# AR10 and AR15 PISTOLS......Love Em or Loath Em.....???



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

I have a fondness for AR-type pistols. I am just starting to work with a AR10 in .308 Winchester cartridge with a 12.5" barrel pistol. I think this is my upper end for the AR-platform as far as manageability.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I've never been impressed with most "Buck Rogers" weapons nor the poodle shooter rounds. I'm out of the .30-06 school. For a semi, .308 is OK. I want something that will punch through stuff even some vegetative cover.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Honestly I havenât played with an AR Pistol, so I canât make an educated decision. Closest Iâve come is blasting with my FAL with the stock folded. IF itâs a way around going through the hassle for an SBR, I can understand it. With a red dot sight it actually is easy to hit with it.

For me, Iâm not really that interested in them. I choose a handgun because I can conceal it, a rifle/carbine because of its effectiveness and accuracy. I can see how the AR pistol blends the two some, but I'd rather spend the money on either another carbine or a pistol.

Chuck


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

I have been thinking about building a ar15 pistol , Wisconsin law , more specifically the local township ordinance that follows the old Wisconsin state law before they opened the hole state to rifle use in 2012, the old law prohibits rifles but allows pistols chambered in any caliber to be used in their "shotgun only" area 

Wisconsin state law also allows us to carry loaded pistols in vehicles but not loaded long guns 

I met another hunter in may area last year and he had done just that built an AR15 pistol and was actually fetching his truck to go pick up the deer when we were talking , his was a simple free float forearm , basic buffer tube with a foam sleeve over it, and a red dot sight 

the Sig buffer tube is extra long , I think I would use that when I build , I just need to get together money that I don't find another project for , because building another hunting gun isn't a huge priority when I have plenty of shotguns that shoot slugs well the area has been shotgun only since about 1977 and it isn't that often that we get any shots outside shotgun distance 

but this would be a convenience / defiance gun , following the law but pointing out it's irony at the same time , the town board didn't want to listen to they facts or that other counties have seen a reduction in shot tail gates and out buildings since going rifle, but I think our town ship already saw so few if any that that isn't an issue to them. the town board controls the rules for areas that you can't even get to without a boat miles from town that have zero inhabitants no houses or any improvements but they just can't bring themselves to change.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

*I've never been impressed with most "Buck Rogers" weapons nor the poodle shooter rounds.*

I'm going to remember this line. :goodjob:


My two cents worth on AR-15 type rifles is that an AR-15 is designed and built to be a battle rifle. All of these goofy modifications; flat tops, bull barrels, optics, pistol versions, etc. just lessen the functional durability of it.
The simple, standard AR-15 with a carry handle and peep sights is an amazingly functional, pretty darned accurate weapon that will take a beating and keep working.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

I also have two AR-15 pistols in 6.8 SPC-II one is 12.5" and one is 10.5" barrels. These are very manageable and compact. This (6.8 SPC-II is my go'to cartridge, and the 5.56X45 is largely for running drills with cheap ammo.


----------



## Malamute (Sep 15, 2011)

Fishindude said:


> *I've never been impressed with most "Buck Rogers" weapons nor the poodle shooter rounds.*
> 
> I'm going to remember this line. :goodjob:
> 
> ...


 I'm curious where you got your information that any of those things have reduced the durability of any guns.

I agree that the basic iron sighted guns are pretty good, but optics are a definite improvement on hitting things. People that started using them in combat quickly realized they were way ahead of the curve as far as identifying or even seeing targets compared to iron sights, especially in poor light. Optics have only gotten better in time also. I believe many of the electronic sights now measure their battery life in years, left on full time.

As far as pistols, I didnt have that much interest in them, but the laws of some states dont allow a long gun to be loaded in a vehicle, so I can see the utility of that aspect. I do think one would be fun to have as a long range precision shooter, just for fun. Sort of like a self loading XP-100.

It would seem that many havent realized that AR's are available in different chamberings than the standard 5.56. Also, with the current loads available, it also changes the usability of the 5.56 round for hunting game. In the past, any hunting loads were basically varmint rounds. Today, there are bonded heavier bullets that are used on deer regularly with success. They also seem to work pretty well on shooting through car doors and windshields and perforating the driver, making them good for LE work.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

It is my understanding that the AR-10 is considered a "BATTLE RIFLE" and that the AR-16/M-4 is NOT. That the AR-16/M-4 is considered an assault rifle. And that by definition there is a distinct difference.



Fishindude said:


> My two cents worth on AR-15 type rifles is that an AR-15 is designed and built to be a battle rifle.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Fishindude said:


> My two cents worth on AR-15 type rifles is that an AR-15 is designed and built to be a battle rifle. All of these goofy modifications; flat tops, bull barrels, optics, pistol versions, etc. just lessen the functional durability of it.


I'm not sure I understand this either, specifically the flat top upper or heavy barrel. The optic or BUIS solutions potentially reduce shooter error, but don't reduce reliability of the weapon at all. Heavy barrels take longer to heat up and dampen the harmonics presented to the action, so they actually improve the "functional durability". 

I will grant you that the pistol configurations have more malfunction potential, as a function of their short has systems, but that is proving to be a marginal impact. I've only built a few pistols, but have a lot of experience with PDWs (rifle/carbine lower w/ pistol upper) and they are quite reliable, if slightly less than a carbine, mid, or rifle length gas system. 

If someone were willing to play with their own loads and mod the gas system, I could potentially see the value in a 5.56/7.62 pistol, but, if left to factory loads, I think you end up turning most of the extra energy you'd hope to gain from the bigger case into smoke and flash. 

If I were going to build a pistol for myself, I would take one of two other approaches; either build it in a conventional pistol cartridge and end up with a pistol-sized/pistol-accurate way of getting that much more burn and energy out of a 9mm or .40 PD round, or I'd look at an under-bore "rifle" cartridge already designed for optimal performance in a short barrel, like the .300 BO. $0.02.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

We don't have to agree guys ....... I told you, that was my opinion.

Darren doesn't like the "Buck Rogers" stuff, and I don't want a bunch of accessories and junk on my AR for reasons stated.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

I also think that flat tops optics , bull barrels increase the functionality , I can't see where a barrel that is more rigid and gives better accuracy in a free float handgun is anything but an improvement 
optics just make seeing what your shooting at easier and sight placement more precise 

we are at a time when you can build a AR15 that can exceed the accuracy of the M16A2 that is reliable , and configurable to the user 

some people get carried away with all the things they add to the rifle but some of it is very good stuff


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Again, just my opinions.

I don't like bull barrels. They make firearms unnecessarily heavy, bulky and awkward.
There are plenty of "pencil barrel" rifles that shoot quite accurately.

Agreed, optics help you shoot and see better, but I don't want them on my AR. Just one more thing to go wrong on a gun I expect to be a tough, work horse.

If you want to talk hunting rifles .... heck yes I want good optics on my bolt gun.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I'll give the same two reasons I give my customers when they ask about 'AR Pistols',

1. Why would you reduce barrel length/velocity on a rifle round that REQUIRES a full length barrel to achieve the desired velocity?

2. Why would you want to 'Main Stream' a rifle caliber round and get BATFE involved in what ammo we can have?

The 3.5 million AR 'Pistols' sold in the last 5 years nearly got the M855/SS109 surplus ammo yanked off the market.
'Armor Piercing' and 'Penetrator' core ammo is already illegal for hand guns,
Has been since the '80s,
Build enough .223/5.56 'Handguns' and they are no longer 'Curios/Relics' and we will see that ammo conform to 'Hand Gun' standards, like it or disagree with it or not.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

the 2 best reasons for a AR15 pistol and other rifle caliber pistols 

1 stupid laws and ridiculous restrictions on SBRs and un-warranted fear they should if it is under 27 inches over all length call it a pistol problem solved why is a stocked pistol such a fear issue for politicians 
2 stupid anti rifle hunting laws that allow handguns chambered in any cartridge but won't let any rifle in the county to hunt even a strait wall pistol cartridge.


the US armed forces have moved to shorter than rifle barrels for nearly all not designated marksmen , the loss of a few hundred fps isn't that big of a deal when your intending them for use under 200 yards 

to be a curio or relic a gun must be specifically on the C&R atf list or be >50 years old there are a lot of "rifle caliber pistols" out there already the administration wants to do anything it can to punish gun owners , it was coming either way thinking other wise is unrealistic.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

OK, education time.
Hope this doesn't turn ugly, these are just facts...

The .223 Rem round, and its sister round, the NATO 5.56x45mm round,
Relies on VELOCITY to do the same work a larger, but slower round does.
Mass x Velocity x 4 is a thumbnail formula.

This is pretty well documented, so there won't be but the thickest headed argue it...
The .223 Rem/5.56x45 round is DESIGNED for best accuracy, and most 'Potential' Energy at the target at 3,100 to 3,300 FPS,

This is pretty easy to achieve with a 20" to 24" barrel,
Shorten that barrel to 16", and the velocity drops to 2,700 FPS.
Shorten that barrel to 14" and the velocity drops again to about 2,550 FPS.

This is from military ballistic testing tables using 55 grain bullets.

Now, I've found almost exactly the same thing, so I don't doubt the results,
But a chronograph and and some testing yourself if you question it.

-----

The military is schitzophernic to say the least...
A 20" barrel rifle with a muzzle velocity of 3,300 FPS, shooting a 52 grain bullet...
That bullet was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to yaw and tumble in the target creating a catastrophic wound channel,
A wound channel well in excess of what a .30 round of the day would create.

This still wasn't good enough,
So the bullet was given a canalure, and the bullet would break at the canalure at velocities above 2,700 to 2,800 FPS and create TWO wound channels,
Without breaking The Hague Accord or the Genevia Convention. 

The M16 was designed to shoot ACCURATELY out to 600 Yards,
The ammunition was designed for maximum damage at point blank to 500 yards.

The rifle and ammo did fine...

Then the powers that be decided they needed a round with more 'Knock Down Power',
Not understanding physics, the got heavier bullet...
First 55 Grain, then 60 grain, then 62 grain, then 65 grain, then 68 grain,

All the while the heavier bullet was slowing down,
More weight takes more of the LIMITED energy the gunpowder can produce to get it moving,
So the HEAVIER bullet was slowing down, to the point it was no longer breaking at the canalure...
And barrel twist rates had to CONSTANTLY be changes to accomodate the heavier bullets to keep them accurate,
And sights had to constantly be revised for the heavier, slower bulled that dropped faster.

Then comes along some genius that thinks a 20" barrel on a main battle rifle is too long,
And chops between 4" and 6" off the barrel, slowing those long, heavy bullets down even more.
The bullet stops tumbling in the target, and the bullet is so slow by now its not creating the wound channel with hyper sonic velocity anymore,
Its simply a small caliber transonic projectile...
Might as well be a small bore pistol round for all the good its doing...

Civilian ammo makers, and component makers don't have military mental illness,
Light weight, small varmint rounds use VELOCITY to explode small varmints,
Stop medium size varmints in their tracks by virtually liquifying internal organs.

But then again, they build their bullets/rounds for full length varmint rifles,
Not some chopped off version of a rifle that someone thinks looks 'Cool'...

An 'A Frame' bullet for game animals, not as much fragmentation, but still uses VELOCITY, the hypersonic shock wave will do as much, or more for putting down a game animal without picking bullet fragments out of the meat...

I guess if someone wanted a 'Cool' looking paper puncher, having bullet velocity to multiply the effects of the terminal ballistics wouldn't matter on a paper target,
So why not make a GREAT BIG muzzle blast with a pistol,
And it would look 'Cool' at night when you make a 12' in diameter flash along with that horrendous muzzle blast...

Personally, I could care less about 'Cool', which is completely 'Subjective'.

I'm OBJECTIVE, and the objective for me is to be accurate at as long a range as possible,
And to expend the energy of the round IN THE TARGET,
To put my target down with one well placed round,
One designed for the job, and delivered with enough velocity to accomplish the job.

The idea of a 'Short Barrel Rifle' is an oxymoron.
Its another way of saying 'Ineffective Long Barrel Pistol' since its shooting a rifle round.
At least pistol rounds were designs for short barrels...


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

You are also confusing 'Administration' with BATFE,
The BATFE has had a long standing policy about 'Armor Piercing' handgun rounds ever since some idiot decided to put a break away tungsten core in handgun bullets,
Put steel cores coated with Teflon out in handgun calibers.

These were designed specifically for, and marketed as defeating body armor.
There is no legitimate use for these rounds other than shooting through body armor...
Targets and game/varmint animals don't wear body armor, police do...

Its a matter of common sense,
There are loads and piles of existing handguns and handgun rounds for hunting/target shooting.
Just because you CAN make an AR into a pistol,
What earthly purpose is it going to serve that an existing handgun can't do better for any given purpose?

Its not 'If I Can', you should ask yourself, 'Should I?'....


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Suggested reading: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...t-barrel-length-muzzle-velocity-and-accuracy/


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Sorry, couldn't wade through your link,
I choked at 'Scientific' being applied to a guy at a gun range,
168 gr. .308 round isn't comparable to 55-65 gr. .223 round, totally different ballistics,
And my virus blocker kept throwing up a trogen horse alert I had to keep canceling.

No way, shape or form 'Scientific' is the big point here,
A scientific study of ballistics wouldn't have utterly ignored bullet drop, point of impact changes.
There is no way you can do a 'Scientific' study of ballistics without addressing the actual ballistics.

The second biggest complaint I get from customers is their rifle won't shoot on the ballistics tables,
They buy fancy & expensive bullet drop compensating optics,
Then slap that optic on the rifle with cheap rings/mounts,
On a receiver that hasn't been trued, so the optics are skewed with bore centerline,
And the bullet strikes (point of impact) 'left' of point of aim short of zero range,
Then point of impact moves 'right' of point of aim past the zero range.

I put 'Left' & 'Right' but it could be left/high & right/low, or reversed,
Just depends on where the skewed face of the receiver is aiming the barrel out of alignment with the receiver.

Once you get the barrel square/true with the centerline of the receiver,
Its getting the optics square/true and in line with the receiver.
Once I get the rings lined up with the receiver so the reticle is centerline with the bore without cranking in 7" or 8" of correction,
So the optic is using the center 10% of the oriented optics,

The second complaint, once its shooting stright,
Is not shooting on the ballistics tables...
And 99% of the time its muzzle velocity, usually from a short barrel,
Or crap ammo that isn't producing the muzzle velocity its supposed to.

Now, we aren't talking a 2,600 or 2,700 maximum here,
We are talking hyper sonic in the extreme, 3,100 to 3,300 FPS,
I see guys all the time talk about their loads and the accuracy at 100 yards,
But you never see those weenies shooting at ALL RANGES, smack on the ballsitics tables.

They have found a 'Pet' load that does well at 100 yards,
Don't need a range finder since they never shoot past 100 yards,
Have no idea what the load will do past 100 yards, no ballistic data at all,
But brag up how the rifle/ammo shoots.

I guess if you can get your 'Varmint' or 'Game' animal to stand perfectly still at exactly 100 yards, you would be OK,
I'm never that lucky, so I don't rely on luck...

Then comes the guy that pays $700+ for a bullet drop compensator in the optic,
(Mostly because he's not capable of simply remembering the ballistic table)
And the bullet doesn't impact anywhere close to the point of aim...

Short barrel dumping anywhere between 500 to 1,000 FPS,
400 to 500 is VERY common, between 20" & 16" AR barrels.
There goes your bullet drop compensator right out the window,
And you get to spend the next two weeks bench shooting to come up with a table that matches what your rifle/round is actually doing...

And everytime temp, humidity changes, you get to do it again...


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I will grant you that the pistol configurations have more malfunction potential, as a function of their short has systems, but that is proving to be a marginal impact. I've only built a few pistols, but have a lot of experience with PDWs (rifle/carbine lower w/ pistol upper) and they are quite reliable, if slightly less than a carbine, mid, or rifle length gas system.


I think this is the approach I'm going to take. Pictured is my Colt 6951 in 9mm that I set up to mirror my LE6920 so I can practice on my AR500 targets, and also take classes that are on indoor ranges: 



While I'm a huge fan of the Ar15 for HD, I see where the pistol caliber PDWs have a purpose, especially if you go the SBR route and then suppress. I'm thinking of either SBRing my Colt lower, and putting on a new SBR upper, or starting from scratch. I'd like to keep my current Colt upper for an M4gry trainer, so I'll leave it with the 16" barrel. New upper I'm looking at about the 8.5" barrel length. 

What are you using to build your PDWs?? 

I've got a bit of money tied up in Colt SMG mags (Metalform) so I'd like to stay with that mag.

Thanks, and sorry for derailing.......

Chuck


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Thanks Chuck for the derail. I'll derail this a bit more. I always wanted a Thompson M1A1 for my military rifle collection. Of course, I could not afford the price tag on the real deal. So, I settled for a replica semi-auto Thompson made by Auto Ordinance with the 11.5" barrel. Of course, this is defined as a SBR by the BATFE. So, to get my rifle I had to be fingerprinted, photographed, get a signed okay from the county sheriff, and send this all in to the BATFE along with a $200 check. Six months later I received my Class III registration for the Thompson. Remember this was for a semi, not a full auto. I had to go through the same process as one does for a fully automatic machine gun.

Here's the rub. Anyone, can go to the gun shop and buy the SAME WEAPON I did with the 11.5" short barrel as long as it has a pistol grip and not the rifle butt stock. No questions, no paperwork (except the Form 4473). Grrrrr

End of rant.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

As to Pistol length Gas systems, "ALL" of my AR-15 pistols are 6.8 SPC-II and "ALL" have MID length gas systems. My AR-10 in .308 Winchester pistol also has a mid-length gas system. I do NOT own any AR-15 pistols in .223 Rem. or 5.56X45.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Cabin Fever said:


> Thanks Chuck for the derail. I'll derail this a bit more. I always wanted a Thompson M1A1 for my military rifle collection. Of course, I could not afford the price tag on the real deal. So, I settled for a replica semi-auto Thompson made by Auto Ordinance with the 11.5" barrel. Of course, this is defined as a SBR by the BATFE. So, to get my rifle I had to be fingerprinted, photographed, get a signed okay from the county sheriff, and send this all in to the BATFE along with a $200 check. Six months later I received my Class III registration for the Thompson. Remember this was for a semi, not a full auto. I had to go through the same process as one does for a fully automatic machine gun.
> 
> Here's the rub. Anyone, can go to the gun shop and buy the SAME WEAPON I did with the 11.5" short barrel as long as it has a pistol grip and not the rifle butt stock. No questions, no paperwork (except the Form 4473). Grrrrr
> 
> End of rant.


Hey, while we're derailing, I'll derail further....have the same gun, just with the 16" barrel. It belonged to my late uncle and he set it up (the forearm) like the one he carried as a Marine in WW2:



I need to get the proper forearm for the M1 version. Don't think I'll SBR it, it kind of just languishes on the rack now. 

Chuck


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Yes, that front handgrip was also used in WWII. It kept breaking off, so they switched to the wood block style of front grip.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Thompsons are cool, don't care who you are!!

Too big for a 'Pistol', like the AR Pistols are,
But the Thompson has the added benifit of being as dependable as a hammer,
And enough short range power to stop a Buick!


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

JeepHammer said:


> Thompsons are cool, don't care who you are!!
> 
> Too big for a 'Pistol', like the AR Pistols are,
> But the Thompson has the added benifit of being as dependable as a hammer,
> And enough short range power to stop a Buick!


And, now I have a rifle that uses the same cartridge as my 1911 carry pistol (which I keep in Condition 1, BTW  )


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I like that Thompson !


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Cabin Fever said:


> And, now I have a rifle that uses the same cartridge as my 1911 carry pistol (which I keep in Condition 1, BTW  )


You'll shoot your eye out, kid.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I'm a proponent of SYSTEMS, not just an accumulation of random firearms.

If you want a pistol caliber carbine (or sub gun) the simply choose one in the same caliber as your sidearm,
And uses the same magazines.

COMMON Semi-auto (rimless) will all be a little under powered in a carbine,
But a crap load more accurate.
Having interchange magazines and ammo saves you a TON of money.

The older high power CIVILIAN handgun rounds work well in carbines, even out to intermediate ranges.
.357 Mag/.44 Mag jumps to mind immedately.
Excellent handgun rounds, 'Acceptable' carbine performance.
Same as to old .44/.45 'Cowboy' rounds that interchanged between handgun & rifle.
A pump/lever rifle is perfectly acceptable (if your objective isn't target saturation).

I haven't tried the 6.8 in a handgun length barrel, 
The heavier the bullet, the more effective it will be out of a handgun length barrel,
But it still seems a waste of potential of a full on rifle round...

I have AR10s, one in .308, one in .300 WSM.
I can't imagine a 'Carbine' length barrel on those long range, hard hitting rifles,
And the idea of a handgun length barrel never crossed my mind before.
-----------

I get the idea of using the same ammo, mags, parts/platform for everything from full length to handgun length,
I just don't know of a round or platform that would live up to its potential in all three roles...
----------

The number one rule in retail sales/dealing with the public,
You EDUCATE them on what they NEED for any particular application,
You sell them what they WANT...

WANT and NEED are two entirely different things,
If they want a cup holder or tampon dispenser mounted on some 'Tacti-Cool' rifle,
I'm happy to do it for them...
(Love that 'Special Order' and 'Custom Work' money!)


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Cabin Fever said:


> And, now I have a rifle that uses the same cartridge as my 1911 carry pistol (*which I keep in Condition 1, BTW * )


What are you, some kind of blood thirsty, trigger happy, think you're in Iraq/Syria, type of maniac??? 

Chuck


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Chuck R. said:


> What are you, some kind of blood thirsty, trigger happy, think you're in Iraq/Syria, type of maniac???
> 
> Chuck


Yes, that's why I keep Ma Deuce on the front porch....


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Geeeezzzz.. that's sweet.. I wish I could afford that belt even...


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

.......


----------



## Veedog (May 4, 2015)

Jeephammer sounds like a gov. buruecrat. You find reasons to stay within the system, and I find ways to show the system is written by people who don't know squat about guns, and contradict themselves at every turn. I or all the people I hunt and shoot with have never been arrested for a gun crime. And have never been looked at for one. I'm tired of limiting my fun because peoe like you think the gov. might just ban something. Here's a hint, they want you to turn in your guns, and make them all illegal. I'm not going to help them. Same reason I'm building form 1 suppressors by myself. Are you part of the problem, or part of the solution? The way you stick up for Obama makes me wonder.


----------

