Kel-Tec SU-16C - Advise Appreciated!

[dino9832]

I haven't been a huge fan of the more "tactical" weapons until somewhat recently. It all started with purchasing a *cough* *cough* plastic 9mm for concealed carry. But let's face it, plastic is light, and you can find 9mm ammo just about anywhere.

The same seems to hold true for the 5.56mm round. Which I've found the .223 is more like a lower pressure 5.56mm. So a 5.56 rifle should shoot both.
I have to admit, the SU-16C seems like a real compact and versatile rifle. It's light, has a fold up stock, and even has a bi-pod built into the handle. Not to mention it'll shoot while folded up. Granted, I'm sure it's not very accurate or comfortable to do so.

The purpose of the rifle would be somewhat of an all around self protection rifle. Plus target shooting. Nothing past 100 yards. And no, I don't live in an apartment! FYI, I just read about firearms being confiscated during the Katrina disaster. It was very disturbing to watch on youtube. Armed troops taking the only protection against looters that people had.

Does anyone have any experience with the Keltec? Would it be durable enough for use under rough conditions?
Thanks!

[rotor]

Gun-tests.com reviewed this in 2010 and gave it a good rating. Said it needed a flash hider but otherwise they were impressed. I have a Ket-Tec sub2000 that has never failed me. Others say Kel-Tec support is very good if you need it. I have never needed it.

[MechAg94]

I have one. It is very lightweight rifle shooting 5.56. It is reasonably accurate though it has been a while since I shot it. The folding stock makes it pretty compact. I have not seen a torture test of the rifle. That would be interesting to see. My biggest complaint is having trouble getting pins knocked out to take it down for cleaning. Not near as easy as an AR.

I have not seen what prices they are going for. These days you can probably find a lightweight AR for near the same price. Maybe not that light.

[dino9832]

.....I have not seen what prices they are going for. These days you can probably find a lightweight AR for near the same price. Maybe not that light.

If I understand correctly, a true "AR" is like a universal modular platform? In other words, you can mix and match parts. While the Kel-Tec can't use standard AR parts?

With the exception of the magazine according to their website.

I hadn't thought of parts availability as far as repairs and replacements. It's like the model 1911. Made by several manufacturers, yet interchangeable parts.

[Medley86]

.....I have not seen what prices they are going for. These days you can probably find a lightweight AR for near the same price. Maybe not that light.

If I understand correctly, a true "AR" is like a universal modular platform? In other words, you can mix and match parts. While the Kel-Tec can't use standard AR parts?

With the exception of the magazine according to their website.

I hadn't thought of parts availability as far as repairs and replacements. It's like the model 1911. Made by several manufacturers, yet interchangeable parts.

As long as the AR is milspec any other milspec part can pretty much be swapped for it. I built a lower last year with parts from at least 4 companies, off the top of my head might be 5 or 6 if I go back and look though.

[Chemist45]

I had one - it was not accurate and I could not find ammo that it liked.
The front site fell off and I lost it. I tried to order a new one fro Kel-Tec for over a year.
In desperation, I contacted them and asked "When will this part be in?"
Their parts person replied "I do not know."
I put a cheap scope on it and dumped it at a gun show.

BTW, the pins on mine all but fell out if you even looked at them.
You cannot stake pins in a plastic receiver.

[dino9832]

I had one - it was not accurate and I could not find ammo that it liked.
The front site fell off and I lost it. ....BTW, the pins on mine all but fell out if you even looked at them.
You cannot stake pins in a plastic receiver.

Wow! Was this a recent one? I don't know how long they've been out, but some firearms are plagued with issues in the early years. Even so, that doesn't excuse the poor customer service in ordering a front sight.

[The Annoyed Man]

A friend of mine has one, and kind of likes it for a ranch rifle sort of thing. He also owns ARs. The Keltec is not as accurate as his ARs, and I’ll have to check with him to see if I remember correctly, but I think that it didn’t hold zero with an optic mounted to it - the rail being integral to the plastic receiver so it’s not rigid the way a metallic rail on metallic receiver would be. But as I recall, the iron sights worked OK. But I’ll have to chat him up and see what he says. I might not be remembering correctly.

I myself have a Sub-2000 9mm folding carbine. It works reasonably well for what it is, as far as reliability goes. I suspect that a 9mm AR would be a lot more accurate.....but cost more.

[MechAg94]

I had one - it was not accurate and I could not find ammo that it liked.
The front site fell off and I lost it. ....BTW, the pins on mine all but fell out if you even looked at them.
You cannot stake pins in a plastic receiver.

Wow! Was this a recent one? I don't know how long they've been out, but some firearms are plagued with issues in the early years. Even so, that doesn't excuse the poor customer service in ordering a front sight.

I have heard Keltec has had some QA/QC issues at times. Given the price point they usually go for, that doesn't surprise me. I just like the innovation they put out. On the other hand, their customer service was decent when I needed it. I have a PF9 that wouldn't fire the round about 40% of the time. I finally sent it back to them. I got it back promptly and it has worked 100% since. That little gun isn't comfortable to shoot, but it is very small.

The main advantage of the SU-16 is it is very lightweight and it can still fire with the stock folded. With AR prices as low as they are these days, a good AR is likely a better option as a more proven, durable, and user friendly design. It all depends on what you want.

[dino9832]

... the rail being integral to the plastic receiver so it’s not rigid the way a metallic rail on metallic receiver would be. But as I recall, the iron sights worked OK. But I’ll have to chat him up and see what he says. I might not be remembering correctly....

I don't know if I'll ever get used to plastic parts! Granted, I'm sure the critical components of the Kel-tec are still metal. I used to drive a Harley Sportster, and one of the games I'd play with my kids was "find the plastic." Most all of that bike was metal. Don't get me wrong, I respect what technology has done with lightweight polymers. But I'm still going to have a problem getting into a plastic airplane if they ever make such a thing.

With AR prices as low as they are these days, a good AR is likely a better option as a more proven, durable, and user friendly design. It all depends on what you want.

I truly appreciate all the feed back on this. I REALLY like the design of the Kel-tec, but I've never seen one in person. Probably the best thing would be to compare an AR with the Kel-tec after actually holding one.

[The Annoyed Man]

... the rail being integral to the plastic receiver so it’s not rigid the way a metallic rail on metallic receiver would be. But as I recall, the iron sights worked OK. But I’ll have to chat him up and see what he says. I might not be remembering correctly....

I don't know if I'll ever get used to plastic parts! Granted, I'm sure the critical components of the Kel-tec are still metal. I used to drive a Harley Sportster, and one of the games I'd play with my kids was "find the plastic." Most all of that bike was metal. Don't get me wrong, I respect what technology has done with lightweight polymers. But I'm still going to have a problem getting into a plastic airplane if they ever make such a thing.

The Sub-2000’s rail is plastic too. I did purchase a part from an aftermarket vendor that stabilizes the plastic forend right next to where my RDS mounts, but I haven’t tried shooting it yet with that part on it to see if it makes a noticeable difference. With the provided open sights and my Mark 65 eyeballs, the Sub-2K’s POI is pretty dispersed. It’s “minute of man” at short ranges like 25-50 yards, but not a whole lot better than that. Not to mention that the front sight block is very slightly off, making it necessary to adjust the front sight post full-left to horizontally center the POI on POA. That’s a QC problem. It’s remedially, but still.

That said, for what it is, the Sub-2K is a fun and utilitarian little carbine. I would expect the same kind of description to apply to the SU-16 .....a fun and utilitarian carbine with accuracy adequate to self-protection at ranges inside of 150 or so yards. It is NOT something that I would consider as a substitute for an AR15. If you want a Keltec for that, as a replacement for an AR15, I would look to Keltec’s RDB bullpup rifle. I wouldn’t mind having one of those at all, but MSRP is $1275.00, and the street prices run around $1100.......IF you can find one.

Under the dictum that you own every round you send downrange, and where it ends up, you’d probably be better served by spending $500 on a DPMS Oracle at Cabela’s than spending $500 on a SU-16 at Sportsman’s Warehouse.

[dino9832]

....That said, for what it is, the Sub-2K is a fun and utilitarian little carbine. I would expect the same kind of description to apply to the SU-16 .....a fun and utilitarian carbine with accuracy adequate to self-protection at ranges inside of 150 or so yards. It is NOT something that I would consider as a substitute for an AR15....
Under the dictum that you own every round you send downrange, and where it ends up, you’d probably be better served by spending $500 on a DPMS Oracle at Cabela’s than spending $500 on a SU-16 at Sportsman’s Warehouse.

Very true. I did mention early on about not concentrating on over 100 yards. Ironically, I'd actually started looking at 9mm rifles before gravitating towards a .223. Which became a 5.56mm after some research. The Sub-2K caught my eye quick, and is a sweet looking rifle for sure! I'd imagine they're all kinds of fun to shoot.

For a "next purchase" though, I should probably pick up an AR. I like what you said about owning every round you send downrange. It's something everyone should keep in mind. Especially in cases of self-defense where there's little time to plan a shot, and tensions are high.

[Chemist45]

Dino asked:

Chemist45 wrote:
I had one - it was not accurate and I could not find ammo that it liked.
The front site fell off and I lost it. ....BTW, the pins on mine all but fell out if you even looked at them.
You cannot stake pins in a plastic receiver.



Wow! Was this a recent one? I don't know how long they've been out, but some firearms are plagued with issues in the early years. Even so, that doesn't excuse the poor customer service in ordering a front sight.

Not recent. I think I bought it in 04 and dumped it a few years later.

[MechAg94]

If you are willing to drop to 9mm, you might look at the new Ruger 9mm carbine though it doesn't fold up. Or look at some of the less expensive AR pistols. 300 BLK is a thumper at short ranges compared to 223. I didn't get a 300 BLK until last year and I have been impressed by it.

Since it was mentioned, the bolt and barrel are metal, but just about everything else is plastic or something very lightweight. Very minimalist when it comes to material and weight. Definitely not a batter rifle. IMO, it would make a decent gun for walking around outdoors where you want something better than a pistol round.

Now that I think about it, an SU-16 in 300 BLK would be interesting.

[The Annoyed Man]

If you are willing to drop to 9mm, you might look at the new Ruger 9mm carbine though it doesn't fold up. Or look at some of the less expensive AR pistols. 300 BLK is a thumper at short ranges compared to 223. I didn't get a 300 BLK until last year and I have been impressed by it.

I think I like that Ruger 9mm carbine a lot. I have a .300 Blk SBR, and it is a great round too. That said, I think that .223/5.56 is going to be more versatile for most users. But I agree that the Ruger 9mm carbine would be a great choice. And I like that it will take my Glock pistol magazines.