Defensive Carry banner

Why no .223 pistols that look like, well, pistols?

56K views 34 replies 18 participants last post by  HotGuns 
#1 ·
Every .223 "pistol" I've seen on the market is basically a cut down AR. So why isn't anyone making a revolver or semi-auto handgun chambered in .223, or some other small rifle cartridge? Too much recoil? Some obscure law or regulation? Too many engineering problems?
 
#27 ·
Not even remotely in the same league.

The SS197SR load (the common civilian sporting load) puts out a 40 grain projectile at ~2000 fps, making 256 ft/lbs of energy.
The closest equivalent .223 round puts out a 50 grain projectile of the same design at ~3300 fps, making 1209 ft.lbs of energy.
 
#3 ·
The maximum pressure of a 5.56 NATO is about 62,000 PSI. A .40 S&W is 35,000 PSI and is a pretty high pressure handgun round. A .45 ACP is 21,000. PSI. so the 5.56 is nearly double a .40S&W and almost triple the pressure of a .45. Everything would have to built thicker to withstand the extra pressure. I'd imagine the recoil spring would also have to be much heavier, making racking the slide a pain.

Aside from that, if you wanted it to look like a "pistol", the grip would have to be huge. Try grabbing an AR-15 magazine, then imagine even wider and longer to account for the grip itself. You also need to reach the trigger from there, and unless you have really long fingers, most people probably wouldn't be able to reach it.

A revolver would be more doable, but the pressures are still significantly higher for a .223 than even large caliber revolvers, like the .44 Mag, which is about 36,000 PSI.

The least AR-15 looking .223 pistol your going to get is probably the Kel Tec PLR16.
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/plr-16/
 
#4 ·
^^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^
 
#7 ·
The .223 would come to grief in a revolver due to it's bottleneck shape and case rim design. Bottleneck cartridges and revolvers don't work well together. Functional difficulties can occur in revolvers chambered for the very mild mannered and very slightly bottlenecked .32-20 cartridge if pressures are crowded at all. With the much more severe bottleneck dimensions of the .223, extraction and set-back difficulties would abound and its high operating pressure could also be hard on forcing cones and top straps in the same way that the .357 Maximum was; a straight-walled cartridge that was ultimately a bust commercially.

Smith & Wesson tried something similar, if less potent, in it's .22 Remington Jet chambered Model 53 of the 1960s but it came to grief. The .223 would be more problematic than the .22 Jet was because it's bigger, horse-ier, and it's shape is even more extreme.

Link to .22 Jet:
22 Remington Jet
 
#11 ·
That would break your wrist! I fired a Remington 7600 chambered in 30-06 one handed once and it really hurt my wrist. I'm pretty sure a derringer in the same caliber would break it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmcgilvray
#19 ·
Yeah, the Ruger .30 Carbine Blackhawk. My dad's had one for years to go with his M1 Carbine. He's coming here for Thanksgiving and I'm hoping he'll bring it along. I've not shot it much in a long time.

Even it isn't really completely satisfactory in my view. Works well enough with the ejector rod system but the blast and its concussive effect is pretty dreadful. Seems worse than any .357 Magnum I've shot. Standing beside someone firing the revolver, it seems as if one's lungs flap inside his chest cavity when the revolver goes off. It has a reputation of being very loud and it does live up to it.
 
#20 ·
If you look at the .30 Carbine though, its a relatively straight cartridge.

I think the fact that it had a horrendous muzzle blast is what killed it. I've known of 3 people that owned one that sold them just because they were so unpleasant to shoot.

They were accurate.
 
#22 ·
They made the XP100 in 221 fireball back in the day,IIRC it was a bolt action single shot,It put a butt whoopin on squirrels
That was more like a short rifle than it was a pistol and it dang sure wasnt something that you could conceal.

It would make a bull frog sitting on a lily pad completely disappear though.It be there one second and gone the next.
 
#24 ·
Why am I doubting that? I've fired over 1.5 million .50 cal rounds (Gotta love the Browning M2 and the USMC) and they develop just ove 12,500 pounds of energy at the muzzle. It will fly 6700 meters and is good against vehicles at 2100 meters. I seriously doubt that the .600 Nitro is in that category.

The hottest .600 load uses 120 grains of powder and moves at about 1800 FPS for the 900 grain bullet. The .50 uses 233 grains for an average load with a 750 grainer moving at 3023 FPS. Way, WAY, WAAAAAY more power in the .50.
 
#31 ·
That .30 Carbine semi-auto pistol might be a handloader's dream come true. I'd like to see a photo or two of that one.
 
#33 ·
I'd forgotten about that unsung .30 Carbine pistol. It was a nice looking pistol. Size-wise, it looks like quite the handful. Seems like I remember that AMT products had uneven quality. If a person got a good AMT .30 Carbine semi-auto pistol or else could make his cranky pistol to work reliably he'd have a fun gun.
 
#34 ·
The Automag was a very interesting pistol, all right. I own an Automag II, which is the one in .22 magnum. It looks like all the others, except it is slimmer. Mine runs fine and shoots very well, but I had to buy 7 magazines for it, in order to find 4 good ones. The feed is critical, with that long, skinny round, and if the feed lips are off, just a hair, the things didn't work worth a dang.

Heard many of the same things about the .30 carbine model, but I've never shot one of those. It's be fun!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top