SU-16 vs. AR-180B


PDA






Jguy101
August 26, 2007, 06:34 PM
I've been looking into getting a .223 as a SHTF bugout gun, and I want something light. Saigas are out of the question (I'd have to only use my own mags), Mini-14 barrels are too light, and I don't like the AR's direct impingement. Right now, the Kel-Tec SU-16 and Armalite AR-180B are looking like good options. Anyone have any info on these particular rifles?

If you enjoyed reading about "SU-16 vs. AR-180B" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Harley Quinn
August 26, 2007, 06:55 PM
Just purchased a Kel Tec SU 16 CA .223 and will pick it up next week.

http://www.equipped.org/Kel-Tec_SU-16_Review.htm

I have several other shooters, but this one is special in regards to some of my wants.

Hope this helps you.

HQ:uhoh:

M2 Carbine
August 26, 2007, 07:12 PM
I've got the CA SU-16 and a couple Kel Tec PLR .223 pistols.
I especially like the AK like gas piston system the guns use.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/KTSU16.jpg

nalioth
August 26, 2007, 08:09 PM
I especially like the AK like gas piston system the guns use. The AR-180 uses a gas piston, also.

If you want military proven technology, go for the AR180 (lots of parts are exchangable with AR15 parts)

If you want light weight, get the Kel-Tec

GunTech
August 26, 2007, 08:23 PM
The AR-180 is not what I'd call military proven, ubless you count the well known problem with the recoil springs. Unlder extended firing, the spring get heated up and will eventually de-temper. This is not a big problem with the semi version, but it was a continuous headache with the select fire AR-18.

The SU-16 is too new to have much data in the way of hard use. It does use an AK like gas system, but I believe the barrel is too light for extended firing. I converted my SU16 to 6.8 SPC, and have a pretty intimate knowledge of the gun. The trigger is heavy and some parts could be much more rugged.

It is very light, and folds into a pretty compact package. It can also be had for around $500 - slightly less than the 180. The Keltec has a built-in Picatinny rail, which makes it far easier to scope than the 180.

I'd rate the two rifles about equal. Neither is particularly accurate.

corncob
August 26, 2007, 08:53 PM
I have a 180B. Search my handle for past posts.

I like it less than I used to. Mine is not a serious weapon, although I heard Armalite fixed the Achilles' Heel hinge. It shoots fine (w/ a new FCG), takes little maintenance, and is quite light with only the irons (which are pretty good).

But I guess it depends on the balance you are trying to strike between light/small/accurate/robust. I don't think the Keltech would be any better.

In my opinion, if you have to "bug out," you will need a good handgun, a fake ID, some gas cans, and somewhere safe to go--preferably with a working well that doesn't require electricity.

I hope I don't ever have to bug out.

corncob
August 26, 2007, 08:55 PM
Oh yeah--it shoots about 3 MOA with surplus or WWB, about 5 or 6 with Wolf. It functions 99.75% with both, but slings 1 out of 100 or so in my face with the Wolf (I shoot rifles lefty).

Peace.

Warren
August 26, 2007, 09:15 PM
http://www.equipped.org/Kel-Tec_SU-16_Review.htm

That is a good write-up.

Why would using the bipod cause rounds to print lower?

modifiedbrowning
August 26, 2007, 09:17 PM
Neither is particularly accurate
My AR-180B has been just as accurate in my hands as my AR-15s.
The only problem I have had with my AR-180B was when shooting Wolf ammo.
If you you search I have a post about that.

PercyShelley
August 26, 2007, 11:07 PM
Why would using the bipod cause rounds to print lower?

I'm just guessing, but maybe because the bipod has a bit of wobble in it.

GunTech
August 26, 2007, 11:23 PM
Modified,

Your AR must not be too accurate. While many factory ARs are 2 MOA guns, it takes almost no effort to produce an AR that will shoot 1/2 MOA. I've owned both an early Costa Mesa 180, and an Armalite 180b. Neither would do very well accuracy wise. With handloads, I can put 5 rounds into a dime at 100 with my AR.

browningguy
August 27, 2007, 12:09 AM
The SU16 puts pressure on the gas block when deployed, hence the change in POI. Both of mine do it also, the A model is the worse than my C model.

HorseSoldier
August 27, 2007, 12:34 AM
An AR-15 from a quality manufacturer will outlast either option under hard use. Plus, in a SHTF situation if you should find yourself having to scrounge for parts to repair a broken weapon there are mountains more AR-15s/M16s/M4s out there than the SU-16 or AR-180B.

Jguy101
August 27, 2007, 01:25 AM
I'd go for a piston-driven AR, but they're on the pricey side. As I mentioned in my first post, I don't want a direct impingement gun; the extra maintenace wouldn't be something I'd like to deal with if all hell broke loose.

silverlance
August 27, 2007, 01:57 AM
su16 is for a particular purpose. that purpose being carrying the absolute minimum weight possible.

Harley Quinn
August 27, 2007, 12:33 PM
su16 is for a particular purpose. that purpose being carrying the absolute minimum weight possible.

Good point, they are light. The whole of it is this...It can be put into a back pack, or a small gym bag and assembled in seconds. Survival gun is what I see it as.

They give the life expectancy of 6000 rounds, I guess that is before repairs:confused:

That is only 300---20 round mags or 600---10 round mags in CA...:what:

But it is supposed to be flawless shooting:) I'll give it a test you can be sure of that:D

Anteater1717
August 27, 2007, 01:08 PM
"They give the life expectancy of 6000 rounds, I guess that is before repairs"
Harley Quinn

That’s for their pistols.

Domino
August 27, 2007, 05:06 PM
The SU-16 has a life expectancy of 6,000 rounds? I don't think so, where did you here that?

Harley Quinn
August 27, 2007, 06:09 PM
"They give the life expectancy of 6000 rounds, I guess that is before repairs"
Harley Quinn

Thatís for their pistols.

I am not sure where I read that. But I believe it is pretty accurate with many of the firearms of today, replacing springs etc.. It might not be general knowledge but it is something that is pretty common I'd think.

Those who shoot target replace the barrels sooner then that, I'd think:scrutiny:

:uhoh:

W.E.G.
August 27, 2007, 06:50 PM
I owned an AR-180B for a little while.

I was distinctly unimpressed with the PLASTIC lower receiver. My concerns were validated by the various reports I have seen of the PLASTIC lower receiver breaking.

The sights leave much to be desired.

Scope mounting is a very peculiar non-standard design.

The gas "nipple" on the gas block habitually unscrewed itself during firing. Peening it in place might have solved that problem.

The idea of a superlightweight .223 semi-auto carbine (lightweight to the point of compromising utility and durability) impresses me as an answer in search of a question.

A broken 5-pound rifle is has far less utility than a fully-functional 7-pound rifle.
Although, you can really save a lot on ammo with the broken 5-pounder.

I traded the AR-180B for a Glock. There's a trade I'll never regret.

Jguy101
August 27, 2007, 09:46 PM
Kel-Tec's Sub-2000 would be nice, since I'm planning on getting a Glock 19. I'm on the outskirts of town, though, and there's a lot of farmland in the area. So, a .223 would be a much better choice, considering I'd actually have a chance of taking down deer with it at reasonable ranges (in a survival scenario, of course), and could function acceptably in a firefight.

I'm not really concerned about scope mounting, because I plan on only using irons - not just because of weight, but also durability. If the gun has a detachable magazine, it's a major plus if I can use AR mags, and the availability of spare parts is definitely a major consideration.

Yes, the SU-16 is a bit lighter and shorter than the 180 (or at least the C model is). The latter, however, uses standard AR trigger group parts, which is making it look a little better for my purposes at the moment.

Ricky T
September 10, 2007, 01:50 PM
I shot an SU16 last weekend, the gun belongs to a friend. It was still fairly new, with probably lessn than 1000 rounds through it. I found the recoil managable for a small and lightweight gun, the trigger is acceptable for this gun. I did observed several failure to go into battery. I needed to manually help the bolt forward to get it to chamber several rounds. That happened to my friend also. Does anybody else experience this with their gun? If it's 100% reliable, the gun would not be a bad thing to have stashed in the car trunk for any situation that can't be solved with a handgun or two.

Harley Quinn
September 10, 2007, 01:54 PM
Picked mine up a few days ago. Have not shot it yet.
I'll have to get a better pillow, I can feel it under my head at night:eek:

HQ

If you enjoyed reading about "SU-16 vs. AR-180B" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!