barreled pistol caliber rifles are just silly range toys.  In short barreled, select fire configuration, they'd make more sense.

PREFACE: I love Pistol Caliber Carbines (fun to shoot, cheap to shoot, easy to handle) and I LOVE Submachineguns (just damn sexy)

What has changed?

1) There has been a LOT more research and study in the field of terminal ballistics since the SMG and PCC were introduced and it has changed what we know about pistol cartridges versus what we believe.

2) We now have smaller and lighter weapons capable of firing rifle cartridges. for the same size package (particularly when talking non-NFA guns) it is hard to argue against selecting the more effective cartridge.

3) Because of the demands from the WOT, body armor has become better, lighter, cheaper AND MORE AVAILABLE. Bad guys (terrorists, gang-bangers, armed robbers, etc.) are more and more wearing body armor, making pistol cartridge chambered weapons even less relevant.


The PCC hasn't become useless. I would certainly NOT volunteer to stand down range and catch some 9mm or .45cal bullets. However, what does a PCC do that a Glock 17 with a G18 magazine can't? AND When would I NOT chose a lightweight 5.56 AR over a PCC of similar size and handling characteristics?

the adoption of a PCC division at USPSA was a deal breaker for me... allows better hit quality for us old guys... and I can shoot steel at relative close distances

Somehow the caliber that the most touted handgun on this sight becomes stupid in a carbine.   I think that's stupid.  I agree that a carbine is probably a better idea, but c'mon, somehow the G19 is the greatest defensive pistol one could carry but a carbine that gives it some more velocity is just dumb.  It makes no sense.  It can kill.  Sure, a carbine might kill quicker.  But if people choose 9mm over 40 because it has less recoil in a handgun, wouldn't the same reasoning be valid in a carbine?  I've never shot a 9mm carbine to know what the recoil impulse is like, FWIW, but if I'm not mistaken, an MP5 probably has less recoil than a M4.  

Anyways....  I think if a dude thinks it's a good idea to use a quality PCC for home defense, I don't see any problems with that.

suppression. When you need to be super sneaky and poke holes in stuff.

Poking holes in stuff is still good and will always be good, having a chunk of metal transect your body is always bad.

but bigger and faster is always more good in the hole creating dept.

9mm has increased drastically in terms of effectiveness since the 80s when subguns started to fall out of favor, due to the massive increase in R&D into modern hollowpoints. One of the reasons so many people use 9mm as a carry/defensive caliber now over the .40 or .45.

Fact is that for pretty much everyone not normally on a 2-way range, the PCC is a very effective and very practical firearm for defensive purposes, as common criminals are not wearing plates, and the ranges that armed citizen shoots occur at are well within the ideal ranges for PCCs.

There were three big reasons, most of which have been mentioned.

1) Back when SMG's were popular amongst SF, it was because they had difficulty downsizing assault rifles without compromising reliability, and the SMG's were cheaper.

2) Soft body armor wasn't as prevalent back then, so a 9mm was considered adequate. Less was known about terminal ballistics, too.

3) Logistics. The price of a CQBR isn't as obscene as the price of an MP5 nowadays. The main weapon of the armed forces is the M16/M4, using 5.56. By utilizing short M4's the size of a SMG, you can use the same ammo/magazines/parts universally. Not to mention, you now have SF that have an effective range almost equal to that of line units with full-size rifles, instead of 9mm subguns with less than 200 meters' effective range.

I went through this issue around 2005-2006 when trying to get the AR45 produced and marketed on a large scale. FBI published their report on bullets effectiveness in a CQB environment. Their conclusion was the 5.56 was better indoors and you could step outside and engage targets out to 500m. Less over penetration in a urban environment was the overall conclusion. Pistol caliber carbine market died almost overnight.

Makes you wonder though when you get reports of 5.56 failures against malnourished or small statured adversaries, as in Mogadishu, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.