Why No KelTec Sub2k Pistol?

Same reason Hi-Point doesn't make one?

I probably would have bought one. I just built a 10.5” 9mm AR with a pistol brace.

A folding pistol? Makes no sense to me.

there are a lot of things kel-tec hasn't done with the sub-2k's that are just begging to be done. 10mm, .357 sig, some sort of breech locking system, .45 acp, heck it took them awhile to make the gen 2's and I'm wanting a pmr/cmr in .17 hmr, kel-tec for some reason just doesn't adapt their ideas to other demand. Other more technical detail problems with a pistol sub 2k is, the buffer tube is the correct length and spring is weighted correctly for the size and weight of the bolt, modifying the length of the buffer would also need re-engineering of the buffer, spring tension, and bolt. many people think the sub 2k length of pull is already on the shorter side, and one of the selling points of the sub is that it goes from being 32+ inches to being just 16 inches once folded. If you kept the buffer tube length the same (to avoid re-engineering) then the only perk would be that you can make a 26" gun (assuming 10" barrel) into a 16" gun when folded and then you face the law of diminishing returns.

JohnBiltz said:

A folding pistol? Makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

Pretty much nails it. If it doesn't fold, which it can't because it can't have a stock to latch onto, it's pointless next to AR pistols. Also, if you reduce the barrel length, you'd have to reduce the length of the tube that houses the recoil spring and the gun is blowback design, so I'd imagine reducing the amount of spring would interfere with the blowback action.

The advantage to a sub 2000 over an AR15 is they are lighter and the magazine is in the grip, which effectively takes 3 inches off the length of the gun. I don't care for the fold in half thing. If they made one with a pistol brace and a 10" threaded barrel I would buy one to put a suppressor on, which is the reason I just built a 10" barrel 9mm ar15. It has a krink brake on it until the suppressor comes.

http://mechtechsys.com/

Couldn't one modify one of these to have a shorter barrel and magazine through the grip like you wanted? I'm still surprised that the ATF allows for this as it's going from pistol to rifle and back. Seems like one is walking the line on this as one is using a pistol receiver and mating it to a stocked rifle upper.

The SC has ruled you can go from a pistol to a rifle (and back) but not from a rifle to pistol, as that would be making an SBR. No, it doesn't make sense, just go with it.

Jackal said:

I forgot about the whole folding "feature" of the Sub2k. I'd never fold it myself, I see no purpose for that feature. I just want it as a short, accurate, 3lb (ish) 9mm faux carbine.

Click to expand...

First of all the fact that it folds is cool, really cool.

Second, the fact that if folds means, that folded its sixteen inches long, you can fit it in a briefcase or backpack, a fairly small backpack at that.

When you unfold it you have a gun with a full stock and sixteen inch barrel, which means it shoots like a rifle and gets an extra 200fps. Like I said, really cool.

What you want to do is make it larger and a harder storage and carry package for the sake of a bad stock and less fps. So no, makes no sense to me.

Walkalong said:

So you can mount it to your shoulder now and it's 'legal"?

Click to expand...

Yes, the only thing that I've read that the ATF is iffy about when it comes to SBR territory is the length of pull. If the LOP is above a certain length, then the ATF starts to consider that manufacturing an SBR.

shockwave (who make the KAK pistol brace) says its legal as long as the length of pull is less than 13.5". I have mine set to 13"

someguy2800 said:

shockwave (who make the KAK pistol brace) says its legal as long as the length of pull is less than 13.5". I have mine set to 13"

Click to expand...

That's pretty much rifle or carbine LOP territory. Interesting.

Walkalong said:

But isn't that illegal? Silly or not?

Click to expand...

Nope. Recent ruling put back in place that shouldering a pistol does not change its classification.

ETA: someone else beat me to it. Shoulda refreshed my browser before responding!

someguy2800 said:

shockwave (who make the KAK pistol brace) says its legal as long as the length of pull is less than 13.5". I have mine set to 13"

Click to expand...

Same, but mine is under 13 inches. I'm trying to keep the OAL as short as possible.

Varminterror said:

Nope. Recent ruling put back in place that shouldering a pistol does not change its classification.

Click to expand...

The way I've looked at it, so long as the firearm is classified as a pistol and sold as a pistol and the background check and local regs dealing with handguns is followed, there's no reason a pistol can't have a stock attached to fire it shouldered. The whole idea behind the SBR was to penalize people from being able to buy those wholesome hunting rifles that good Christian folk use to put food on the table, then chopping off the stock and barrel to use it to rob a bank or store during the Depression.

Pistols are more regulated on select state/local levels than rifles are, thus if someone is a PP, they're going to have more issues buying a handgun from an FFL than buying a rifle, so shouldering a pistol shouldn't be a felony because those who have them are not PP's. Besides, criminals want concealability; a stock on a pistol is as far from concealable as you can get.

The whole SBR concept (along with most of the NFA Act) is antiquated and comes from a nearly 100 year old mindset that politicians and LEO's use to give themselves work "protecting" the people. You can make a case about the increased lethality and concealability of sawed off shotguns (the Shockwave has turned that argument on its head now) but suppressors and SBR's have been treated like Heroin for 8 decades now.

@TTv2 I know no other way than to say this plainly - “the way you read it” is wrong. The federal definitions are readily available online. If it has a shoulder stock, it’s not designed to be fired by hand, such it is not a pistol.

Do some reading, lest you end up on the wrong side of federal law.

Varminterror said:

@TTv2 I know no other way than to say this plainly - “the way you read it” is wrong. The federal definitions are readily available online. If it has a shoulder stock, it’s not designed to be fired by hand, such it is not a pistol.

Do some reading, lest you end up on the wrong side of federal law.

Click to expand...

I know that, I'm just saying a rifled gun that's fired off the shoulder or only supported by hand really makes it no more deadly whether it has a short barrel or not. It's just more minutia the ATF and police use to scare politicians and low information voters to approve more funding to stop evil SBR's from killing babies.

TTv2 said:

The way I've looked at it, so long as the firearm is classified as a pistol and sold as a pistol and the background check and local regs dealing with handguns is followed, there's no reason a pistol can't have a stock attached to fire it shouldered.

Click to expand...

Here - specifically - is where you went wrong. To be "classified" as a pistol, the first portion of your sentence, it cannot have a shoulder stock attached, as in the second part of your sentence.

So as I said above, your interpretation as you described it is wrong. A pistol cannot have a shoulder stock. A pistol can be shouldered and fired, and remain a pistol, which was recently established (re-established) by a ruling by the ATF. For many years, the standing rulings were the opposite, such shouldering a pistol was deemed to create an SBR.

Our opinion on deadliness is irrelevant. The law says a rifled barrel less than 16" plus a shoulder stock is an NFA item, an SBR, not a handgun, so indeed, there IS "reason a pistol can't have a stock attached to fire it shouldered." Doing so is a federal firearms violation.

Varminterror said:

Here - specifically - is where you went wrong. To be "classified" as a pistol, the first portion of your sentence, it cannot have a shoulder stock attached, as in the second part of your sentence.

So as I said above, your interpretation as you described it is wrong. A pistol cannot have a shoulder stock. A pistol can be shouldered and fired, and remain a pistol, which was recently established (re-established) by a ruling by the ATF. For many years, the standing rulings were the opposite, such shouldering a pistol was deemed to create an SBR.

Our opinion on deadliness is irrelevant. The law says a rifled barrel less than 16" plus a shoulder stock is an NFA item, an SBR, not a handgun, so indeed, there IS "reason a pistol can't have a stock attached to fire it shouldered." Doing so is a federal firearms violation.

Click to expand...

And that law exists for absolutely no reason other than more reasons politicians and the police state need to steal more money from the people via taxes.

If they redesigned it as a side folder, so optics could be left in place and made a braced, 9-12" barreled version, I might find a place for one in my safe.

Especially if it's in 10mm!