Pistol carbine (CZ scorpion) vs AR Pistol

[dragun]

So trying understand the big differences between these two. I'm specifically thinking of the cz scorpion but also want to understand the difference to the AR pistol. Maybe some pros/cons for each would be helpful. Just trying to understand what the main differences are between with these. Also wouldn't mind avoiding all the tax stamp stuff with the sbr but again like to hear the pros\cons.

Application would be an additional HD option and maybe a a problem arises option when traveling (driving around the state). With all the crazies protesting and getting more violent and rioting, probably couldn't hurt having one of these in a backpack and since it's considered a pistol, the ccw laws apply the same I believe.

I remember a pretty good thread from Scott B. I think a while back and he had a pretty sweet scorpion set up and was thinking something similar.

Edit: Question - Do I have to get a tax stamp to get the folding stock for the CZ scorpion?

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't really know much about the CZ, so I can't offer any criticism of it. What I CAN say is to suggest that if parts commonality and/or availability are an issue for you, the AR would probably be the better bet - since all of the internals and magazines would be interchangeable with any other AR15, whether it be a pistol, carbine, 20" DMR ,7" SBR, or whatever. But the CZ looks like a nifty gun, and hey, if that floats your boat....... Just know that if parts are a concern, you might want to stock up on spares before you need them. Heck, maybe they don't break. But it's a gun you know, and all of them malfunction sooner or later.

[LucasMcCain]

Application would be an additional HD option and maybe a a problem arises option when traveling (driving around the state). With all the crazies protesting and getting more violent and rioting, probably couldn't hurt having one of these in a backpack and since it's considered a pistol, the ccw laws apply the same I believe.

Just want to mention that a pistol caliber carbine is a rifle. An AR pistol is a pistol, as it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder. As the law is currently, if you put the thing up to your shoulder it magically becomes a short barrel rifle and requires a tax stamp. So as strange as it may seem, a Draco pistol in 7.62 x 39 is a pistol, but a Sub 2000 in 9mm is a rifle.

Also, I don't think the folding stock affects the official length of the rifle. I think the overall length requirements apply to the weapon when it is in firing position, but I could be wrong about that one.

[The Annoyed Man]

Application would be an additional HD option and maybe a a problem arises option when traveling (driving around the state). With all the crazies protesting and getting more violent and rioting, probably couldn't hurt having one of these in a backpack and since it's considered a pistol, the ccw laws apply the same I believe.

Just want to mention that a pistol caliber carbine is a rifle. An AR pistol is a pistol, as it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder. As the law is currently, if you put the thing up to your shoulder it magically becomes a short barrel rifle and requires a tax stamp. So as strange as it may seem, a Draco pistol in 7.62 x 39 is a pistol, but a Sub 2000 in 9mm is a rifle.

Also, I don't think the folding stock affects the official length of the rifle. I think the overall length requirements apply to the weapon when it is in firing position, but I could be wrong about that one.

And speaking of the Sub-2000, you get the velocities of a 16" barrel, in a package that takes Glock (or M&P or Beretta) magazines, depending on model, in either 9mm or .40 cal. And when it is folded, it fits inside a briefcase or messenger bag.

Comparing ballistics........ You'll get lower velocities, but significantly greater muzzle energy from a 9mm exiting a 16" barrel than a .223 exiting a 7" barrel.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/2011 ... 223ME.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/megraphs/9mm.html

Folded, a Sub-2000 is 16.25” long. The CZ is 16.0" long. So no real advantage to the gun with the lesser ballistics. The Keltec weighs 4.25 lbs, while the CZ weighs 5.0 lbs. You can legally shoulder the Keltech and take advantage of its longer sight radius. You can't legally shoulder the CZ. The CZ pistols run $750 and up. I paid $419 for my Keltec.

I'm not knocking the CZ. People who have them seem to love them. But if you're looking for something to carry around in a backpack, it just makes sense to me to carry the one that is lighter and hits harder at the ranges at which you're likely to use it. And if you're worried about capacity compared to the CZ's 20 round mag, get the Keltec that takes glock mags and buy some 33-round magazines for it. Not to mention that being a long gun, you can legally carry it in your backpack past a 30.06 sign.

Or, get a CZ or AR pistol. Whatever floats your boat. But if backpack / briefcase carry is what you're really after, then you should at least take a look at the Keltec Sub-2000. If you decide against it, at least you'll be fully informed.

[dragun]

Application would be an additional HD option and maybe a a problem arises option when traveling (driving around the state). With all the crazies protesting and getting more violent and rioting, probably couldn't hurt having one of these in a backpack and since it's considered a pistol, the ccw laws apply the same I believe.

Just want to mention that a pistol caliber carbine is a rifle. An AR pistol is a pistol, as it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder. As the law is currently, if you put the thing up to your shoulder it magically becomes a short barrel rifle and requires a tax stamp. So as strange as it may seem, a Draco pistol in 7.62 x 39 is a pistol, but a Sub 2000 in 9mm is a rifle.

Also, I don't think the folding stock affects the official length of the rifle. I think the overall length requirements apply to the weapon when it is in firing position, but I could be wrong about that one.

And speaking of the Sub-2000, you get the velocities of a 16" barrel, in a package that takes Glock (or M&P or Beretta) magazines, depending on model, in either 9mm or .40 cal. And when it is folded, it fits inside a briefcase or messenger bag.

Comparing ballistics........ You'll get lower velocities, but significantly greater muzzle energy from a 9mm exiting a 16" barrel than a .223 exiting a 7" barrel.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/2011 ... 223ME.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/megraphs/9mm.html

Folded, a Sub-2000 is 16.25” long. The CZ is 16.0" long. So no real advantage to the gun with the lesser ballistics. The Keltec weighs 4.25 lbs, while the CZ weighs 5.0 lbs. You can legally shoulder the Keltech and take advantage of its longer sight radius. You can't legally shoulder the CZ. The CZ pistols run $750 and up. I paid $419 for my Keltec.

I'm not knocking the CZ. People who have them seem to love them. But if you're looking for something to carry around in a backpack, it just makes sense to me to carry the one that is lighter and hits harder at the ranges at which you're likely to use it. And if you're worried about capacity compared to the CZ's 20 round mag, get the Keltec that takes glock mags and buy some 33-round magazines for it. Not to mention that being a long gun, you can legally carry it in your backpack past a 30.06 sign.

Or, get a CZ or AR pistol. Whatever floats your boat. But if backpack / briefcase carry is what you're really after, then you should at least take a look at the Keltec Sub-2000. If you decide against it, at least you'll be fully informed.

Thanks for the suggestion AM. So is the keltec sub 2000 considered a pistol carbine, meaning the same ccw laws apply to this as if I'm carrying a pistol? At least in TX?
Seems these are not easy to find in 9mm

[Scott B.]

So trying understand the big differences between these two. I'm specifically thinking of the cz scorpion but also want to understand the difference to the AR pistol. Maybe some pros/cons for each would be helpful. Just trying to understand what the main differences are between with these. Also wouldn't mind avoiding all the tax stamp stuff with the sbr but again like to hear the pros\cons.

Application would be an additional HD option and maybe a a problem arises option when traveling (driving around the state). With all the crazies protesting and getting more violent and rioting, probably couldn't hurt having one of these in a backpack and since it's considered a pistol, the ccw laws apply the same I believe.

I remember a pretty good thread from Scott B. I think a while back and he had a pretty sweet scorpion set up and was thinking something similar.

Edit: Question - Do I have to get a tax stamp to get the folding stock for the CZ scorpion?

Are you comparing it against a pistol caliber AR pistol? Or an AR pistol chambered in 223/556/300/whatever?

In the AR format, I'd lean toward a rifle caliber AR versus a pistol caliber version. Your mileage my vary, but I've not been too impressed with the different AR 9mm/40 cal pistol setups. Either the magwells were poorly thought out or the maintainability was horrendous. With regular AR caliber in pistol format, you get a pretty rock solid package.

The Kel-Tec isn't a bad solution as long as the sights stay on straight and you don't put hundreds of rounds through them (opinions vary about that).

Any "pistol" that you put a stock on must have a stamp. No vertical foregrips fwiw on a pistol either.

Pistol caliber Carbine = carbine, aka rifle.

[dragun]

So trying understand the big differences between these two. I'm specifically thinking of the cz scorpion but also want to understand the difference to the AR pistol. Maybe some pros/cons for each would be helpful. Just trying to understand what the main differences are between with these. Also wouldn't mind avoiding all the tax stamp stuff with the sbr but again like to hear the pros\cons.

Application would be an additional HD option and maybe a a problem arises option when traveling (driving around the state). With all the crazies protesting and getting more violent and rioting, probably couldn't hurt having one of these in a backpack and since it's considered a pistol, the ccw laws apply the same I believe.

I remember a pretty good thread from Scott B. I think a while back and he had a pretty sweet scorpion set up and was thinking something similar.

Edit: Question - Do I have to get a tax stamp to get the folding stock for the CZ scorpion?

Are you comparing it against a pistol caliber AR pistol? Or an AR pistol chambered in 223/556/300/whatever?

In the AR format, I'd lean toward a rifle caliber AR versus a pistol caliber version. Your mileage my vary, but I've not been too impressed with the different AR 9mm/40 cal pistol setups. Either the magwells were poorly thought out or the maintainability was horrendous. With regular AR caliber in pistol format, you get a pretty rock solid package.

The Kel-Tec isn't a bad solution as long as the sights stay on straight and you don't put hundreds of rounds through them (opinions vary about that).

Any "pistol" that you put a stock on must have a stamp. No vertical foregrips fwiw on a pistol either.

Pistol caliber Carbine = carbine, aka rifle.

Just trying to understand the goofy regs with stock/pistol = tax stamp and getting something that didn't require the additonal reg. I think you explained the difference. In a perfect world would be great to have the CZ scorpion "pistol" w/ folding stock and not having to go the tax stamp route but obviously we don't live in a perfect world.
thanks.

[bblhd672]

Just want to mention that a pistol caliber carbine is a rifle.

Thanks for the suggestion AM. So is the keltec sub 2000 considered a pistol carbine, meaning the same ccw laws apply to this as if I'm carrying a pistol? At least in TX?
Seems these are not easy to find in 9mm

A carbine is a rifle, regardless of the cartridge used. A pistol is a pistol, regardless of the cartridge used.

You can find 9mm in Glock magazine model the easiest if you just keep looking. I got mine at Academy, but it wasn't on display. I've seen them at gun shows around DFW as well.

[The Annoyed Man]

Thanks for the suggestion AM. So is the keltec sub 2000 considered a pistol carbine, meaning the same ccw laws apply to this as if I'm carrying a pistol? At least in TX?
Seems these are not easy to find in 9mm

You're welcome. Based on your previously described "mission", you have two, no three, questions to answer for yourself, according to your previous declaration of wanting something powerful that conceals well in a backpack (or by extension, a briefcase or messenger bag):

1 - Pistol versus folding carbine of some sort.
2 - If Pistol, then CZ or AR.
3 - Pistol caliber versus rifle caliber.

So.....

1. Pistol versus folding carbine of some sort: What are the comparative advantages of a rifle caliber pistol versus a folding carbine of the same length as the pistol? Well, you might be able to deploy the pistol a little faster than the folding carbine - depending on how highly organized the inside of your backpack is, and how you have the gun stowed. On the other hand, you can legally carry the folding carbine almost anywhere you can't carry the pistol because of 30.06 - a law which applies only to handguns. For legal purposes, the Keltec is considered to be a rifle, not a handgun. You might have a modicum more accuracy with the rifle cartridge than the pistol cartridge, assuming a supported shooting position, but at the ranges you're likely to to actually use the weapon, either cartridge is more than accurate enough for minute of man - up to and including head shots with the right ammo. The AR and CZ outweigh the folding Keltec by some amount, of around a pound or so.

2. If pistol, then CZ or AR? If you choose a CZ or AR pistol, you would be wise to consider the parts availability, commonality, and price and availability of extra magazines and stuff like that. Again, I have nothing against the CZ, although I realize that it sounds like I do. It may be a GREAT gun. But whenever I purchase a gun, I always consider if I'm going to be able to get parts for it if I need them. I really have no idea what that looks like for CZ products.

3. Pistol caliber versus rifle caliber? A short barreled AR pistol in a pistol caliber would be self-defeating. Why bother? Why not just get a full-sized regular pistol in 9mm, .40, or .45 then? Like I pointed out above, with the data to back it up, a 9mm exiting a 16" barrel will impart more energy into the target than the rifle bullet will. For all practical purposes, if you go with a pistol, you're pretty much limited to a short action bottleneck cartridge that will chamber in some kind of AR variant, OR, .223/5.56 if you choose the CZ. Bottleneck cartridges have some flaws in short barrels. Unless they were designed to be used in a short barrel, like .300 Blackout, they suffer a big loss of velocity and energy, not to mention stability, as soon as they leave the muzzle. I would be VERY surprised if shooting an AR or CZ pistol at 100-150 yards wouldn't produce keyholing, not to mention bizarre trajectories. Then consider bullet performance itself. The Keltec will shoot pretty much whatever hollow point ammo you'd use in a pistol, and it's performance would be even more dramatic because it is going much faster. OTH, the bottleneck cartridge bullet - already traveling at substandard velocities for the caliber, may not have enough velocity to either cause the bullet upset that the FMJ depends on, or to cause a hunting type bullet to expand properly. And then consider this...... a bottleneck cartridge from an unsuppressed pistol length barrel is LOUD!!!! Are you going to do a $200 tax stamp on a suppressor (if HPA doesn't pass), not to mention the hundreds of dollars they cost with or without the stamp? And even if you can, guess what? A lot of supressor companies will void the warranty on the suppressor if used on a barrel of less than 10", because the pressure in the barrel is still so high when it leaves the muzzle that it doesn't have time to disapate. So you can't even suppress the gun easily. My son just built himself a 7" SBR AR, and none of the three suppressors we currently own, or the one that is on the way, will stand up to that kind of pressure. Sure, SOMEBODY makes one that will work.......and be prepared to pay through the nose for it. On the other hand, you can suppress a pistol caliber all day long with a pretty inexpensive can, as long as the caliber of the can is correct for the bullet. But even if you can't afford a suppressor, a pistol cartridge's bullet coming out of a 16" barrel just isn't anywhere near as loud as a rifle cartridge's bullet coming out of a 7" pistol barrel.

Mind you, I am not opposed to spending a whole lot of money on guns. I have a carbine/SBR combo with two uppers - a 5.56 carbine length upper and a .300 blackout 10" SBR upper, suppressed, with tax stamps for the suppressor and the SBR. In all, optics included, I've got about $6,400 in it. But I won't carry it around in a backpack. Here's why. Let's say you have the extreme misfortune to need to use that gun in self defense, and it is a completely righteous shooting. Like it or not, the police are going to confiscate your gun until the disposition of the case has been finalized. That could be months, or even longer; and even if you're innocent, you might have to get your lawyer involved in getting your gun back.....and it may not come back to you in the same condition it was in when it was surrendered to them. Sad, but that can happen. Now, would you rather that be your $700 or $800 CZ or AR, or would you rather have it be your $400 Keltec? And given that your 9mm exiting the Keltec's 16" barrel will hit with more energy than the 5.56 bullet exiting a 7" barrel will, and with better terminal ballistics, at least at the kinds of self defense ranges being contemplated here, I'd take the 9mm over the 5.56.

I can think of a lot of reasons to go with a long gun instead of a rifle caliber pistol. But, these are just my opinions, and they may not be worth much.

[cmgee67]

I run an AR 9 pistol (9mm) as my truck gun. I personally think and AR pistol of any caliber is the better option plus it's cheaper. You have so many interchangeable parts it's basically endless. Whereas you by a scorpion although cool you lose a lot of accessories. I think it's whatever floats your boat

[dragun]

Thanks for the suggestion AM. So is the keltec sub 2000 considered a pistol carbine, meaning the same ccw laws apply to this as if I'm carrying a pistol? At least in TX?
Seems these are not easy to find in 9mm

You're welcome. Based on your previously described "mission", you have two, no three, questions to answer for yourself, according to your previous declaration of wanting something powerful that conceals well in a backpack (or by extension, a briefcase or messenger bag):

1 - Pistol versus folding carbine of some sort.
2 - If Pistol, then CZ or AR.
3 - Pistol caliber versus rifle caliber.

So.....

1. Pistol versus folding carbine of some sort: What are the comparative advantages of a rifle caliber pistol versus a folding carbine of the same length as the pistol? Well, you might be able to deploy the pistol a little faster than the folding carbine - depending on how highly organized the inside of your backpack is, and how you have the gun stowed. On the other hand, you can legally carry the folding carbine almost anywhere you can't carry the pistol because of 30.06 - a law which applies only to handguns. For legal purposes, the Keltec is considered to be a rifle, not a handgun. You might have a modicum more accuracy with the rifle cartridge than the pistol cartridge, assuming a supported shooting position, but at the ranges you're likely to to actually use the weapon, either cartridge is more than accurate enough for minute of man - up to and including head shots with the right ammo. The AR and CZ outweigh the folding Keltec by some amount, of around a pound or so.

2. If pistol, then CZ or AR? If you choose a CZ or AR pistol, you would be wise to consider the parts availability, commonality, and price and availability of extra magazines and stuff like that. Again, I have nothing against the CZ, although I realize that it sounds like I do. It may be a GREAT gun. But whenever I purchase a gun, I always consider if I'm going to be able to get parts for it if I need them. I really have no idea what that looks like for CZ products.

3. Pistol caliber versus rifle caliber? A short barreled AR pistol in a pistol caliber would be self-defeating. Why bother? Why not just get a full-sized regular pistol in 9mm, .40, or .45 then? Like I pointed out above, with the data to back it up, a 9mm exiting a 16" barrel will impart more energy into the target than the rifle bullet will. For all practical purposes, if you go with a pistol, you're pretty much limited to a short action bottleneck cartridge that will chamber in some kind of AR variant, OR, .223/5.56 if you choose the CZ. Bottleneck cartridges have some flaws in short barrels. Unless they were designed to be used in a short barrel, like .300 Blackout, they suffer a big loss of velocity and energy, not to mention stability, as soon as they leave the muzzle. I would be VERY surprised if shooting an AR or CZ pistol at 100-150 yards wouldn't produce keyholing, not to mention bizarre trajectories. Then consider bullet performance itself. The Keltec will shoot pretty much whatever hollow point ammo you'd use in a pistol, and it's performance would be even more dramatic because it is going much faster. OTH, the bottleneck cartridge bullet - already traveling at substandard velocities for the caliber, may not have enough velocity to either cause the bullet upset that the FMJ depends on, or to cause a hunting type bullet to expand properly. And then consider this...... a bottleneck cartridge from an unsuppressed pistol length barrel is LOUD!!!! Are you going to do a $200 tax stamp on a suppressor (if HPA doesn't pass), not to mention the hundreds of dollars they cost with or without the stamp? And even if you can, guess what? A lot of supressor companies will void the warranty on the suppressor if used on a barrel of less than 10", because the pressure in the barrel is still so high when it leaves the muzzle that it doesn't have time to disapate. So you can't even suppress the gun easily. My son just built himself a 7" SBR AR, and none of the three suppressors we currently own, or the one that is on the way, will stand up to that kind of pressure. Sure, SOMEBODY makes one that will work.......and be prepared to pay through the nose for it. On the other hand, you can suppress a pistol caliber all day long with a pretty inexpensive can, as long as the caliber of the can is correct for the bullet. But even if you can't afford a suppressor, a pistol cartridge's bullet coming out of a 16" barrel just isn't anywhere near as loud as a rifle cartridge's bullet coming out of a 7" pistol barrel.

Mind you, I am not opposed to spending a whole lot of money on guns. I have a carbine/SBR combo with two uppers - a 5.56 carbine length upper and a .300 blackout 10" SBR upper, suppressed, with tax stamps for the suppressor and the SBR. In all, optics included, I've got about $6,400 in it. But I won't carry it around in a backpack. Here's why. Let's say you have the extreme misfortune to need to use that gun in self defense, and it is a completely righteous shooting. Like it or not, the police are going to confiscate your gun until the disposition of the case has been finalized. That could be months, or even longer; and even if you're innocent, you might have to get your lawyer involved in getting your gun back.....and it may not come back to you in the same condition it was in when it was surrendered to them. Sad, but that can happen. Now, would you rather that be your $700 or $800 CZ or AR, or would you rather have it be your $400 Keltec? And given that your 9mm exiting the Keltec's 16" barrel will hit with more energy than the 5.56 bullet exiting a 7" barrel will, and with better terminal ballistics, at least at the kinds of self defense ranges being contemplated here, I'd take the 9mm over the 5.56.

I can think of a lot of reasons to go with a long gun instead of a rifle caliber pistol. But, these are just my opinions, and they may not be worth much.

where is the Like button? Thanks good info, appreciate you taking the time.

[Skiprr]

Comparing ballistics........ You'll get lower velocities, but significantly greater muzzle energy from a 9mm exiting a 16" barrel than a .223 exiting a 7" barrel.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/2011 ... 223ME.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/megraphs/9mm.html

I absolutely agree that velocity fall-off is an issue with a .223 Remington cartridge out of a short barrel, and that at reduced velocities it is unlikely to perform as intended/expected. But, um, not to quibble, and sorry to come back to this, but it's been bothering me for a couple of hours: I don't know that I can draw the same conclusion about muzzle energy from those graphs.

First off, the only rifle ammo tested was plain-Jane Remington UMC in .223. There is no 5.56x45 cartridge in the Remington line, and we all know the age-old confusion over .223 and 5.56 NATO. The biggest confusion, of course, is that SAAMI doesn't produce a spec for 5.56 NATO, and that SAAMI (using a mid-case transducer) and the military (using a case mouth transducer) measure pressure differently...so never can the two be accurately compared. The SAAMI pressure standard for .223 is 380 MPa, or the equivalent of 55,114 psi. The owner of Black Hills Ammunition has estimated that, if measured by the SAAMI mid-case method, the military round would come in closer to 60,000 psi. Not a Brobdingnagian difference, but probably the equivalent of the difference between 9mm handgun standard and +P loads.

For a relatively similar comparison, then, I'd think you'd have to throw out all the Cor-Bon ammo from the charts above. BTW, Cor-Bon makes two DPX versions in 9mm, a 95-grain and a 115-grain. The 115-grain is +P even though those ballistics charts don't indicate it.

So if you take the Federal 115-grain JHP as the basic, middle-of-the-road example, out of 16" barrel it shoots at 1,295 fps and about 410-420 ft-lbs.

The 55-grain Remington UMC out of an 8-inch barrel is shown shooting at 2,380 fps and about 620 ft-lbs. So I'm reading that as a little less than twice the velocity, and about 50% greater muzzle energy out of an 8"-barreled .223 compared to the Federal 115-grain out of a 16" barrel. None of the 9mm +P loads tested from any length barrel exceeded 610 ft-lbs of muzzle energy; all of the wimpy .223 loads from an 8" barrel met or exceeded that. What am I missing? I gotta be missing something.

I went counterintuitive with my little short-barrel. I have no intentions or expectations of ever trying to hit something with accuracy out to even 50 yards with it. Moderate combat accuracy, maybe, like 8" or 10" groups, but I consider it a pistol and as such I'm expecting good performance out to 20 or 25 yards. I didn't choose zippy and lightweight because any 5.56 bullet I select is going to lose velocity quickly. I decided to go with Hornady's 5.56x45 75-grain HD SBR Black ammo. The only ballistics they provide for it is out of an 11.5" barrel, so we'd have to scale the numbers back for a shorter one, but manufacturer's specs shows the 75-grain bullet traveling at 2,321 fps and pushing 897 ft-lbs. Keeping the energy diminishment ratio as used on the charts, that would be about 680 ft-lbs. from an 8" barrel.

As Andy always says, ballistics never tell the whole story, and I won't even let you test a .22 CB Cap out of a 2" barrel on me. Just trying to make sense out of the 9mm/.223 comparison....

[Bitter Clinger]

Application would be an additional HD option and maybe a a problem arises option when traveling (driving around the state). With all the crazies protesting and getting more violent and rioting, probably couldn't hurt having one of these in a backpack and since it's considered a pistol, the ccw laws apply the same I believe.

Just want to mention that a pistol caliber carbine is a rifle. An AR pistol is a pistol, as it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder. As the law is currently, if you put the thing up to your shoulder it magically becomes a short barrel rifle and requires a tax stamp. So as strange as it may seem, a Draco pistol in 7.62 x 39 is a pistol, but a Sub 2000 in 9mm is a rifle.

Also, I don't think the folding stock affects the official length of the rifle. I think the overall length requirements apply to the weapon when it is in firing position, but I could be wrong about that one.

And speaking of the Sub-2000, you get the velocities of a 16" barrel, in a package that takes Glock (or M&P or Beretta) magazines, depending on model, in either 9mm or .40 cal. And when it is folded, it fits inside a briefcase or messenger bag.

Comparing ballistics........ You'll get lower velocities, but significantly greater muzzle energy from a 9mm exiting a 16" barrel than a .223 exiting a 7" barrel.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/2011 ... 223ME.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/megraphs/9mm.html

Folded, a Sub-2000 is 16.25” long. The CZ is 16.0" long. So no real advantage to the gun with the lesser ballistics. The Keltec weighs 4.25 lbs, while the CZ weighs 5.0 lbs. You can legally shoulder the Keltech and take advantage of its longer sight radius. You can't legally shoulder the CZ. The CZ pistols run $750 and up. I paid $419 for my Keltec.

I'm not knocking the CZ. People who have them seem to love them. But if you're looking for something to carry around in a backpack, it just makes sense to me to carry the one that is lighter and hits harder at the ranges at which you're likely to use it. And if you're worried about capacity compared to the CZ's 20 round mag, get the Keltec that takes glock mags and buy some 33-round magazines for it. Not to mention that being a long gun, you can legally carry it in your backpack past a 30.06 sign.

Or, get a CZ or AR pistol. Whatever floats your boat. But if backpack / briefcase carry is what you're really after, then you should at least take a look at the Keltec Sub-2000. If you decide against it, at least you'll be fully informed.

Ummmm, reading on my phone while travelling, so sorry if I missed something, but not understanding why ~600 ft-lbs out of 9mm is better than ~600 ft-lbs out of .223?

Anyway, I own an AR pistol in .223 (folding stock) and a 9mm SBR ( also folding stock). At 100 yards the .223 rings steel noticably sooner than the 9mm ( somewhere I did a comparison of energy delivered at distance but can't find it now), however the 9mm shoots softer and exhibits less muzzle rise.

I think the OP needs one of each so that he can compare side by side

[Skiprr]

I think the OP needs one of each so that he can compare side by side

Always the one solution with which no one can argue: "Buy 'em all!"

[AJSully421]

Just as nuts and bolts, I have a story.

We have a 6x4 portable hog trap at the ranch. The past two weekends we have had herd of 6 and 7 small (under 50 pounds) hogs in the trap. Two weekends ago, I had my Glock 17 and some FMJ to do some pistol practice with. I took my time and got all 6 with 6 shots. Only one exit, and it was just a bloody hole.

Last weekend, I shot them with my 11.5" supressed AR using M193. It was tearing stuff up good, and a couple had fist sized chunks of guts hanging out the exit hole.

Now, it is not apples and apples with a 4.5" pistol barrel vs. a 11.5" rifle barrel, but I would be willing to bet that same 9mm 115grn moving at 1300 - 1350 would not have done so much damage.

If shooting things to cause damage to them is the goal, rifle rounds are the answer. For plinking or practice, either way.