Before anyone starts spouting Jeff Cooper to me, just hear me out:
Why, when entering a building do you not simply transition from the rifle to the pistol? This is a thought that Erik Lund put in my head about 8 or 9 years ago on the range one day. The whole battle about having a low powered variable with enough upper end magnification, but going down to a true 1X is so that we can go from outside to inside and still use the rifle. What is so wrong about transitioning to the handgun while inside? It’s easier to open/close doors, it can be shorter (depending upon what grip you employ). I realize that you may induce slightly less wound trauma than with a rifle, but probably not that much less, especially at the distances we’re talking about and with modern HP bullet performance.
When you go back outside, re-holster the pistol and grab the rifle again. Now, if you have, say, a 2.5-10 range magnified optic on your gun, you don’t need the 1X and 2.5 should be quick enough within 25yds+ that you’d encounter outside.
So what am I missing with this thought process? Is it valid?
I’ll wrap this up by requesting that folks who answer this have actually been there, done that either with extensive professional training or with real-life/death situations. Regurgitating something you read is probably not helpful to this discussion.
It truly is about ease of threat elimination. 5.56 will always outweigh fighting handgun rounds in ballistics, capacity, and accuracy. Even the best pistol rounds don’t come close to the effect of good 5.56 in threat elimination… this is not just limited to medium range and out; the benefits remain in a cqb environment.
It would depend on the situation. If your BGs are the sort that are likely to be wearing Kevlar, obviously most pistol rounds won’t cut it. Or if the building is of a sturdy enough construction where under penetration may put you at risk because you can’t defeat the BGs cover with a pistol
IMO I’d never do it. Even with a fixed power magnified optic, a better solution would be one of them 1 o’clock red dots
There’s nothing wrong with using the tool that best fits the situation.
There are certainly times when a pistol is easier to use than a carbine, but the vast majority of the time the carbine is a better option in the hands of the trained and competant.
A magnified optic is a poor choice for interior/close work.
Like f2s said, there are times when transitioning to a pistol may be prudent. Certain different structures and, debatably, some areas of even more common structures lend themselves to this under the right circumstances (being intentionally vague for opsec). But as everyone else said, the capacity and terminal ballistics are far superior with the rifle. Not to mention that with four points of contact, the carbine is far more controllable (as far as shooting) and less dependent on trigger control. Also, an optic allows the shooter to get on target faster and to maintain treat focus. Im not even taking up adverse light conditions, nods, etc… So yeah, the carbine is going to be your 95% solution.
Everything else aside, just the increased terminal ballistics make the carbine superior IMHO. You enter a chaotic situation and put a couple holes in some booger eater. As you clear the rest of the room of threats/unknowns, you want reasonable assurance that he’s not going to shoot you an your guys. For me, a pistol does not meet that criteria (especially if bg is wearing armor).
A pistol is primarily a defensive weapon. I would be curious to know I the instructor you referenced still feels this way today because his thinking seems a bit dated.
I prefer to run the carbine, inside and out. There are times when transitioning to the handgun makes tasks easier though. In one recent example, clearing an already small mobile home occupied by a hoarder.
My optics are 1x RDSs, so magnification isn’t at issue for me. In the above example though, magnification isn’t a hindrance at the room-clearing distances. One can simple shoot through the optic, use a front sight index method or other similar alternative, and still be quite accurate.
Have both tools, just pick the right tool for the job at the time.
And I strongly disagree with this. I’ll let those who are more knowledgable with ballistics address this but the muzzle velocity + hydrostatic pressure + tumbling effect with the right ammo kick pistol caliber’s butt. I’m pretty sure that anyone who has seen the results of pistol vs rifle caliber would agree.
Also, what level of proficiency does the shooter have with a pistol? A pistol is inherently less accurate than a rifle, and much more prone to the effects of shooter error. Can the shooter take a head shot at 10 meters with a pistol if the bad guy is using another person as a human shield?
I realize that you may induce slightly less wound trauma than with a rifle, but probably not that much less, especially at the distances we’re talking about and with modern HP bullet performance.
That is an erroneous assumption, as a rifle round is extremely more efficient than any handgun round. Also, what if bad guys are wearing body armor and you are using HP?
As a side note, my unit stopped issuing handguns, due to the fact that there was never time to maintain the skillset. I feel that if you are issued a pistol you damn better be able to use it proficiently. Also, being a conventional infantry unit, not much use for a pistol other than adding weight to an already heavy load. Better to spend time on the primary.
Just to echo what has pretty much been mentioned but IMO doing such a thing as a default is a mistake from a ballistic and skill level stance. There is no doubt that there are times that I transition to my pistol to do certain tasks when in a cramped or confined area. It is rare but I do it under certain situations. We also need to consider that even if you transition, no matter how good your sling set up, you still have a good hunk of metal hanging off you which isn’t ideal. Even though I am pretty darn proficient with a 4X ACOG up close but if I have my choice I also do not like any magnification in a CQB setting.
I just wanted to clarify one point: If you know you’re going to CQB, then for sure the Aimpoint on a carbine/SBR rules the day. However, let’s say you’re on perimeter patrol or in a mostly rural type area, where you’d rather have the magnification. Is it an acceptable practice to rely solely on your pistol for CQB or must you:
use a low-powered variable and give up some magnification
If you have a highly variable mission set, you need to plan for this, and organize and equip your team appropriately.
One option could be a red dot with flip-to-side 3x magnifier, and a pair of 8x30 binos for observation, or even a spotting scope if you are static.
If you are slotted as a DM or sniper, but also an assaulter as a secondary role, I would go with an offset red dot on the primary way before I implement an SOP to deliberately transition to the pistol for CQB.
The offset/piggybacked RDSs are an option if your primary application for the long-gun is long-range.
Really though, for practical purposes 4X is sufficient for most needs, though 6x(+) can help with ID/detection.
Personally, I would rather have a low end of 1x than anything over 4x at the top end for a 5.56 carbine with a possibility of lethal close-range moving targets.
A properly chosen optic will make more of a difference than barrel length in most situations.
The only reason I pull a pistol for “CQB” is if my long-gun is less caipable for the situation, which is a narrow band.
In SouthNarc’s AMIS class, we got to play a little with a students Sims AR, and work some problems with it.
One thing I immediately noticed was that the inability to compress the rifle as far back as you can with a handgun to almost a retention position, was that much further back your eyes were before your weapon broke the plane of a multiple exposure (like a T intersection). I could see a lot more space by bringing in the pistol in close, than I could with a rifle (even rolling the stock up over my shoulder and such). Now, if you’re only managing a single exposure (1 open door and nothing else around you is a problem) then it’s a non-issue AFAIK.
I’m a freakin’ noob when it comes to clearing with a rifle, but I got pretty comfortable during AMIS with the pistol. I really came to appreciate where the pistol could give you an advantage.
That said, if I’m defending a space, or have a partner to work with, etc… I’d be all about running a carbine. I think it just depends on context (assaulting or defending), building layouts, resources (solo or multiple/team based), ability, etc.
Personally I could see the value in transitioning between the two when working problems inside… but I’m just some guy on the internet who’s never been shot at, so take that for what it’s worth.
