I have a Sig Copperhead with a Holosun 512 optic and a Glock 19 with a Holosun 507 optic.

I was out in the desert training with both guns. I thought the Sig Copperhead would be a better weapon overall, in every situation, I was mistaken.

When training using my car as cover and taking quick shots from cover, I found the glock 19 much easier to use.

Since both are using optics, my accuracy was the same, I could easily hit my target with ease with both weapons.

Follow up shots were not faster with the Sig Copperhead, they actually may have been slower. Since the Sig copperhead has to be shouldered and your head tilted to look through the optic, follow up shots were harder to line up the sight. With the glock 19 held in front of me I was easily able to bring the glock 19 back onto target for a quicker follow up.

My mobility was much better with the glock 19, I was able to run much faster, take cover much faster, shoot from cover much faster.

The Glock 19 allowed me to easily shoot one handed, and this is very important if you are shooting behind cover like around a corner with just your arm sticking out and the side of your head to see.

It seems that since optics give you the same precision when using a red/green dot, just line up the dot and shoot and hit your target. I am  finding the glock 19 overall a much better choice for close quarter combat where you need to take cover, and take quick shots from cover.

since both guns have a 3" barrel, shoot the same 9mm round, what advantage does the copperhead really have?

I'm not finding any benefit using the copperhead to be honest.

It seems a rifle is only important if you must shoot really far distances, but anything close up just use a pistol because optics will give you the same precise aim as if you had a rifle. Of course if you need to shoot a rifle ammunition then you may need a rifle.

I think since we are stuck with semi auto guns, 9mm sub machine guns are a waste. You lose mobility, shooting from cover, concealment, when using a semi auto 9mm sub machine gun and its just not worth it when you can have a pistol. with optics you don't need to shoulder a weapon, your going to hit your target, who cares if you are an inch off target.

I would think in real close quarter combat, like fighting in your house, or fighting around your house, you want mobility to quickly take cover and you need to be constantly moving. The weapon which allows you the greater mobility is the better weapon. you also want to be firing from as much cover as you can and exposing the least amount of your body. This is where a pistol is much better.
accuracy doesn't matter anymore with red dot optics, just put the where you want to hit and it hits. Longer rifles for sight radius with iron sights are obsolete benefits of a rifle now.

When I had to deal with iron sights on my pistol my aim was very bad and follow up shots took forever. It seems that optics have changed all of this.

Accuracy combined with speed should be where the PCC would outpace the pistol. Getting follow up shots on target faster should be much easier with the copperhead. I don’t have any experience with that particular gun, but maybe you need to work on your rifle skills so that they can catch up with your pistol skills?

I’m not surprised by your results OP. I prefer a pistol to a Copperhead mainly because the stock makes it harder to get on target quickly.

I just don't know about this, the deal is when shouldering a rifle you can hold the gun more stable. The propblem with the copper head is that the when shouldered, you need to tilt your head to the side to see through the optic.

What I find when I fire is that while the copperhead may move slightly less than the glock 19, it still moves it out of sight. I have to realign the red dot again. Since my head is tilted to the side It seems to take a while to line up the red dot because i have to mostly move the gun to line it up.

When firing with a glock 19 with red dot optics. I fire a shot, then the gun seems to come right back into sight. Maybe because the glock 19 is held really far away from my face. I can both move my head and gun to quickly line up the dot again. The copperhead kind of imits my head movement because of the awkwardness of tilting my head to the side to look through the sight.

The Glock 19 also seems to just snap right back into sight with ever shot and its easy to align the optic and the green dot. I think its a combination of having the glock 19 held really far away from you, holding it with both hands in a way to quickly fine tune the movement, having your head looking straight ahead and not tilted to the side, allows for really quick target acquisition when using the optic.

Iron sights were a nightmare and it would take forever to align sights on the target.

Yes, I'm wondering if it is because of short stock?

Are you saying the short stock is the reason? Is there any pistol braces that I can use on the copperhead to give me a longer stock then the stock sig stock?

It could be the short stock of the Sig Copperhead, you really have to tilt your head to see through the optic.

Pistols are a compromise for size.  Unless you're comparing it to something that would be really unwieldy inside, you're almost universally better off with a stock.

I just do not know if this is really true that you are usually better off with a stock.

Unless you are shooting paper at 1000 yards its really not that beneficial.

Optics have really changed a lot of shooting dynamics. Optics give you pin point accuracy with a pistol, there is no benefit to longer iron sight radius of a rifle.

In real combat I would think you need to keep moving and you need to shoot from cover at most times. You need mobility, you want to quickly shoot behind cover with the least amount of your body exposed. A pistol allows you to do this. A pistol allows you to shoot one handed and this allows you to shoot from cover exposing only your arm.

A rifle is too big and needs too hands and needs you to stick half your body from under cover to take accurate shots. You can't one handed shoot a rifle.

The problem is I think most people are just used to shooting at paper at 200 yards or what ever. They don't have access to proper training or a desert  where they have to quickly maneuver behind objects and take quick shots behind cover,and exposing yourself for the least amount of time.

we live in a day where the enemy will have optics and any second you are exposed or not moving you will be an easy shot. The only thing I'm going to stick out behind cover is my arm and gun, and an inch of my head to see the optics. I'm not going to want to stick my whole body out to shoot a rifle.

In my desert training and using my car as cover, I can clearly see that I don't want a rifle but a pistol with optics if I was in a real close quarter combat gun battle. The pistol allows me to easily get in very good shooting positions also.

You see with optics my aim is precise with a handgun, it was not like this before optics. I couldn't hit anything with iron sights.

My thoughts below, and then read the individual responses above.

I very much agree that a pistol is a better CQB weapon than a PCC.  Same ballistics, but one is more maneuverable and concealable.  The benefit of the pistol is its ability to conceal, be carried easily about the body without substantial interference, and its maneuverability in tight spaces.  We use pistols because they’re an acceptable compromise.  Pistols are the best tool for the job when we have a very specific job to accomplish.  When we don’t have that job to accomplish, the pistol becomes an inferior weapon.  Pistol caliber carbines (including registered “pistol” receivers) and SMGs offer an advantage when it comes to stability of the platform for rapid fire and sustained firefights.  Accuracy goes up dramatically with a more stable platform, particularly at longer relative distances.  A PCC or SMG will never match the full capabilities of a rifle with a rifle round, be it in ballistics or range, but they offer similar advantages of stability and accuracy over pistols.

Shouldering a rifle/SMG should not be slower than a pistol.  This is a training issue.  The same can be said about maneuvering in the open or around cover when not in a tight CQB environment like inside a car or attic.  Using a CQB scenario to tout the superiority of a pistol over a shoulder-fired weapon is throwing the baby out with the bath water.  You are finding one context to justify the overall superiority of a weapon.  This indicates lack of experience with alternatives.  For personal defense, a pistol is ideal for most people in most typical situations outside the home/off your property.  A rifle or SMG/PCC isn’t feasible for most people to use in public.  However, I would caution you not to confuse convenience for capability.

I will never use a SMG or PCC for personal defense, home defense or duty use because a rifle caliber carbine offers me a superior capability.  I don’t see a personal need for pistol caliber anything that isn’t actually a pistol.  Would I take a Glock 19 over a Copperhead?  Yes.  However, based on experience I will extoll the superiority of a shoulder-fired platform in a protracted gunfight.

OP,

I'll address what I noticed in the order in which I remembered them (so no particular order).

• Presentation with a PCC/carbine takes training, just like a pistol. The more you train with it, the faster you'll be. If carbine presentation is a weak point (we all have them), focus a little more on that.


• If you have to cant (tilt) your head in order to see through your optic, think about maybe using a higher mount/riser. Bringing the optic to your eye level should be a smooth, easily repeatable movement.


• Shooting around cover with a carbine is no different than doing so with a pistol. The only thing that should be protruding from around the cover is the muzzle, optic, and your eye. If you feel like you are more exposed with a carbine, you might be doing it wrong. One thing to note, is that you don't necessarily want to hug your cover. If you're too close, it'll cut down mobility regardless of what your using.


• You will most definitely have better overall mobility with a weapon that you can shoot one handed versus one that generally requires two. They both have appropriate applications. And as mentioned above (though I can't remember who said it), I can't really see a practical use for a PCC. You gain so much more with rifle rounds, as long as you are using the right rounds for your application.

My $.02, YMMV

The best close quarters shooters in the world all use rifles as their primary weapon.

There's a reason

While I agree with you, remember he is comparing two guns which fire the same bullet, out if the same length barrel.

Typically people choose a rifle in CQC is the balance between maneuverability  and power.

Addressing the idea of not needing a stock except for long range shooting. I must disagree  completely. That’s absolutely incorrect in most instances. You simply will not shoot more accurately or faster with a pistol vs, say, an AR, at distances over extremely close range. And even then there are situations where the rifle is still better.

Of course, there are rare instances where the pistol is preferable, but as witnessed by just about every unit that uses guns professionally, in every country around the world, the rifle is preferable.

Ymmv.

Op,

Just to throw out there since I don’t have pictures I’m guess here.

I have ZERO stock’d weapons that I have to til my head to look through my optics. I believe the ave dot sight should be mounted around 1.5” above bore centerline, depending on system. My stock goes into my chest not my shoulder, my cheek goes to the stock and everything lines up or my stock comes to my cheek and everything lines up. The distance from my right cheek to my “shoulder pocket” is greater than 6” (YMMV) it makes zero sense for me to put a stock that far away from my face.

I’m always faster with a rifle, always. Assuming we’re using semi autos here. My split times with a G19 are around .18-.20secs. My split times with an AR are .10-.12secs.

Again these are just my stats. I can’t see what you are doing or how things are setup to properly and accurately diagnose