Hello /k/omrades. Pic related is what I think are the best budget PCC's. What do you think is a good budget pistol caliber carbine? Sorry about my text placement, I know it will trigger some peoples autism. Anyways, it sums up my opinions on the situation as of right now. Prices based off of PSA's website.

Which one do you think is the best- and did I miss an important one in a relevant caliber at a relevant price point??

Please share your thoughts.

>>64029125 (OP)
Obviously the AR is the best gun there, just don't get a Ruger.

>>64029125 (OP)
M&P Sport 2/3 is better than Ruger 556.

>>64029125 (OP)
i like that the s2k folds up

>random meme gun
>2 hi-points (both are fine but it's redundant)
>fine
>brazilian small game rifle with retarded mags
>not a PCC
Great list anon, really nothing to improve at all. You totally didn't miss all of the actual PCCs people buy and use, such as picrel

>>64029135
People been having issues with Ruger? My AR is made by radical firearms and I haven't had any real problems with it. You buy a Ruger and it gave you issues?

>>64029151
>M&P Sport 2/3
$799 Too expensive to be considered "budget"
>>64029157
Stribog Sp9a3 9mm
>a little teeny tiny 8 inch barrel, barely longer than a regular handgun
>$999 off of PSA
Buy a handgun, retard.

You guys don't understand what "budget" means and cutting your barrel down that much in a PCC defeats the purpose of it being a PCC. Stop being retarded.

>>64029157
Not to mention, people buy the cheap ones more than the expensive ones.. because they are well, cheap. They just don't usually post about it online because well... they touch grass. And you don't.

>>64029197
NTA, but given that the pistol calibers usually being discussed for PCC's generally burn their entire powder charge in less than 8" of barrel, why would you want something longer?
>and don't say sight radius, that only matters to people that shoot over irons which is basically not pcc owners

>>64029218
There are plenty of options when it comes to what ammunition you want to use when it comes to your gun. So your point is moot.

>don't say sight radius, that only matters to people that shoot over irons
Nothing wrong with iron sights, think of realistic scenarios where you will actually have to use your gun.

Not made up fantasy bullshit.

>>64029218
>why would you want something longer?
Because there's still 6 months before a short barrel doesn't double the cost.

>>64029203
>>64029197
SP9A1 retails for under $700 new. A3 (roller delayed) $900

PCCs are a niche type of firearm. They're not produced at AR volume and they do not retail at AR margins. It's a miracle that the sub2k still comes in at under $400.

>>64029125 (OP)
$230 MAC-11 upper and 3d printed...lower? Frame? Idk what you'd call it.
$30 in hardware and spare parts
Takes Sten mags which are decently cheap.
AR-15 FCG

>>64029125 (OP)
The only counterpoint I have to offer is 5.56 is 2-3x the price of 9 and 22 wmr is the same cost as 9 while needing its own magazines and is relatively niche compared to 22 lr. You could also just get a dedicated upper and magwell adapter for about 400 bucks and slap it on your AR.

>>64029125 (OP)
Hi-Point is ok, but the two strikes against it are the proprietary magazines and how incredibly annoying it is to take apart/clean.

KelTec is pretty good, it also folds which is nice and takes Glock magazines (or even Beretta 92, Sig 226 or S&W M&P if you prefer). It is a bit flimsy though, and you can't really have a practical optic mount if you intend to fold it but that's kind of a low priority for HD.

I don't know if the RS22 should count as a PCC since it is rimfire. It is also pretty long. If we are going to include rimfire guns there are a lot of options that are going to be more compact and therefore suitable for the task.

>>64029266
Who cares about margins when it's the consumer that decides what is worth buying or not? No one cares that the overpriced PCC brands can't compete with cheap AR's. You have to mention AR's in a discussion centered around budget because they are so cost effective.

Same reason why I listed the Rossi. It's long and janky and cumbersome but if you don't care about throwing a bunch of shit on it- then it's not gonna matter to you that it's form factor isn't all that correct. It works as a "oh shit i gotta grab my gun" gun and if you would like to debate the lethality of .22 magnum we can certainly do that- but considering how much hotter .22 magnum is than .22lr and considering how much the lethality of .22lr has been tested (I.E a % chance of non-penetration on the human skull at relevant engagement distances but also plenty of examples of penetrations) I don't need to watch tons of tests to know for a fact that a .22 WMR is going to penetrate the thoracic cavity sufficiently, every time, and penetrate the skull sufficiently, every time. That's not even a question.

If vitals can be punched through and into by the bullet, it's lethality is viable. Especially considering how easy it is to keep something like that on target. Idk if you have seen videos of people reviewing the gun but there is basically no recoil on that rifle whatsoever and there is absolutely no power left to squeeze out of the .22 WMR when its coming out of a 21 inch barrel.

But anyways, Keltec, Hi-Point and Extar are in the list because 9mm is 9mm. It's sufficient to mag dump into things. You don't need an extra special suppressed hyper modular $1000-$2000 PCC from some random niche company that is compatible with your specific attachments you want to use and your specific ammo that you want to use.

Basically what I'm saying is that there is no reason to get that autistic about it because 9mm is 9mm. It kills shit dead. That has been proven ad nauseum.

>>64029274
this >>64029151 fits in a 19" waxed canvas duffle with the qwikpoint and a bunch of mags. good truck gun

>>64029125 (OP)
The Ruger AR is the only gun in this image worth buying at all.
>>64029135
>>64029143
Wrong on both counts. Ruger ARs are universally underrated for some reason.

>>64029125 (OP)
$35 lower
$300 parts kit from PSA
$20 BUIS
Then you gotta pay $10 for mags and ammo is expensive.

>>64029346
>The Ruger AR is the only gun in this image worth buying at all.
It's twice as expensive as some of the other options, and its nice to be able to have some other options when it comes to your ammo. If your handgun and your rifle have the same magazines, there is a benefit to that.

If you have nothing in 9MM or .22WMR its nice to have something else to shoot besides 5.56. A purely readiness perspective would validate your claim that the only thing worth training with extensively is 5.56, however if we are not talking about civil war or completely uncontrolled civil unrest- your 5.56 has limited scope of usability. Makes sense as a truck gun or VS melanin boosted squadrons of future engineers or scientists that may try busting into your home or apartment at some time or another, if you live in a major city- in which case, yes, I concede, I would rather have a 30 round magazine 5.56 rifle over any PCC.

However I see not why it is superior unless you must absolutely be able to take on individuals inside of vehicles or you want to maintain lethality while being able to shoot through walls.

For the single tweaker or odd road rage incident here and there- and for the single opponent scenarios that are much more likely compared to being in an extreme happening scenario, a PCC makes plenty sense. Regular burglar scenario, you don't really need an AR for that. A shotgun or PCC is just fine for that situation. Just don't miss with your shotgun, you will fuck your house up.

>>64029235
>your point is moot
It isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about.
>http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
>and this is before we get into the care and feeding of blowbacks with hot loads, which is another matter entirely
>think of realistic scenarios where you will actually have to use your gun
I can think of a few, but none of them involve a PCC. They only exist for shooting games, larps, and suppressed fun at the gravel pit with subs.
>>64029243
>filtered by $200
This hobby may be a bit too expensive for you, anon. I too was poor once and it sucked. I hope things improve for you.

>>64029125 (OP)
SP5 or SP90
>budget
Get a job.

>>64029125 (OP)
You're not going to find that Ruger for less than 700 dollars nowadays. This meme was made with prices from years ago.

>>64029197
>cutting your barrel down that much in a PCC defeats the purpose of it being a PCC.
After 12" the benefit is negligible. 8"-12" is the sweet spot and a real gun owner would know that.

>>64029395
Just because something is "adequate" doesn't mean it isn't a worse choice.

PCCs are toys in the era of SBRs. They work, they can still do their job, but buying a cheap piece of shit PCC like in the OP image is a foolish choice. If you can't afford something nicer and need a defensive weapon, you should be buying a handgun.

>>64029442
>posts URL to a website that only a thousand people use per month
Oh boy, what a standard when it comes to ballistics testing and charts. You have like a thousand people using that website per month man, that's not a lot of traffic, that really doesn't prove much of anything. There are a lot of charts that anyone can pull up on the ballistics of all sorts of cartridges. I would take a video with a chronograph over some chart that maybe a thousand people use per month. Since, at least with a video it requires more effort to fake then just typing out whatever you want to be the result. They even mention in their FAQ that it's not a full list of all of the different kinds of ammo you could be using.

They only use 3 different brands of 9mm luger. They also don't list what kind of chronograph they were using. That's not very much variability at all, especially considering there are 5 major manufacturers. There are over 50 brands offering factory loaded 9mm ammo in the U.S. market. They take 3 shots with each type of ammo. Lowest effort testing I've ever seen. Not conducive to producing trustworthy results at all.

They also only tested 1 gun with an 18 inch barrel.

Considering how much you need to do to make sure your Chrono readings are as accurate as possible.. most charts out there that are just for fun are likely not accurate in the slightest.
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2012/07/20/chronograph-accuracy-tips-15-practical-tips-to-increase-accuracy-reliability/

>>64029518
8" 1634 1458 1366 1366 1234 1145 1278 1180 1047 1329
18" 1754 1543 1449 1458 1297 1194 1370 1231 1083 1395
FPS +120 +85 +83 +92 +63 +49 +92 +51 +36 +66
Weight 90gr 115gr 125gr 115gr 115gr 135gr 105gr 124gr 147gr 124gr

They didn't go in order of lightest to heaviest projectile. Most all of the ammo tested is hollow points.
Which have more wind resistance, because they have a fuckin cavity in the tip of the projectile.
Hollow points are relevant and worth testing, but we also have no reference point for propellant load.

It is common sense that if you use hotter loads that you get better ballistics out of longer barrels. There is obviously
a limit to how long a barrel needs to be depending on the propellant load, and what kind of barrel it needs to be and
what kinds of pressures it needs to be able to stand up to.

Suffice it to say, this testing indicates that there is at most a 120 feet per second benefit to adding 10 inches of extra
barrel to build up pressure behind the projectile. Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense and it would suggest that there
is no benefit to building rifles the way we do in the first place.

It is simple logic to understand that the difference between a 5.56 and a 9mm cartridge is projectile shape, size
and propellant load inside the cartridge. You tell me, what has more propellant, what has a hotter load? 5.56 or 9mm?
Obvious answer is 5.56 but 5.56 requires a completely different barrel that needs to stand up to completely different pressures.

So if you have a longer heavier duty barrel in a PCC it only makes sense that it can handle hotter loads compared to a handgun.
So if you're gonna use one you should use the highest marketed FPS cartridges, so long as your barrel is up to spec for those
pressures.

>>64029493
You can't afford anything on this list without a job, basically all you're saying is "make more money" and if it was that simple we would all be millionaires.

>>64029518
There is no fucking such thing as "the sweet spot" the sweet spot is whatever someone wants it to be depending on propellant load, what pressures a barrel can withstand safely, projectile size, weight and cartridge design. You do not know how firearms work if you think that 8 inches is the sweet spot and that no one is going to make a longer barrel that can chamber the same caliber that can't stand up to higher pressures, and therefore greater velocities.

With higher pressure, you have greater velocity.
The idea behind a PCC is that a longer barrel allows barrel pressure to have more time to speed up the projectile as it is leaving the barrel.

Greater velocity is measured across the board with PCC's and even in that shitty testing data that was supplied that is still apparent, although those numbers are very limited in scope and potentially very untrustworthy.

>>64029514
Go on PSA's website right now, every price I collected today when I made this.

>>64029635
So far your argument has consisted of
>I don't like your opinion
>I don't like your evidence
At this point I'm convinced that you're brown, you don't own any guns, and based on the nature of your arguments I'm beginning to think you're a woman.
>not very much variability at all
Of course there isn't. We're discussing about a cartridge that's designed and optimized for pistol use. That's what it's made for, and that's what manufacturers load it for. Certain rounds are optimized for certain barrel lengths, and while you can play with that *a bit* with the right load, it's not going to turn a cartridge into something it's not.

This is very basic stuff to someone that loads their own ammunition, which you clearly do not do.

>over 50 brands offering factory loaded 9mm ammo
Find me one that does something special in a barrel longer than 8-10". I'll wait.

>>64029655
I don't even know how to respond to this retardation. This has got to be AI generated. Please tell me this is AI generated. Even jeets aren't this fucking dumb.

>>64029756
>I don't like your opinion
Actually, I don't care about your opinion at all. I care about the science of how guns actually work. The thing is, we both know how guns actually work you're going to sit there and tell me there isn't 9mm ammo with high FPS. Throw me some tests for this out of a PCC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPNXhzecnM 3.39 inch barrel 1388 FPS average and a 4 inch barrel producing 1474 FPS average. Put that in a carbine with a barrel that can handle it and you will absolutely see a difference depending on the length of the barrel.

The industry standard for 9mm Luger ammunition is defined by SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute). SAAMI also defines standards for +P ammunition, which has a higher maximum pressure limit than standard 9mm. +P+ ammunition, however, operates outside of SAAMI specifications. This means there’s no industry-standard definition for its pressure levels, making it inherently less predictable and potentially dangerous.

Always consult your firearm’s manual and the manufacturer to determine if it is rated for +P or +P+ ammunition. Using ammunition beyond the firearm’s rated pressure can be dangerous.

>>64029756
For good measure lets talk about some other options that also have a high variability in FPS when compared to their contemporary's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM5Am6rIu-s from the man himself. Are you really gonna say that if you were to shoot these all out of a carbine vs a handgun, you wouldn't get different results out of hotter loads? +P and +P+ and don't try to say that I'm talking about the carbines in my list, no no no. If you were to shoot this ammo out of a carbine it's best that you figure out if the barrel can even handle it. Which is what I've been saying this whole time.

Just buy an 11.5 PSA AR newfag

>>64029346
Buy an ad, Bill. It's not a better gun than a $350 PSA.

>>64029841
>>64029896
>blah blah blah
>waffle about and change subject
So you didn't find a load like I asked. That's all you had to say.
> we both know how guns actually work
No, I don't think that both of us do. At least not interior ballistics.
> 9mm ammo with high FPS
There absolutely is, by 9mm standards anyway, and what's more it does this out of a pistol length barrel. Do you know how? I'm not sure that you do, because if you did, you'd know why it wouldn't make much difference if the barrel was longer. You'd also know why there's an observable difference between the velocity of a load from a 3.39" barrel and a 4" barrel, and why that difference doesn't have a linear relationship to barrel length.
>with a barrel that can handle it and you will absolutely see a difference depending on the length of the barrel
I didn't say that there wouldn't be a difference. I said that there wouldn't be much of a difference, which there won't be. In fact, you'd actually see more of a difference in standard velocity ammo that wasn't using light-for-caliber meme bullets. Do you know why? Again, if you knew this, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>different results out of hotter loads
Different? Yes. Significantly different? No. In fact, if the barrel was too long (probably around 18", maybe up to 20" depending on the load, certainly at 24"), you're going to see *less* velocity than a 16" one. Do you know why?

>>64029927
Hell yeah

>>64029927
This but unironically, all of OPs choices are retarded

>>64030075
>So you didn't find a load like I asked.
I did. +P and +P+ loads. They will perform differently, if you can find testing for +P loads comparing 8 inch and 16 inch barrels then go for it man.

>I said that there wouldn't be much of a difference
Well then let's define "much" because "much" could be 100 FPS. In which case it does make "much" of a difference.

>No. In fact, if the barrel was too long (probably around 18", maybe up to 20" depending on the load, certainly at 24"), you're going to see *less* velocity than a 16" one. Do you know why?
Because if the barrel is too long, the projectile is actually going to be slowed down by the friction, it needs more propellant for a longer barrel, which means it needs a different cartridge and ultimately a different gun. While you're at it you might as well tweak the shape and diameter of the projectile too. That's why a 30-06 cartridge and a 9MM cartridge don't look the same.

Anyways, data that we are talking about is pretty inconsistent. Fact of the matter is, it's not true that there is no benefit of a 16 inch barrel, there is ammo on the market that works better out of a 16 inch barrel vs an 8 inch barrel.

>>64030044
Wrong and Bill has been dead for years. Buy an ad PSAnigger.

>>64029197
>a little teeny tiny 8 inch barrel, barely longer than a regular handgun

That's twice the average length you size queen.

>>64030276
At the same time, why not build an SBR for 5.56? Why bother with 9mm carbine SBR?

Get sick shit youll love forever, its not even much more.

>>64030515
Best MP5. Nice anon.

>>64030571
<3 i love it. Now with supersafeties i hate this binary i have in it, it feels like an amobination and its only jammed when in binary mode.

>>64030578
Yeah binaries are a bit weird. I have one in my Stribog and it's great fun but you really have to train on the cadence to avoid outrunning the bolt and ended up with a dead hammer.

>>64029125 (OP)
If you're willing to eat the extra cost for takedown (and a higher margin of quality) then the Ruger PC is cheap enough to be affordable. Also has a traditionally stocked version if you're stuck in a ban state.
>Sub 2000 Gen 3
Add the Gen 2 to the list. It had some pretty insane sales up until recently and is still a decent bit cheaper than the Gen 3. It might be a total POS in comparison but it won't be beat in price.
>>64029655
>FPS +120 +85 +83 +92 +63 +49 +92 +51 +36 +66
Assuming that data is even accurate that's not a lot for a whole extra 10" of barrel, and proves that there is diminishing utility to barrel length for 9mms. I hardly imagine that a <100 FPS difference for most common HP weights is going to make the difference in expansion when it was already probably going to work reliably out of a handgun, let alone an 8" barrel.

>>64030172
> if you can find testing for +P loads comparing 8 inch and 16 inch barrels
I don't need to. You'll pick up 100 FPS or so, maybe 200 with a really optimized load. Do you want to know how I know that?
>because "much" could be 100 FPS
>~10% gain over a pistol
That's not much of an indictment against short barrels unless there's some magic velocity figure that you're trying to hit for arbitrary reasons. A 115 grain .355" hollowpoint at 1400 FPS is not going to do anything the same bullet at 1300 FPS won't.
>it's not true that there is no benefit of a 16 inch barrel
Of course there is. You've mentioned one. I've mentioned another one. My position is that they're slight, and not worth the tradeoff.
>there is ammo on the market that works better out of a 16 inch barrel vs an 8 inch barrel
100FPS only matters when you're trying to make major, anon. It makes no difference outside of certain shooting games, which is why those boomer reloading manuals that you've probably never read stress that the focus of working up a load should be on accuracy and reliability, and not on finding those last few FPS.

You know, at first I thought this was just austistic sperging about potentially interesting but ultimately meaningless efficiencies, but now I'm starting to think that it's anti-SBR cope. Are you precluded from owning a SBR? Is that what this is about?

>>64029269
It's like the inverse of those Lage kits.

>>64029518
>>64029655
https://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
>>64029635
>Shitting on BBTI
Shuck the FUCK up, newfag.

>>64029269
This fucks.

>>64031150
The problem is friction, depending on the ammo the entire thing will reach the apex of expansion before the bullet leaves the barrel. The igniting propellant needs to be able to push that bullet through the rifling of the barrel. If your barrel is too long, you actually get a decrease in FPS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNg6J2F-zpE

This is a perfect example of what we're talking about. Guy shoots standard 115 grain ammo marketed at 1050 FPS out of a 3.5 inch, 4.5 inch, 5 inch, 9 inch and 16 inch barrel.

3.5 inch 1115 FPS, 1113 FPS
4.5 inch 1185 FPS, 1178 FPS
5 inch 1205 FPS, 1253 FPS
9 inch 1313 FPS, 1340 FPS
16 inch 1264 FPS, 1286 FPS

Now, there is 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 inch barrels that are untested between the drop off between 9 and 16 inches so we don't know where the drop off actually happens and we don't know what the peak actually is. You would have to test the other barrel lengths to find out where exactly this specific ammo peaks. It's easy to look at these numbers and simply conclude that 9 inches is the ideal length- but you have unexplored territory.

Considering there is +P ammo marketed at like 1475 FPS out there; https://underwoodammo.com/9mm-luger-p-90gr-xtreme-defender-solid-monolithic-self-defense-ammo-816-1/

Although it weighs 35 gr less and is not a hollow point, it's a penetrator. Solid monolithic copper projectile. Relatively aerodynamic shape in comparison and it weighs less, makes sense that it would have higher FPS and on top of that it is +P which is a higher pressure propellant load inside the cartridge.

So if you did this same test with all of the barrel lengths between 3.5 inches and 16 inches but you used a +P load advertised at 1475 FPS I guarantee you that where the drop off happens in inches of barrel length will not be the same as the regular 115 grain marketed at 1050 FPS. You will see that it is different and it will be different because of the difference in how each cartridge is loaded.

>>64031150
>Ruger PC is cheap enough to be affordable
If it's the .22lr variant, but I left out .22lr for obvious reasons- even though there is good ammo for .22lr carbines, I still wouldn't rely on one for self defense. You need at least .22 WMR for that desu. The 9mm Ruger PC costs $779 bucks, dwarfing the cost of anything on this list. I just wouldn't want to pay AR price for a PCC, it just doesn't make sense. PCC's have worse ballistics, while PCC's are sufficient for self defense in most cases, AR's offer better range and firepower.

The only time I would take a .22lr carbine for self defense is if I could put an FRT on it and run a 100 round drum magazine on it that actually works well. For something like that, it doesn't matter that its underpowered. You will create enough damage in a short enough time to make up the difference. Suffice it to say, do the same thing in 9mm and it will be a better overall weapon.


>unless there's some magic velocity figure that you're trying to hit for arbitrary reasons
Different velocities serve different purposes man. Tell that to someone who has to run sub sonics for a suppressed set up. That's not an arbitrary reason, but that's just one example. Higher muzzle velocity means greater transfer of energy upon point of impact. It's pretty simple physics, although whether or not there actually is a greater transfer of energy depends on weight of the projectile, projectile material, projectile shape, etc.

So what it does at what FPS it is traveling at is dependent on a host of other factors and whether or not that is desirable would depend on what you want it to do in the first place. Maybe you want a lighter projectile that is still accurate at that FPS, well then you would have to design the projectile a certain way to make that happen, I.E maybe you are trying to get ideal FPS for ideal hollow point expansion, well then right off the rip your design has to be a hollow point design, etc etc.

>>64029135
PCC is lame just use 5.56
PSA is the choice

>>64029655
>Suffice it to say, this testing indicates that there is at most a 120 feet per second benefit to adding 10 inches of extra barrel to build up pressure behind the projectile.
Funny how your testing didn't put any barrel length in between. Fact, you could reach that velocity with fewer inches. Unless you're going out of your way to find rare handgun ammo with slower-burning powders (or are making your own), you could be using an 8-14 on any non-revolver cartridge PCC.
>Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense and it would suggest that there
>is no benefit to building rifles the way we do in the first place.
If it weren't for SBR laws preventing consumers from putting real stocks on PCC unless its 16" or longer, we'd see that all the PCC (shooting autoloading handgun cartridges) on the market would have shorter barrels. Your preferred 18 inches would be better served in a .45 LC, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, etc.
>>64029841
>I care about the science of how guns actually work.
HAHAHAHA, you disingenuous retard. Why'd you omit every barrel length before 18" then? You can see diminishing returns in PicRel

>>64029672
>There is no fucking such thing as "the sweet spot" the sweet spot is whatever someone wants it to be depending on propellant load, what pressures a barrel can withstand safely, projectile size, weight and cartridge design.
Fine, I'll amend it to "8" to 14" is the sweet spot for most commercially available 9mm loads," handloaders with custom guns need not feel offended.

>>64031940
Brave Browser tells me your link is unsafe. Let's call Brave "Coward Browser" instead from now on.

>>64029125 (OP)
buying a budget gun, something that's supposed to protect your life or w/e, seems really stupid. like save the extra $200 and get something good.