To me the whole point of a folding carbine is compactness/concealability together with rapid deployment. If you don't need rapid deployment then any long gun able to be broken down (ARs, etc.) will do. Rapid deployment is valuable when the threat is immediate, and in most cases that means in close proximity. IMO close proximity can be handled well enough with iron sights.
IMO the Sub2k wins hands down in compactness/concealability, it is so thin when folded it fits under car seats and in pretty much any briefcase. An optic can be carried on the bottom rail of the Sub2k on a QD mount and moved to the top rail when there is no immediate threat if/when desired. I've done it and it held zero appropriately for a PCC.
So that's my logic for preferring the Sub2k, even though I've not yet held the S&W. I expect the S&W probably feels more substantial and higher quality, and that is certainly a reason to prefer it for some people. But purely from a concealable rapidly deployable carbine perspective the Sub2k wins IMO due to having more options of places it can be easily concealed, and therefore being more accessible when needed.
IMO the Sub2k wins hands down in compactness/concealability, it is so thin when folded it fits under car seats and in pretty much any briefcase. An optic can be carried on the bottom rail of the Sub2k on a QD mount and moved to the top rail when there is no immediate threat if/when desired. I've done it and it held zero appropriately for a PCC.
So that's my logic for preferring the Sub2k, even though I've not yet held the S&W. I expect the S&W probably feels more substantial and higher quality, and that is certainly a reason to prefer it for some people. But purely from a concealable rapidly deployable carbine perspective the Sub2k wins IMO due to having more options of places it can be easily concealed, and therefore being more accessible when needed.
Last edited: