Sub2000 gen-3

[Can-down]

Maybe the particular 45* I had was extra thick on the top rail but the S2K wouldn't latch in the folded position for me, I didn't have any MLOK 45* on hand so I couldn't come up from the side. That also brings us back to a ?gen 3? style setup where the optic increases the girth of the firearm.

Yes you need a mount that is minimal in height above the rail, the weaver that's on sale for $42 is dished out and works well.

The 45 deg set up won't stick out as much as the gen 3 but there is no getting around the fact that adding a red dot adds bulk.

 

[alpining]

I understand why they made these changes for Gen3 - It's a clear reply to the S&W FPC, and probably a smart marketing move on that front. But I don't see the Gen3 changes as necessarily an improvement on the Gen2 Sub2000.

The biggest reason is that the only time I ever fold my Sub2000 is to clean the barrel - Even with a fixed optic, the Gen2 folds open well enough for that. So for me the rotating handguard has no value at all. It adds expense, weight, and complexity. I get it if the folding feature is the primary reason you want a PCC like the S2K, and if you need a quick-deploy optic at the same time, but for many people it's a wasted feature. The Gen2 Sub2000 doesn't need to fold to be an outstanding PCC option - It's a super light, super slim, excellent handling, well-priced, Glock mag compatible, non-restricted 9mm rifle.

Next, going to the shorter grip (to allow G19 magazine fitment) means that G17 mags will leave a gap between the bottom of the grip and the floorplate when inserted. Unless you're really into the G19 pistol, this isn't an improvement. The G17-length grip on the Gen2 isn't that long to start with.

I do like the charging handle upgrade though. It looks easier to operate (I never had a problem with mine in factory format, but I can understand why others might). And giving it a hold-open catch on both sides of the tube is smart, for sure. I generally like having more rail space available, but honestly this type of rifle probably doesn't need it.

Unless there are other improvements we haven't heard about yet, I strongly prefer the Gen2 Sub2000 over the Gen3. I really hope they keep the Gen2 in production, but they probably won't. Maybe it's time to buy a spare Gen2...

 

[alpining]

The gen 2 with barrel clamp mount and micro red dot on the extra ~2.5" Canadian compliant barrel section adds almost nothing to the profile of the firearm and lets you run any height riser you want. It's not a great solution but it's cheap and compact.

That's really smart, why didn't I think of that? No it's not an elegant solution, but I'm sure it works just fine.

 

[joemanco]

The demo version at Shot Show had optic on a riser and an angled fore grip with flashlight on the lower. A comfortable setup. But when demoing the twist the operator is careful to avoid revealing the extra girth of the Gen3 approach.

 

[Can-down]

I understand why they made these changes for Gen3 - It's a clear reply to the S&W FPC, and probably a smart marketing move on that front. But I don't see the Gen3 changes as necessarily an improvement on the Gen2 Sub2000.

The biggest reason is that the only time I ever fold my Sub2000 is to clean the barrel - Even with a fixed optic, the Gen2 folds open well enough for that. So for me the rotating handguard has no value at all. It adds expense, weight, and complexity. I get it if the folding feature is the primary reason you want a PCC like the S2K, and if you need a quick-deploy optic at the same time, but for many people it's a wasted feature. The Gen2 Sub2000 doesn't need to fold to be an outstanding PCC option - It's a super light, super slim, excellent handling, well-priced, Glock mag compatible, non-restricted 9mm rifle.

Next, going to the shorter grip (to allow G19 magazine fitment) means that G17 mags will leave a gap between the bottom of the grip and the floorplate when inserted. Unless you're really into the G19 pistol, this isn't an improvement. The G17-length grip on the Gen2 isn't that long to start with.

I do like the charging handle upgrade though. It looks easier to operate (I never had a problem with mine in factory format, but I can understand why others might). And giving it a hold-open catch on both sides of the tube is smart, for sure. I generally like having more rail space available, but honestly this type of rifle probably doesn't need it.

Unless there are other improvements we haven't heard about yet, I strongly prefer the Gen2 Sub2000 over the Gen3. I really hope they keep the Gen2 in production, but they probably won't. Maybe it's time to buy a spare Gen2...

The other improvements I have heard so far are metal trigger, better connection where the buffer tube meets the receiver and a wider ejection port.

The shorter grip makes sense to me, more compact and some weight loss with no real reduction in handling, it's not like your trying to wrap 2 hands around it.

As to the longer mag's hanging out, tell that to a 33 rounder..... The only true 10 round mags glock make still won't fit in it.

Keltec should figure out how to raise the height of their iron sights by about a 1/4' or so for the next improvement.

Their low sight line can be mitigated somewhat for my cheek bone by canting the rifles to the inside and thus swinging the sights close in line with the eye but most people don't figure this out.

Edit, I wonder if flip up sights on the new model would be much higher then the typical kel tec sight line?

 

[alpining]

The other improvements I have heard so far are metal trigger, better connection where the buffer tube meets the receiver and a wider ejection port.

The shorter grip makes sense to me, more compact and some weight loss with no real reduction in handling, it's not like your trying to wrap 2 hands around it.
...
Keltec should figure out how to raise the height of their iron sights by about a 1/4' or so for the next improvement.
...
Edit, I wonder if flip up sights on the new model would be much higher then the typical kel tec sight line?

Metal trigger is nice, I guess, but I don't have a problem with the latest Gen2 plastic trigger (but I do think earlier Gen2 plastic triggers were more wobbly). I never noticed a problem with the Gen2 buffer tube / receiver interface (but maybe the KelTec warranty department disagrees). The wider ejection port is clearly a good improvement though.

I still don't like idea of the the shorter grip. For Gen2 they made G19 and G17 length grips as separate options, which I think makes more sense. Overly long mags are simply not ideal. Aside from the grip issues, when slamming a magazine home, I'd much rather for it to stop on the mag floorplate rather than on the mag catch, or on that tiny magazine stop located inside the receiver.

You're right about raising the factory iron sights. The taller rear sight is one of the few MCARBO items that I think is actually a good upgrade (if you use irons).

Not sure that typical BUIS on the Gen3 would be much higher than the factory Gen2 irons - From eyeballing it, it seems like they'd be a bit higher, someone can probably verify. Actually, thanks for bringing that up: I can see that the top rail on the Gen3 reaches quite a bit further back than on the Gen2. I consider that a clear improvement, as the Gen2 top rail doesn't give much space to work with (and it starts quite far forward).

 

[Suther]

Metal trigger is nice, I guess, but I don't have a problem with the latest Gen2 plastic trigger (but I do think earlier Gen2 plastic triggers were more wobbly). I never noticed a problem with the Gen2 buffer tube / receiver interface (but maybe the KelTec warranty department disagrees). The wider ejection port is clearly a good improvement though.

I still don't like idea of the the shorter grip. For Gen2 they made G19 and G17 length grips as separate options, which I think makes more sense. Overly long mags are simply not ideal. Aside from the grip issues, when slamming a magazine home, I'd much rather for it to stop on the mag floorplate rather than on the mag catch, or on that tiny magazine stop located inside the receiver.

You're right about raising the factory iron sights. The taller rear sight is one of the few MCARBO items that I think is actually a good upgrade (if you use irons).

Not sure that typical BUIS on the Gen3 would be much higher than the factory Gen2 irons - From eyeballing it, it seems like they'd be a bit higher, someone can probably verify. Actually, thanks for bringing that up: I can see that the top rail on the Gen3 reaches quite a bit further back than on the Gen2. I consider that a clear improvement, as the Gen2 top rail doesn't give much space to work with (and it starts quite far forward).

3d printers can largely eliminate issues relating to magazines that are longer than the grip.

 

[Can-down]

Metal trigger is nice, I guess, but I don't have a problem with the latest Gen2 plastic trigger (but I do think earlier Gen2 plastic triggers were more wobbly). I never noticed a problem with the Gen2 buffer tube / receiver interface (but maybe the KelTec warranty department disagrees). The wider ejection port is clearly a good improvement though.

I still don't like idea of the the shorter grip. For Gen2 they made G19 and G17 length grips as separate options, which I think makes more sense. Overly long mags are simply not ideal. Aside from the grip issues, when slamming a magazine home, I'd much rather for it to stop on the mag floorplate rather than on the mag catch, or on that tiny magazine stop located inside the receiver.

You're right about raising the factory iron sights. The taller rear sight is one of the few MCARBO items that I think is actually a good upgrade (if you use irons).

Not sure that typical BUIS on the Gen3 would be much higher than the factory Gen2 irons - From eyeballing it, it seems like they'd be a bit higher, someone can probably verify. Actually, thanks for bringing that up: I can see that the top rail on the Gen3 reaches quite a bit further back than on the Gen2. I consider that a clear improvement, as the Gen2 top rail doesn't give much space to work with (and it starts quite far forward).

The Flip up sights could be mounted on a riser block and that would definitely get them over a 1/4" higher and keep everything fairly light weight and compact.

 

[Can-down]

3d printers can largely eliminate issues relating to magazines that are longer than the grip.

True I suppose but Glock 19 mags are pretty cheap and the knock off's even cheaper, with our current restrictions we can't even take advantage of longer regular capacity magazines.

 

[joemanco]

Working the Sub2000 with similar techniques to a pistol is part of the appeal of that pistol-grip-magwell design (also OAL is reduced by ~3" in comparison to forward magwells).

The G17 Gen2 grip has just enough length to provide some pinky support without a mag inserted. The G19 grips, being more compact, have no direct pinky support. The better of the two is likely whatever you're used to training with?

 

[alpining]

...The G17 Gen2 grip has just enough length to provide some pinky support without a mag inserted. The G19 grips, being more compact, have no direct pinky support. The better of the two is likely whatever you're used to training with?

Maybe, but you don't grip a carbine like you do a pistol. Or if you do, you shouldn't!

If you don't already have a bunch of G17 mags, I don't think it's a big deal to have the shorter grip (G19 mags are pretty easy to find, and still pretty cheap compared to M&P mags, for example). But for the vast majority of us I don't think the shorter grip is an improvement. If you've already got a ton of G17 mags (like many of us do), then it's a step in the wrong direction.

Some people will definitely find the Gen3 grip too short for comfort. Because of the different layout of the frame, it's less grip length below the trigger guard than you have with a G19 pistol. Using 17-rd mags and adding spacers to fill the gap between the bottom of the grip and the magazine floorplate (like those the S&W FPC come with) is a solution - But it's a compromise, and not a good one for many people.

The shorter grip with the Gen3 is good for a few people: If you have some reason to prefer G19 magazines, or if you are looking to get the absolute smallest stowable package with the rifle folded.

 

[joemanco]

Maybe, but you don't grip a carbine like you do a pistol. Or if you do, you shouldn't!

I do ... when holding pistol-grip-magwell Sub2000 with my trigger hand, while ejecting a mag with my trigger hand thumb, while already reaching for a new mag with my support hand. The same technique as my primary pistol reload, same stance, same spacial positions, same magwell tilt and insertion, same hand and eye movements, same magazines from same belt. I find efficiency is gained with unified technique.

Whereas reloading Sub2000 as a shouldered "carbine" has awkward ergos - reaching the small mag release can break the trigger hand grip and locating the pistol-grip-magwell for insertion can be obscured. I won't mention charging.

But different horses for different courses. Simply there is merit for treating Sub2000 as a "pistol" in some scenarios and most "carbine" alternatives do not offer this choice.

 

[brownbear53]

Maybe, but you don't grip a carbine like you do a pistol. Or if you do, you shouldn't!

If you don't already have a bunch of G17 mags, I don't think it's a big deal to have the shorter grip (G19 mags are pretty easy to find, and still pretty cheap compared to M&P mags, for example). But for the vast majority of us I don't think the shorter grip is an improvement. If you've already got a ton of G17 mags (like many of us do), then it's a step in the wrong direction.

Some people will definitely find the Gen3 grip too short for comfort. Because of the different layout of the frame, it's less grip length below the trigger guard than you have with a G19 pistol. Using 17-rd mags and adding spacers to fill the gap between the bottom of the grip and the magazine floorplate (like those the S&W FPC come with) is a solution - But it's a compromise, and not a good one for many people.

The shorter grip with the Gen3 is good for a few people: If you have some reason to prefer G19 magazines, or if you are looking to get the absolute smallest stowable package with the rifle folded.

Glock 17 mags fit perfectly fine in a Glock 19, they are a few mms longer so they stick out and dont sit flush, no different than using a 27 round mag body in a glock 17.

Shorter grip is an improvement for the Americans where 19s are a lot more common than the 17, allowing them to use existing mags instead of buying 17 mags.
The old gen needed 17 mags specifically, and could not run 19s as the 19 mag was too short to be inserted completely.
Gen3 would technically work with both 17 and 19 mags

 

[Suther]

True I suppose but Glock 19 mags are pretty cheap and the knock off's even cheaper, with our current restrictions we can't even take advantage of longer regular capacity magazines.

In thinking from the perspective of someone who already has a bunch of g17 mags. I wouldn't replace a bunch of mags just because they're a tiny bit longer if there is a cheap and effective work around, and 3d printing should be able to provide just that.

Of course they work as is so you don't NEED to do anything with a g17 mag, but either a new baseplate entirely or a spacer would eliminate any possible issues over- insertion might cause.

 

[Ex3dy]

I prefer a gap in the winter, my bulky gloves don't get pinched between the magwell and the mag.

 

[MosinNagantM44]

I checked with vault and I didn’t get eta for these ��

 

[Johnyy]

Allot of people 'Mod' their 17 grip to a 19, to have shorter flush mags, more-so an American things better for EDC/Concealment. I'm sure it could work to shorten an older Gen Sub.2.k grip, if one wanted, but, really no advantage on a rifle.

Glock 17 mags fit perfectly fine in a Glock 19, they are a few mms longer so they stick out and dont sit flush, no different than using a 27 round mag body in a glock 17.

Shorter grip is an improvement for the Americans where 19s are a lot more common than the 17, allowing them to use existing mags instead of buying 17 mags.
The old gen needed 17 mags specifically, and could not run 19s as the 19 mag was too short to be inserted completely.
Gen3 would technically work with both 17 and 19 mags

 

[biologic]

its a shame you cant turn it 180 degree like the red lion putting the optic underneat, way more compact

 

[thegazelle]

I think this is a great improvement. What about that stupid charging handle? Looks like a flip in that video but we all know what PITA it is. My partner could not charge that thing. Sold it. And then the sights.

4
I kinda got the Sub.2K for my GF..but ya! ##### it was difficult to charge. I got ANOTHER one..& it was "better'.

I don't necessarily ascribe this to being a girlfriend/partner thing. I am a guy (as per traditional definition) and I found the charging handle stiffness/resistance and even location not conducive to enjoying the firearm. Mine was a .40, so not sure whether my experience would have been better with a 9mm. But the poor design and placement (in my opinion) obviates any caliber change that I would have considered. Add to it the horrendous built in sights and then folding feature lost its lustre quickly.

 

[Horilka]

If anyone wanted - Gen 3 is for sale with couple of vendors that are sponsors here. I personally will pass, shorter grip and rotation are deal breakers for me.