Hello again, with another entry from what appears to be my new Kel-Tec addiction (OMGWTFBBQ KSG!!! <--- me a few months ago)
I'm getting to the point where my meager collection of two .22lr bolt actions and one fowling shotgun is fun and all, but I'm wanting to get a better rifle or carbine for self-defense (and/or hunting?), but on my college student budget, I can't afford mainstream prices. Therefore, I had to abandon hope (for now) of getting most AR-15 variants, a Tavor SAR, or any lever-actions in the calibers I wanted. Tightening my belt, I've turned once again to Kel-Tec, and I have to say that I like what I'm seeing, but would like some second opinions.
At first I wanted the SUB-2000, the fold-in-half 9mm/.40sw carbine (I'd go for the 9mm, myself) because I want a 9mm handgun someday, and this carbine can take glock, barretta, s&w, or sig pistol mags, depending on preferred configuration, but then I realized that though I'd be buying it for use as a rifle, my age may not allow me access to 9mm because it's "handgun ammo" and being in the "you're an adult, but not quite" range of 18-20, I'm disqualified. Does anyone know if I would be okay, so long as it's clearly for my rifle? .22lr is often a handgun round, but no one seems to complain about that here (when I can find it) but 9mm is clearly rarer in longarms. Remember, I live in the Seattle area, so it's a gun-tollerant environment, not super anti-gun, but certainly not gun-friendly either. Thoughts on purchasing 9mm?
Anyways, the one I'm REALLY excited about and probably going to get when I have the money, even though it costs a little more than the SUB-2000, is an SU-16B. http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/su-16b/rifle/ The price-tag is still less than almost all AR-variants I've seen online, and yet has reputedly "mini-14 accuracy" which is good enough for me. It also folds its stock under, and the foregrip is a built in bi-pod (yes, I know, it's flimsy as H'e11, but it's also not a huge deal for me as I don't usually use bipods anyways) and when compacted down it is a comfortable two feet long, which is not as good as the SUB-2000's closed length of 16" but it will do. The effective range is (based off youtube demonstrations) up to 400 yds for a competent shooter, and the sights on the "B" model are better than the "A" that came before. Why not the other models? Well, I like the stock on the A and B better, as it looks and reportedly feels more sturdy, and it also houses additional magazines/one additional pmag. The B is also the second cheapest model, and has a longer sight-radius than the more popular C model, and I'm not going to afford an SBR permit, so the D models are out. The CA model is CA-compliant, 'nuff said. B is my best choice from this line.
At 4.5 lbs unloaded, that's a sweet little black-gun. I know that there are AR and AK variants that are cheapish, but this so far appears to be my best option, unless the SUB-2000 is not going to be an ammo-purchase headache for me (I know it's not in the same class as a 5.56 carbine, but I'd rather pay 20 cents per shot instead of 50, so long as it's legal)
Your thoughts, oh wise ones?



Reply With Quote


Bookmarks