I definitely agree with that. If I wanted a Glock fed AR9 at this point, I’d be looking hard at a complete Circle 10 firearm.Originally Posted by Screwball
I definitely agree with that. If I wanted a Glock fed AR9 at this point, I’d be looking hard at a complete Circle 10 firearm.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
I think the 9mm AR shines as basically an AR that you can shoot PCC division with, and in 2024 I'd be reluctant to try and turn it into something else. If I wanted a 9mm carbine for realsies I'd probably think about something like an APC9k. But that would only really have value in that it seems to be marginally smaller than you can build a subsonic-focused, really-short .300 blackout AR. Or because you've got 9mm ammo stacked deep.
The "bag gun" thread back in 2020 when things got sporty I think ultimately came to the .300 blackout conclusion. I think leaving the 9mm AR as a training-focused gun for shooting in places centerfire rifle can't is probably still the best take. My Stern upper only has 549 rounds through it across 2 lowers (stern conversion + dedicated Palmetto PX9) and hasn't given a hint of trouble. It even feeds gold dots. But I'd want a lot more trouble-free rounds through it before I started thinking about it as a defensive piece and even then I really should get around to building out a .300 blackout shorty for when I want something smaller than my 11.5" 5.56 SBRs.
Which probably isn't useful for OP who wants a carbine that uses magazines he already has ahead of a state-level AWB. But then... mags are really consumables and IDK that I'd want to chance building a whole possibly-iffy carbine around that. I certainly would be reluctant to sink $2,000 into the idea.
Wait, did I get the order wrong? So CO already has a 15+ mag ban and the AWB for guns/receivers is imminent. So you're stuck with the mags you've got.
You specifically don't want a science experiment, but that may be with you're stuck with for such a non-standard configuration. The price of the Wilson doesn't sound like it guarantees it works.
Pretty much. It’s not legal to acquire magazines that hold more than 15 rds. But I can continue to buy/replace 15 rd mags (for Beretta or Glock or whatever else).
I had hoped that the Wilson would be a solid performer given the price and that it was supposedly purpose-build to work with Beretta mags. It seems that there is evidence to the contrary.
The proposed AWB will either pass or fail by this Wednesday, and I’ll have about 6 weeks until it’s in force if it does pass. So some time to think it through and continue to get input here.
BTW, I took the “bag-gun” discussion to heart, and have several 300 BLK SBRs, and a lower to be built into a pistol, if I decide to go that route.
Thanks again to all for the input- I’m still listening…
That B92 mags will be worse than Glock mags in AR9 is not a given at all, at least according to my experience. The biggest problem in AR9 is the large distance between the barrel axis and the magazine. Keeping the feeding angle shallow enough requires to position magazine away from the breech, resulting in a long unsupported distance when feeding. But B92 mags have significantly longer feed lips. That permits them to be located further away. Admittedly, the above is only based on my experience making various 9mm adapters for AR9 and Ruger PCC. We do not currently offer a product for B92 mags in AR9, so I cannot prove anything. But generally Beretta 92 is the easiest to work with, offering the best reliability -- provided that the design is sane and works in concert with the magazine.
Reply With Quote