Perfect Union banner

Anyone Seen The New Kel Tec .223 Carbine ?

10K views 34 replies 20 participants last post by  TMB 
#1 · (Edited)
The new Kel Tec carbine is an awesome bug out, truck rifle or lightweight rifle. It's a .223 and takes AR-15, 10,20 and 30 round Mags.
It folds in half and locks back with one pin. It has a barrel just over 16"
It holds two 10 round Mags in the bottom of the buttstock that pull out easy, but stay put unless you grab them.
The forearm unlocks then swings down and forms a pretty solid tripod and then the two halves snap back onto the rifle with ease.
It has a chrome lined barrel and has a picitinney rail built in on the top.
The trigger is so,so, but is easy to work into a decent trigger.
My friend just bought one and with a scope, was shooting regular 3/4" groups @ 100 yds.
It's the Swiss Army knife of rifles.
It's 100% made in the USA. It looks kinda cheap as it's almost all polymar plastic, but the thing is reliable as can be and shoots better than a lot of bolt guns.
We fired 100 rounds right out of the box with zero failure to feed or eject.
We had one aftermarket Mag that caused problems, but a mil spec 20 round AR mag and the two 10 round mags that come with the rifle were flawless.
It also has a bolt head like the AR-15, but has a gas piston, not a gas tube, so carbon build up is not a problem.
If you want a lightweight rifle, that is easy to store in your car, truck or backpack that shoots really well, check out this rifle.
The sights are plastic with a peep sight in the rear and a tall fire sight in the front. They look like the front sight might break, but it's pretty darn tough.
Kel Tec really did their homework on this weapon. It is very well thought out.
If you buy one, replace the take down pin with one from the hardware store with the ring on the end of it. It makes it far easier to remove and replace.
Get one while you can, they are going to sell fast.
It looks a little cheap, but it works better than a lot of $2000 rifles that I have shot.
It is the perfect rifle for your Bug Out kit. I've never seen one better as far as being compact, tough, reliable and accurite in such a small and lightweight size.

Best Regards,
John K
 
See less See more
#4 ·
;)You'll want to hold out to buy the su-16c(as in charlie)because you can also fire it with the stock in the folded position.Yup-I got one!:lol:
 
#5 ·
First, I'm assuming SU-16, but model and photo's, as mentioned above, would be much obliged.

If so, it's an incredibly clever design, and I'm happy to hear the accuracy you reported.

Second, any rapid fire? Either way, how'd the barrel heat up compared to, say, the Mini?

Third, I handled an early model a few years ago, and the polymer seemed pretty wobbly/flexible. Not saying it affected function at all, just felt weird for a rifle . . . and I'm familiar with the first polymer rifle, the Remington 66. What'd you think of the feel?

---------
Side note: The Rem 66 was so named because of the Nylon 6,6 polymer (comma not a typo). That same polymer is used in Glock frames and women's hose. The difference in feel is subject only to the length of the molecular chains when the polymer is extruded.
---------

Finally, Kel-Tec's blued finishes leave much to be desired. What finish did the rifle have and how did it seem?
 
#8 ·
I was going to start a thread about this yesterday but somehow I forgot. I think this is probably a better rifle than the mini-14 in pretty much all aspects. It accepts an already widely available magazine, uses a common caliber, is cheaper than the mini-14, comes with a picatinny rail for optics.

The only con is it isn't very widely known yet, nor have after-marketers picked up on it. So far I think there are only a few companies that make a quad fore end rail.

It appears to be the perfect blend of the m4 and the ak. Reliability with precision and extremely low recoil. (that is unless you're a crazy SOB and you have a PLR-16)

Needless to say, I can't wait to get my hands on one.
 
#9 ·
I was going to start a thread about this yesterday but somehow I forgot. I think this is probably a better rifle than the mini-14 in pretty much all aspects. It accepts an already widely available magazine, uses a common caliber, is cheaper than the mini-14, comes with a picatinny rail for optics.

The only con is it isn't very widely known yet, nor have after-marketers picked up on it. So far I think there are only a few companies that make a quad fore end rail.
The SU-16 is not perfect. It is very lightweight, but it lacks the durability of other guns because of its lightweight polymer construction. Yes it is probably "strong enough" for most things but I wouldn't accidentally run one over with my car like I could a Mini.

I've also run across one person who had a problem with a wandering zero with one using both irons and scope. Though I also ran across someone who was outshouting my AK and another guys AR.<_< So I guess it depends on your specimen.

I personally would consider the use of AR mags as a downside to the gun. A flimsy design that has been a problem for decades because of their lack of durability. (Since they were originally supposed to be disposable like stripper clips.) You are right though, despite the horrible design of the AR mag, it is still very common.
 
#11 ·
The SU-16 is not perfect. It is very lightweight, but it lacks the durability of other guns because of its lightweight polymer construction. Yes it is probably "strong enough" for most things but I wouldn't accidentally run one over with my car like I could a Mini.
I'm sorry but I have to call bullsh*t on that. not even the mini could withstand a ton or more vehicle, sure it might be a bit more durable, but then again who is that ignorant and forgetful, as well as abusive to their firearm. Even to lesser extents, and I still think the SU-16 could be used as a battle rifle. Especially with the "E", or A and B stocks.

I've also run across one person who had a problem with a wandering zero with one using both irons and scope. Though I also ran across someone who was outshouting my AK and another guys AR.<_< So I guess it depends on your specimen.
Definitely true.

I personally would consider the use of AR mags as a downside to the gun. A flimsy design that has been a problem for decades because of their lack of durability. (Since they were originally supposed to be disposable like stripper clips.) You are right though, despite the horrible design of the AR mag, it is still very common.
I certainly think they are better than Mini-14 mags. Chances are you can find an off-brand AR-15 that will fire all the rounds in them without jamming compared to the mini which requires that you get a mag from Ruger to ensure that it won't jam on you.

I think as long as you keep your fingers away from pushing down on the feed lips, you should be ok.
 
#15 ·
I'm sorry but I have to call bullsh*t on that. not even the mini could withstand a ton or more vehicle, sure it might be a bit more durable, but then again who is that ignorant and forgetful, as well as abusive to their firearm. Even to lesser extents, and I still think the SU-16 could be used as a battle rifle. Especially with the "E", or A and B stocks.
Definitely not bull****. AKs and ARs are run over with trucks to test durability. There are videos of various manufacturers doing that to showcase durability.

Here is one such video. FF to 4:20. They run over the AK twice with a Hummer then run a mag through it.


Again, I'm not saying the SU-16 is a bad gun. I'm just saying don't call it something that it isn't. It's very light and compact. Decently reliable. Inexpensive. Easy to maintain. etc. It is not a battle rifle any more than a Mini-14 is a 1,000 yard sniper rifle. Pretending that it is will simply result in many broken pieces of plastic.

I certainly think they are better than Mini-14 mags. Chances are you can find an off-brand AR-15 that will fire all the rounds in them without jamming compared to the mini which requires that you get a mag from Ruger to ensure that it won't jam on you.
That's not a fault of the design, that's a fault of the aftermarket manufacturer. Also, bad off brand AR mags jam just as much as bad off brand Mini mags. I've seen enough guys with ARs that can't get through a mag without several mag related jams to know that. The issue in the past was that Ruger didn't sell normal capacity magazines to civilians and after market makers didn't have access to the original design drawings and had to reverse engineer the mags. That and cutting corners to try and make a Mini mag for the same price as an AR mag.

Mini-14 mags are far more durable than AR mags, that's simple fact. Of course it's also a fact that that extra durability comes with increased price It's taken around 40 years or R&D into AR mags to compensated for the flimsy design. (Again, because they were supposed to be disposable.) Ruger mags were good from the start. The problem was a company that, at the time, hated letting civilians have normal cap mags and aftermarket manufacturers who didn't have access to the original design drawings

My factory folder came with a 25 year old factory mag that has seen plenty of use and has never been rebuilt. I hgihly doubt there are many 25 year old AR mags that are still serviceable and not rebuilt at least once. AK mags are in a leauge of their own in terms of durability.

I think as long as you keep your fingers away from pushing down on the feed lips, you should be ok.
Don't forget to keep ammo from pushing up on the feed lips too. There's a reason there are covers for AR mags that take pressure off the feed lips.
 
#10 ·
It must be remembered that the M-16 mags were originaly designed to be straight 20rnd mags cheaply manufactured from extruded aluminium and be tossed aside like enblock clips in combat.
Eugine Stoner threw a royal tantrum when ever the idea of a bent 30rnder was mentioned, but then Eugene was never a soldier.
 
#16 ·
I was going to say the same thing concerning Ruger mags, I have Ruger 20rnd mags that are about 32 years old that still function fine.
If AFTER MKT mags were better quality or Ruger mags were lower priced there would be no one arguing about the AR mags having an 'edge'.
I paid $40 per mag for new Ruger mags last month, I was not happy about it but without a reliable mag a semi-auto rifle is a single shot rifle and hard to load at that.
Ruger mags are expensive but you get your moneys worth, reliability is the name of the game.
 
#18 ·
"I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but CDNN has 20 rounders for $25 each and 30's for $30. "
Your not; I was speaking to the price of OEM X39 mags
 
#21 · (Edited)
Everybody is worried about mags. The one 20 rounder I used was kinda streight and had a pull tab on the bottom to get it out should it become stuck.
The post was about the rifle, not mags.
The rifle folds in half with the pull of one pin and a clip holds the barrel.
The barrel is guarenteed for something like 5000 rounds.
It's built from Poly plastic and is not a weaon you run over with your truck.
The trick thing is that you can fold it in half and put it in your briefcae or backpack. It's lightweight and has two mag carriers in the buttstock that hold 10 rounds each, you put a couple of 20 rounders right next to it or in an outside pocket of a shoulder bag and you have a serious weapon..
It is a tough battle weapon, heck no.
Is it a weapon that you could hide almost anywhere and with the insertion of one pin have a full size semi auto that works evertime, yes.
When you first look at it,it looks like a toy. It's a Kel Tec, not a AR, AK or mini.
It was just so well thought out that it's cool.
The forend peices unclip and fold down to make a tripod, it's compact, light and works. It has dayglow sights that are usable.
It has a bolt like an AR. The bolt lug ring is metal and is molded into the plastic receiver.
It has a Chrome lined barrel and will outshoot 70% 0f the $700 guns out there, 100% of the AK,s.
Does it look like it will hold up for more than 5K rounds, I highly doubt it.
Before you all tear it to pieces, look at one at a gunshop or gunshow.
Their enginers really thought this one out. It's about 17 inched long when folded, thin and lightweight.
Is it designed to be a battle weapon, no, not by any means.
If you have a CCW, you can carry this thing easily just about anywhere and in a few seconds have a semi auto rifle that shoots 3/4" groups at 100 yards.
It's just cool.
I have a Kel Tec .380. It is one of the smallest .380's of any caliber pistol that you will find. Cost $215.00 wholesale. It has a long trigger pull, small sights and holds 7 rounds. It's almost all plastic and not precision made or looking. It slips into any pocket as a back up or in thin summer cloths and won't be seen. It is not a long range weapon.
It always works. Let me repeat, it always works. It's small easy to hide and always works, everytime I pull the trigger. I would not shoot a lot of rounds through it, but it feeds all kinds of HP ammo and is there if you need something to quickly put in your pocket when your Glock or .45 auto are too big, it's a great little pistol for the money.
Kel Tecs are 100% USA made, not high quality or made to hold up to a lot of shooting, but they work evertime. Look at them on their website, I don't have a picture of one to post.
I don't have the money for one to because the little .223 is not really a serious weapon for my cercumstances and where I live, I can carry my full size weapon in the car. I'm far away from LA or any of the other sewers (not that that means nothing will happen, but the chances are 98% compared to LA getto), but can you imagine if you were somewhere where all of a sudden SHTF for some reason, like the LA riots and you needed to get out quick and wanted some firepower to do so. Something that would knock just about anyone down with one well placed shot from a distance (remember, distance is your friend and this gun will make distance real quick, the zombies will run with a quick burst through this little rifle)
This rifle wiil fit in a briefcase, back pack, computer case or any other common looking carrying thing. a real bonus.
Look at the weapon for what it is, can do and the reason one might possibly be right for you. I have shot one and they work 100% right out of the box.
I'm not going to spend the money to get one, but some of you could really use a weapon such as this.

Best Regards, John K
 
#22 · (Edited)
The whole argument over this thing not being able to stand up to being run over by a truck is seriously impractical for civilian uses. Even for military uses I'm sure you'll get what for from your Staff Sergeant for one, leaving it somewhere, and two leaving it somewhere that caused it to be run over.

I can understand durability but not to that degree and I'm sure the kel-tec su16 series isn't structured like a toy. It's made from "space age" plastics and was designed using CAD software which analyzes stress and pressure points, so the engineer could figure out exactly how to make it as structurally sound as possible. I know this because I've done some CAD work in the past and have had to deal with such problems.

I know I said this to a lesser extent in an earlier post but I just thought I'd reiterate since there was still some outrageous reason rifles need to width stand being run over by ton+ vehicles.
 
#23 ·
Sorta off topic but since we are off topic anyway it shouldn't matter.

Joe Garabaldie said the nylon 66 got its name from the polymer in it. I read that that was the 66th batch that Dupont had made trying to get just the right properties that remington wanted for its new plastic stock.

When they saw they had the perfect blend and the woodstock look they wanted they quit mixing. They named it the nylon 66 for that reason.

I guess its a good thing they didn't make it to the 69th batch before having success. There would be no end to the off color jokes a name like "Nylon 69" would cause.:D:D:D
 
#24 ·
Hello keltec people,
I am reseraching how well the keltec SU16C and CA as well as the the SU22 hold up? I see these as basically survial rifles but certainly better than the single shot rifles of the past.
So, how is this product holding up these days? Recivers, stocks, etc?
Thanks
 
#25 ·
Best place to ask would be on the Kel-Tec Owners forum. I've read over there that the only gripe about it is the front sights on the Alpha 16 are a bit crap and the gas port exit gets quite filthy on all models.
 
#26 ·
KelTec offers some nice products. The Su-16 is a neat design but I personally prefer the Keltec SUB 2000 as a bug-out/bail-out weapon. Mine is chambered in 9mm and accepts Glock 17 magazines which makes it an excellent compatible companion to my Glock 17 sidearm. Performance is suprisingly good out of such a light weight collapsible carbine. It folds in half and easily fits into my smaller range bag and also accepts the high capacity 33 round magazines. It may not offer quite the range and accuracy as a Su-16 chambered in 223 but I think the SUB 2000 would be effective out to 150 yards which is well within a reasonable threat distance. Its certainly a defensive weapon that offers more firepower than a pistol.
If anyone is looking for a bail out weapon I suggest checking out the SUB 2000 and comparing it to the SU16. The Zytel polymer/plastic finish is mediocre at best but its a pure functionality design. I dressed mine up with a picatinny rail+streamlight TLR-3, stock extension, sling kit, rubberized cheek rest, and Houge handal grip.

Here are some pics...

 
#27 ·
I shot an SU-16C

for the first time, yesterday. All I have to say is, I like it.:D It is a rifle that makes a lot of sence to me. It is light weight, compact and, relatively inexpensive. On top of all that, it takes AR mags and is chambered in 5.56/223. When it comes to SHTF guns, what more could you possibly want? The biggest thing about it accepting AR mags for me is "commonality". The Ar-15/M16 design is the most common battle/service weapon issued in this country. In the unlikely event of TEOTWOAWKI, it makes sence to have a weapon that use the same ammo and magazines as the AR platform. If you lived lived in Russia, Iraq or, Afghanistan you want an AK for the same reason. Even though I own 3 ARs, a Saiga, a Mini-14 and, a Mini-30, this gun amay fill a niche that the others cant. It is compact like a Mini(with folding stock). It is less expensive than an AR while almost as accurate. It is far more accurate than the Mini or the AK and it is lighter than all of them.
 
#28 ·
I'd love to pick up a sub 2000 that uses sig 226 mags. I think it would be a great last ditch weapon for my gf. She thinks they're ugly which is a deal breaker for her with weapons. Not so much with guys ;).

For the su16, it just doesn't give me the warm fuzzies that a weapon should. I can twist the entire piece in my hands. Weapons get abused in some strange ways, battle rifles need to withstand any and all things thrown it's way.
 
#29 ·
#30 ·
I picked up the SU-16A a couple days ago. I have only shot one clip though it so far, but i like it. It has a lot of nice features for the price. I have a mini 14 and SKS also. I got the SU-16 for its light weight and compact storage. The trigger was about 9 pounds, but i worked on it so it is about 5 pounds now. I don't expect it to be as durable as my mini, but i think it will be a decent gun.
 
#31 ·
PLR-16 was going for $499 when they first came out, now they are super hard to find and running $600+
Seems like a neat SHTF gun.....especially for my 100 mile round trip commute to work.
 
#34 ·
I nearly bought the Sub 2000, but after looking at the CX4, went that route, and I have had a PT99 for years, hoped the mags would work, and they do, but they are not perfect. (The 92/M9 mags work best, so perhaps one of these days, I might buy a M9/92, but I want a stainless one....)

The Sub 2000 is a cool carbine.

I'm not impressed with my few shots of the SU16 however. The Sub 2000 feels more substantial if that makes sense, and that's not a good thing when you are going from a 9mm platform, to a .223/5.56 folding rifle.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top