The video opens with an introduction to the Kel-Tec SDP9, nicknamed the “sub nub,” positioned as an ultra-compact evolution of the Kel-Tec Sub2000. It uses Glock magazines and shrinks the overall footprint to create a briefcase- or backpack-capable pistol-caliber platform. The hosts frame it as a budget-friendly, shrunken alternative to higher-end PCCs, emphasizing its intended role as a survivalist or emergency gun rather than a premium, high-round-count class gun. Early on, they note that this design trades refinement and comfort for extreme compactness and portability. The concept is compared to flux-style chassis ideas, where the gun can be stowed discreetly and deployed quickly. From the outset, the reviewers signal that the Nub Sub aims to be a utilitarian, niche tool for storage and occasional use, not a $1,500 duty-grade PCC, setting expectations for the compromises that follow in ergonomics, sighting system, and durability.
Attention turns to the SDP Nub Sub’s reworked rear end, where the brace now doubles as the locking mechanism when folded, replacing the Sub2000’s older rear locking interface. This change shortens the package significantly and allows a fluid, single-motion deployment that simultaneously unfolds the brace and charges the gun. However, the redesign comes with trade-offs. The charging handle now operates as a straight pull with no traditional bolt lock-back; to hold the bolt open, the user must twist the handle, and the gun does not lock open on an empty magazine. Later commentary criticizes the factory brace as flimsy and uncomfortable, with a bare metal buffer tube that becomes a hot, unforgiving cheek surface. The reviewers wish for more padding, an overmolded cheek riser, or a recoil pad, and compare it unfavorably to more refined braces like the SBA6, underscoring that the compact folding system sacrifices both comfort and classic functionality.
The review then examines the Nub Sub’s sighting system and rail layout. The factory nub-style peep sight is mounted very low, and the limited top rail space at the front makes optic selection difficult. Many popular optics, such as the Vortex Huey and Leupold LCO, either do not physically fit or cannot sit low enough to be usable. An EOTech EXPS barely fits, while a Trijicon RMR on a Swampfox Rebel Riser can achieve an absolute co-witness, but only by forcing an extreme, uncomfortable cheek weld. The built-in peep sights themselves are poorly regulated, with the front sight sitting too high relative to the rear, causing rounds to impact dramatically high unless the shooter holds the front post below the rear notch. Combined with noticeable wobble in the front handguard and sights when the gun is gripped firmly, these issues make relying on the factory irons impractical and push users toward carefully chosen red dots at specific heights.
Shooting impressions begin with the factory muzzle brake installed. The gun is run with both Mec-Gar and Glock magazines, and the lack of bolt lock-back on empty is immediately apparent. The muzzle brake is attached using a counterwasher, which makes proper tightening awkward without a very thin wrench; earlier visible movement on camera is clarified as the brake being left loose for suppressor swapping. Once secured, the brake proves loud but effective at controlling muzzle movement. However, the direct blowback system and compact brace geometry transmit an unusually harsh recoil impulse straight into the shooter’s cheekbone. With the optic mounted low for co-witness, the shooter must crank the neck down, placing the cheek directly on the hard, narrow buffer tube, amplifying discomfort. Raising the optic height reduces the need for such an aggressive cheek weld, which in turn lessens perceived impact to the face, highlighting how sight height and recoil comfort are tightly linked on this platform.
The hosts then run the Nub Sub suppressed, starting with an AB F4 short light 9mm can. Because the gun is not a Browning tilting-barrel design, no booster is needed, simplifying suppressor choice. Shooting suppressed is described as noticeably more comfortable than with the muzzle brake, softening the recoil impulse and making the cheek impact less jarring. Over extended strings of fire, however, the direct blowback system generates significant back pressure and heat. Roughly 200 rounds with a 9mm suppressor cause the metal trigger and buffer tube to become extremely hot, to the point of real discomfort. The reviewers note that even shooters who do not typically run suppressed will feel how quickly the gun heats up under moderate volume. This segment establishes that while a suppressor improves shootability and is recommended over the brake, it also accelerates heat buildup and gas blowback, reinforcing the idea that the Nub Sub is not ideal for sustained, high-round-count sessions.
Focus shifts to the angled foregrip-mounted magazine caddy and the M-LOK forend. Different Glock-compatible magazines behave differently in the caddy: metal Mec-Gar mags and polymer MFT (Men2) mags create varying levels of tension. Over time, the reviewers worry that the polymer caddy could erode, losing retention and allowing magazines to slip free. Later testing confirms a major flaw: the front magazine repeatedly falls out during firing, regardless of magazine brand, indicating insufficient tension by design. Suggested fixes include adding a tensioner screw or switching to metal construction for durability. The M-LOK forend itself offers some flexibility, and the hosts imagine mounting a flashlight or light bar that runs alongside a suppressor using an offset mount to clear the forend hump. Despite these creative accessory ideas, the combination of limited rail space, the angled mag caddy’s reliability issues, and concerns about long-term wear undermine confidence in the Nub Sub as a hard-use, class-ready platform.
Returning to optics, the reviewers refine their conclusions about ideal mounting height. A Romeo-style optic on a higher mount still fails to work properly due to the gun’s geometry and limited rail real estate. They find that a lower 1/3 co-witness setup around 1.93 inches of height represents the “Goldilocks” zone, high enough to avoid an extreme cheek weld yet low enough to maintain a usable sight picture. An RMR co-witnessed directly with the irons technically works but forces the shooter’s face too low on the hot buffer tube. During a quasi-burndown, running multiple magazines consecutively, the gun becomes extremely hot, especially when suppressed. Key touch points like the metal trigger, buffer tube, and brace hardware reach temperatures that are uncomfortable even for users accustomed to suppressor heat. These observations reinforce that the Nub Sub is better suited to short, emergency strings of fire rather than extended drills, and that careful optic selection is critical to mitigate both ergonomics and heat exposure.
The review broadens into a multi-suppressor comparison, testing cans such as the AV F4, Huxworks Flow 36 Ti, PTR Vent 2, Dead Air Mojave 9, and the Brazilian RS9. All function on the Nub Sub, but each highlights quirks of the direct blowback system. Suppressed fire produces noticeable spat from spent cases and gas, with brass and debris occasionally hitting the shooter’s arms and even an eye, attributed to the rearward operating area and increased back pressure. The factory muzzle brake remains loud yet effective when used, but the suppressors reveal another problem: the brace sometimes collapses under recoil and gas pressure, particularly with the RS9. This intermittent brace collapse undermines confidence in the platform’s stability and further emphasizes the brace’s flimsy feel. Combined with the already harsh cheek recoil and heat, these suppressed tests show that while the Nub Sub can host a variety of cans, it does so with significant ergonomic and reliability compromises compared to more mature PCC designs.
Later in the video, the hosts revisit the gun’s role and build quality after multiple range sessions. They conclude that the Nub Sub is best treated as a secondary or niche firearm for quick deployment and storage, not as a primary training or competition gun. The factory brace is again criticized as flimsy and uncomfortable, with the hot metal buffer tube lacking any padding or cheek riser. When the gun is shouldered firmly, both the sights and front handguard exhibit noticeable wobble, making precise shooting without a red dot feel unrealistic. The built-in peep sights are especially problematic: the front sight sits so high relative to the rear that impacts land roughly three feet high at typical distances, forcing the shooter to hold the front post below the rear notch just to get on target. These issues, combined with heat and brace shortcomings, reinforce that this is a budget, utilitarian option rather than a refined, $1,500-level PCC, and should be evaluated with that price-conscious context in mind.
In closing, the reviewers weigh the Nub Sub’s compactness against its many compromises. They appreciate the concept of a shrunken, briefcase-capable PCC and acknowledge its budget-friendly appeal, but feel that a slightly longer barrel or overall length could dramatically improve shootability, recoil management, and sight geometry. They speculate about future generations and variants, including an integrally suppressed version similar to the Sub2000, and emphasize the need to redesign the brace for better stability, padding, and heat management. The loss of traditional bolt hold-open is traced back to the current brace system, even though the deployment motion from stowed to ready is praised as smooth and intuitive. Ultimately, they state they would still choose the full-size Kel-Tec Sub2000 over the Nub Sub for serious use. The video ends by inviting feedback from viewers who have shot the SDP Nub Sub, suggesting comparison content against the Kel-Tec Sub2000 and Smith & Wesson FPC, and noting plans to feature the tested suppressors in future reviews.
Loading...