This one rifle does literally everything I would ever need a long gun of any kind for.
> Home defense? Check.
> Self-defense in the woods at guerilla range? Check.
> Small game hunting? Check.
> Deer hunting. Check, and yes it's legal in most states.
> Camping? Check.
> Bugout/SHTF? Check.
> Penetrate 3A? With the right bullets, check.
This one firearm handles every situation I need or want something more than a handgun for, and does it using the second cheapest ammunition you can buy after 22LR, which is also the same ammunition and even the very same magazines that I'm already carrying at all times and have stockpiled. Life does not get any simpler than that. I am never buying an AR, an AK, or anything else, there's no point.
>9mm for deer
Get the absolute fuck out of here you no guns retard. 9mm is barely good enough against yard apes.
9mm is a proven deer cartridge within 100 yards, especially with modern hollowpoints. YouTube it. A 16" barrel at 70 yards is equal to a G19 at the muzzle with a given ammo type. I haven't killed a deer with it yet personally but I know multiple guys who took deer with 9mm, one was a handgun. Both of them said it works pretty well with good shot placement, at least as well as a broadhead. I've only killed a few woodchucks with it, but based on what I've seen, the heart and lungs of a deer aren't going to stand a chance.
Theoretically a dinky .22 handgun is better than 9mm: its the caliber of choice for """poaching""", more has been killed with .22 than any other caliber, and with good shot placement it should work as well as any rifle caliber. The brain of a deer isn't going to stand a chance when that little bullet bounces around its skull.
I'm a noguns who's hunting experience is limited to a single season of quail and even I know going for deer with a pistol caliber is not only retarded but inefficient and inhumane.
You've obviously made your mind up so feel free to maim your local wildlife.
How would a 22 be better than 9mm? 9mm is superior in every way. A headshot with .22LR requires extreme precision against a flat part of the skull where it won't deflect. A 9mm can bore it's way through the cranium from any angle, especially if we're talking a hollowpoint or flat nose bullet, M1152, etc, and you're not limited to headshots either. Modern hollowpoints are designed per FBI specs to drop a dangerous suspect from bad angles through a windshield, an arm/shoulder, a leather jacket, and thick layers of prison muscle or 'murica fat, and they do the job very well. They can double lung a whitetail, out of a carbine they can do it at 100 yards or more, it's been done on video countless times.
Newfag or you completely missed my point; which doesn't bode well for taking down deer at 100yards with 9mm.
This board is 80% noguns at this point; waving your secondhand hi-point around your section 8 housing doesn't inflate your opinion higher than mine, nagger.
You're only point was that a 22 must somehow be better because that's what poachers seemed to prefer. Did I miss something?
I can make 2" groups average from field positions at 100 yards with most of my carry ammo with this weapon.
So 10mm isn't humane either? That's a pistol caliber. So is .50AE.
>I'm a noguns
So shut the fuck up
22s were used for poaching because they are quiet and because PCCs, which are also very quiet, didn't exist. Takedown PCC suppressed with 147-158 grain subsonics would be the best possible poaching gun you set up with current technology.
I shot and killed a deer with that gun. (It was the older non-adjustable stock version).
The only thing I didn’t like about that gun was how fucking heavy it was.
Sold it, and bought the pistol version for braced suppressed shooting. Wouldn’t you know it, that son of a bitch is about as heavy as the rifle version.
(Not my gun, but I have a similar setup).
9mm needs at least 12" of barrel length to reach max velocity and energy. You aren't getting the full benefits of a carbine with the charger pistol.
I don’t want it to reach max velocity. I specifically purchased a shorter barreled gun to avoid that.
I shoot 158gr 9mm through a Yankee Hill Machine R9 and it’s pretty quiet.
147gr was still reaching super sonic velocities with that barrel length.
True, most factory 147 will reach about 1140fps in 16" barrel. Very well then. But personally I want to just squeeze the most energy and terminal performance I can out of those little 9mm bullets, that way I don't need a bigger gun.
I completely agree. If the goal wasn’t suppression, I would still own the 16” version and shoot buffalo bore, that liberty ultra lite 2000fps ammo, or the solid copper screwdriver bits through it.
The Lehigh screwdriver bullets penetrate 3A even out of handguns. So does fort Scott TUI, at least the lighter one.
It's a shame that 158 grain isn't more readily available.
Pistol caliber gay
It takes down hundreds of big roided and coked up black guys every month out of handguns.
>falling for big 9mm's lies
The national record buck for many years was taken with a .32-20, which was inferior to 9mm in literally every way, diameter, mass, energy, velocity, bullet construction, everything, and no it wasn't a headshot. 9mm will obviously work for deer. We're talking a gun that you can practice with as much as you want and you have crazy fast follow up shots compared to any conventional hunting rifles. You'll probably be more likely to get a pass-through than with .223 too.
The jim jordan buck was taken with a .25-20
I wonder if that's the same one I was thinking of. That just makes it even better.
>Lol9mm
Good luck with that
Great to have one gun do most things, and cool that it could in theory take down deer, but I feel like you don't hunt - so why mention hunting? It's ok not to hunt. I haven't gone in years.
Survival. I don't want or need a "good" deer gun, it just needs to be capable of the job. If I have to wait patiently after a shot for the animal to die, and spend a little time tracking the carcass down, not a big deal, that's what people did for 50,000 years with wooden bows and arrows. And yet I've seen multiple videos of deer being dropped in their tracks by 9mm.
>muh Survival
Dude if you don't hunt now you're not going to pull it off in some retarded boogaloop. Just drop the LARP part. It's a good gun for you because it's a handy defense gun and it's packable.
I've killed deer before, with my dad when I was a teenager. Deer hunting has a poor work/fun ratio in my opinion. Never had a taste for it. I've always preferred small game hunting. But I want to be ready to kill anything if needed if beef goes to $20/pound and people are starting to panic.
The power of cartridge firearms isn't subdivisible. If your weapon reliably rolls over deer with any half assed body shot, then it's overpowered for survival, because you're locked in to a cartridge with very heavy, bulky, expensive ammunition that will ruin way too much meat on smaller game and handle poorly in combat. Inflicting a lethal wound on a deer sized animal with one shot from 100 yards should be at the extreme upper end of what a survival cartridge is capable of. It's hard to imagine a better option than 9mm.
>theorycraft blah blah blah
If you were going to go hunting tomorrow morning, how would you bag a deer? And I'm not talking about what gear you're bringing, I want to know what you're going to ~do~. Furthermore, if you're buying *product* for food shortages, that product should be FOOD, not a 9mm blowback. I think you have a good gun, I just think that half of the rationale is bullshit in your case.
I would sit at a high vantage point overlooking a spot with signs of recent deer activity and move if the wind changes unfavorably. If it's raining out I might creep around the edges of new growth thickets. Those are the two easiest ways to kill deer, other than cable snares.
I am not an inexperienced hunter or outdoorsman. I was raised hunting deer and have killed five. I just don't care for all the sitting around, carcass dragging, calling out of work and losing money to bring the thing to a check station, spending 6 hours butchering, etc. Good skill to have but not my idea of a good time.
Firearms and ammunition are the single biggest systemic complication in any survival catalog, and also the biggest contributor to physical mass. That's why it's very important to me to have the fewest number of firearms and cartridges possible. I believe that a Glock combined with a PCC that accepts Glock magazines will allow ME to accomplish any task I will ever have to do that requires firearms. This setup might not be appropriate for someone else, such as someone who lives out west where visibility might be very high and a weapon with longer range might be a good idea, or someone who is "bugging in" on some kind of farm or compound and isn't as concerned about concealability and weight as I am. I am religiously minimalistic because mobility and discretion will be the only advantages I'm going to have when SHTF.
>Firearms and ammunition are the single biggest systemic complication in any survival catalog, and also the biggest contributor to physical mass
Lol, no they definitely should not be. You're just a LARPfag.
What else is as physically heavy and requires sourcing highly specific components like ammunition, magazines, and parts? My hatchet certainly doesn't cause me that much trouble, neither does my CAT tourniquets, my life straws, nothing. Guns are not only a solution to a problem, they are problem unto themselves.
They're primarily a fucking paperweight when it comes to survival if we're being honest.
That's why I want fewest number of guns and only a single ammunition type to stockpile.
You should stock what you actually use in real life instead of some gay LARP. You will never expend 100s of rounds of ammunition in some bizarre survival fantasy. You will at the range, though.
Exactly. I have lots of ammo for training. I'm primarily a handgun shooter and I take training pretty seriously. Now I have a rifle that can take that same ammunition and use it much more effectively. I don't need an additional stockpile of a different cartridge.
Well that rationale makes sense. The survival bullshit doesn't.
Then what's a better survival rifle? What will give me some kind of advantage that will actually matter? I'm completely satisfied being capable of whipping out a carbine from a backpack and putting a 9mm hole in something at 100 yards from a magazine I was already carrying concealed on my hip. I don't see what improvement is needed.
It fails the test of looking cool.
Miserably
Hey bud, have you ever fired a real rifle? I don't think you have.
Yes, I used to use a .270 and .308 when I was growing up.
it really should be in God's caliber, though.
AR9s are pretty glorified range toys. If you enjoy them, more power to you. Though, I do have an EPC9 I haven't shot yet because of the brace shit. Maybe I'll do that this weekend
While the commonality of parts with the AR15 is all well and good, I don't see why you would choose an AR9 over an AR15. More recoil and heavier buffer, carrier, and barrel seems like a bad deal to me for something that should be a lightweight and effective rifle for mid-long ranges. It's why the 635 lost the SMG war of the 80s. Too much bolt bounce compared to roller, radial, or even blowbacks with dual springs like the Uzi. I don't think glock mags fix the AR9 either because of the angled magwell.
btw I love AR9s
AR9s are shite. OP gun is a Ruger PC9, probably the best 9mm carbine you can buy right now, one of the few things Ruger is doing right.
The cx4 and ap5 are better.
Lol not the AP5, cmon now. CX4 is pretty great though
Don't take Glock mags so automatically disqualified. Also aren't takedown.
I preferred the Charger over the Carbine. It being 9mm, you're not gaining much velocity past 6" barrel, so might as well go short boy.
That's not true. Velocity peaks at about 12". At that point you're getting 45% more energy than a Glock 19. More importantly, you're keeping the bullet above expansion threshold at much longer range. Typically a 12-16" barrel will hit at about 70 yards with the same velocity as a G19 at the muzzle. That's something people don't consider, they think the energy still isn't enough to cause damage from temporary stretch cavity like a rifle so it doesn't matter. That may be true, but handgun cartridges wound primarily through direct surface area, and that increases radically with bullet expansion. Hollow point bullets need impact velocity to expand, terminal performance drops off dramatically if the bullet doesn't expand, so there's a highly significant increase/decrease in terminal performance at a certain velocity threshold that isn't readily apparent just looking at numbers. A shoulder mounted weapon with a fixed barrel and quality optics allows you to make accurate hits at long range, you want your bullets to perform at that range.
You're not gaining much velocity, anon.
You're gaining significantly more energy and much longer effective range for hollow points. That's the simplified version, since you didn't want to actually read my comment. I have had BBTI open in a background tab for 12 years.
You should look that up, you're not gaining much energy either. Like 150 pound difference.
You're gaining 45% more energy on average, which I've already stated. That's a lot. Take your 9mm subcompact carry pistol with a 3.5" barrel and shoot something reactive like a watermelon at nearly muzzle contact distance. That's what the carbine will do at 100 yards with the same ammunition.
And that's 45% over a G19. It's more like 58% over the average subcompact out there.
If you're carrying a 16" PCC that weighs over 6 pounds, you're better off just carrying a rifle.
No, because that requires it's own separate ammo supply, it's own magazines (hideously bulky magazines compared to Glock mags), will be dramatically louder, way too destructive on the majority of wild game, and will have very little advantage for any practical purpose at woods distances.
I take it you've not shot many animals with an AR. I've blasted possums, raccoons, hogs, a wide range of animals with my AR. I've blasted a lot of those same animals with PCCs too, I rather go with an AR with proper loads than a PCC. When ever it came to smaller animals and I didn't want to fuck the body up, simply just blasted them in the face.
With an AR? No, but I did shoot animals with a bolt action .223. Pretty nasty. 9mm 124 grain FMJ is much better, and half the price, and I already have thousands of rounds of it. Also much quieter, and that's compared to a 22" .223. I don't even want to know what a 16" AR sounds like. I very much doubt they're safe to shoot even with earplugs.
ARs seem like very complex, unreliable weapons to me. I've never had one but I've watched disassembly and cleaning videos, read lots of experiences. The Ruger PC9 has been extremely reliable and is very easy for me to strip and clean with virtually no special tools. I always carry a small cleaning kit for my Glocks that weighs maybe 2 ounces at most. The only thing I have to add for the carbine is a long piece of fishing line to drag patches through the barrel. Oh, and the barrel is a drop-in part just like a handgun because that's where the takedown lugs are. It's very unlikely I'll ever need the services of a gunsmith. ARs have just never seemed practical to me.
7.62x25, 45, 5.7, or 357 anything else is too weak and made.for limp wrists.
You got to be kidding me son. Using a tupperware 9MM to hunt deer? Should be illegal if it isn't.
Chuck Wadson
USMC Waterdogs 1991
USPS 1992-2000
Walmart 2001-2009
Everyday I wake in this OBAMAnation despite giving my all for this country. If you don't like it, move to Canada you commie.
Sent from my Motorola RAZR MAXX using Tapatalk