Ruger PC-9 vs M-1 Carbine

gunpaq

The local gun store has just got two trade-ins, a 9mm Ruger PC-9 and a commercial M-1 .30cal carbine, and I want to but both but can only afford one. Aside from the historical aspect of the M-1 Carbine or the differences in value of the two guns, which firearm would be the best choice to take to a fire fight, plinking, home defense, etc. I have Ruger 9mm pistols that would fit the PC-9 as an advantage to consider also, but purely would like to know what the popular opinion is. Which one of the two should I buy?

---

Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.

royc38

For the criteria you mentioned take the carbine. The Ruger has the edge for mag interchangability but other than that the carbine has more power, you can still get high capacity mags and you have more range.

competentone

"...to take to a firefight..." The M1; no matter how you cut it, your bullet has twice the energy of the 9mm."...plinking...." The PC-9; atleast half the cost!"...home defense..." Probably the PC-9, but I live "in town" with neighbors close by and would have concerns about the .30 Carbine round overpenetrating more-so than with the 9mm. Also, and I don't think there is any testing to back me up here, I consider the "blow-back" operation of the PC-9 to be just slightly more reliable than the gas system of the M1. The one issue you didn't raise is which is easier to disassemble to clean? Definitely the M1! The PC's are just a "pain" to reassemble.Oh, he!!, find the money and buy both!

Gordian Blade

I like my PC9 except for the trigger pull, which is (supposedly) safe but in my opinion you have to pull it too far. It's definitely rugged, and Ruger has a better reputation than some of the outfits that make commercial M-1 carbines. (Some people are still angry about Bill Ruger's betrayal on the hi-cap mag issue.) Having the same ammo caliber and magazines as your pistol is a definite plus, especially since good pre-ban hi-caps are getting hard to find.On .30 cal versus 9mm, you have to make the call. I have not shot an M-1 carbine, so I'm no help there. There is a basic difference between .30 cal and 9mm. In my unexpert opinion, 9mm is less likely to penetrate too far in an urban or suburban environment, but .30 cal is better for long-range targets. In theory .30 cal would be more accurate than 9mm all other factors being equal due to the cartridge design. Where I live, even in the worst circumstances I can imagine, I won't have any long-range targets.I know you are between the two guns you mentioned, but you should at least consider a few others just for comparison. I have a Marlin Camp 9 carbine which I bought used but in excellent condition, which I like better than the PC9. It looks more like a "regular" hunting rifle. That's a matter of taste. It uses S&W magazines and I'm getting a S&W 9mm pistol to go with it soon.As another alternative, you might consider a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 9mm carbine. They're hard to find at the moment because the demand is high.Last and least (again my opinion) is the Hi-Point 9mm carbine. In fairness, I have to say that the newer ones are reported to have the bugs worked out and no longer fall apart after 500 rounds like the old ones. One of the gun magazines actually rated it higher than the PC9. But they look cheap (looks count for something) and I could never look at one without thinking of Columbine High.

gunpaq

Thanks for the replies. I am probably going with the M-1 Carbine, I like a gun that has some wood and a bayonet on it.

---

Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.

nmyers

I think that the commercial M1 carbine would be a mistake. There is NO historical interest, and 99% of them are J-U-N-K; they usually sell for $200-300, but aren't worth that much. A real USGI M1 carbine will cost at least $350, but it will give you a lot of good service and will always hold it's value.On the other hand, I never did see the point of a 9mm carbine. I'd sooner have a Ruger .44 mag carbine, either autoloader or lever action. But, get whatever makes you happy.Neal

Gordian Blade

Neal, I understand your point about whether a 9mm carbine is a useful gun. I think it is useful in an urban/suburban environment where you want to limit (you can't eliminate) the risk of collateral damage, and the ranges are fairly short. It has the advantages of low recoil (= spouse can shoot it comfortably), the ammo is reasonably priced for practice and plinking, the ammo and mags are compatible with 9mm pistols, and JHP in 9mm will do the job in a civilian situation if it comes to that. In other words, it's a compromise. If you pick any one thing, you can find another gun that would be better. If you are someone who has 50 guns in the safe and keeps stocks of ammo in 10 different calibers, you probably wouldn't use a 9mm carbine.GB

luger01

Actually, for everyone's edification, the .223 penetrates less than a 9mm Luger. As far as between the .30 Carbine and 9mm for penetration/stopping power, most .30 Carbine ammo is FMJ and will not perform as well as the 9mm JHP loads. Winchester does make a .30 Carbine softpoint, but I've never seen test on the penetration/stopping power.I would think that the Glaser load for the .30 Carbine would be far superior to a similar round in 9mm, simply because of the increased energy and the fact that these rounds are designed to stop and not overpenetrate.If I had Ruger pistols, I would opt for the PC Carbine though. I value being able to use the same mags and ammo in my pistol and carbine. In reality, a good 9mm load will do all you should need in a confrontation. Plus the Ruger carbine can easily mount a scope or red dot unit - a real plus.

v35

Take the M-1 carbine.

1blitzer

The pc-9 is a nice patrol rifle. The pc-40 had jamming problems. The mini 14 lacked accuracy and i miss my ar-15(conservatives were against them).