another rifle: Keltec SU16 or an AR?

[xsquidgator]

I think I know what most people here will say, but I'm curious and am asking: I have the yen to get a 5.56mm rifle just to have, and am wondering about the Kel Tec SU-16(A) versus some sort of AR. Does anyone here have strong feelings or thoughts about the pros and cons of an AR versus the KelTec offering? The KelTec runs about $479 in a local store vs somewhere around $680 for an entry-level AR.

I kind of think an AR would be better, whatever that means. Seems to me both rifles will give me a 5.56 platform that will take AR mags and ought to shoot reasonably well out to well over 100 yds, the furthest I could possibly see shooting anything except for paper punching. After handling the KelTec at the store, it's a little lighter than an AR and seems lighter duty than an AR. My finances are such that I can get either if I save my pennies for a little while.

So far I have a decent variety of handguns and long guns (AK WASR clone, SKS, two Mosin Nagants, a Mauser K98, a 10/22, and a 22 magnum plus a 12 ga pump shotgun. THis extra rifle is intended for fun and for all the STHF potential reasons people have in mind when they buy an AR. I reload pistol calibers and I like the idea of getting a rifle with better ammo availability and reloading ease to complement my 7.62 rifles.

Any thoughts? Would people here defintily buy an AR of some kind? It's mostly for fun but if there's a durability difference between the AR and the Kel Tec I'll spring for the extra $ and get an AR. What say you all?

 

[BADUNAME13]

I have played around with a SU16. (Shot coke cans at 100...) For a 'fun gun' it is great. I'd even use it as a truck gun if for some reason I wanted the .223.

But I would not consider it adequate for 'serious; use.
(But then I don't consider an AR to be so ether... but the AR is more durable than the Kel Tec.)

 

[DMK]

The Keltec has a few advantages over the AR. The biggest being that it folds so it can be stored in a smaller space than the AR (the SU-16C is a true folding stock rifle and can be fired with the stock folded). It does not use direct impingement (although I'm neutral on that one). It's cheaper.

If none of those are critical to you, then the AR can be better in every other way (depending on how it's configured). There are a lot more options available for the AR. The AR also allows additional versatility due to the ability to swap uppers. You can have one rifle with multiple barrel lengths or calibers without having to do FFL transfers for each configuration.

 

[ec-10]

I have owned both. While the Kel-Tec is a novel design, the one I had was trash. I would suggest the AR. Since your goal is to have a rifle in 5.56 due to ammo availability I would also suggest the Saiga in 5.56/.223. It would be less expensive than the AR and you would still get the gas piston design.

 

[rangerruck]

the keltec is great, but it is not near as tough, to do all your field crushing work, as an ar is, but for casually use, it is fine. it also uses a bunch of interchangeable ar parts, such as sites, mags, picatinny rail, etc. Don't get the a model though, terrible sites, get a C or if real lucky a D version.

 

[xsquidgator]

Great, thanks everyone for the advice. I'm glad I asked b/c I didn't hear exactly what I expected to hear... I should be able to go to a local show today and I'm going to take another look-see at the KelTec again as well as a Saiga, hadn't thought of that. And I do like how the KelTec folds in half...

 

[geekWithA.45]

I've got an AR. tough & reliable, it's one of my "go to" guns. I want a SU16 for a trunk gun, because it's light, compact, reasonably reliable, and not legally problematic in all the jurisdictions through which I drive.

 

[railroader]

I have a keltec and a saiga 223. If I had to pick between the two it would be the saiga. Accuracy is pretty equal for the both guns but the saiga is stone cold reliable. The keltec has had some extraction problems and now has a stag extractor in it. The saiga eats any ammo. One thing if you reload the saiga dings up the brass and throws the shells far which makes them hard to find. I usually just shoot wolf in it so it doesn't matter. Mark

 

[MassMark]

If you can razor define your purpose, you might be surprised by your pick of an SU-16. I love AR's - really. I do however find superior utility in my SU-16. It's been 100% reliable - noting only problems with Wolf Steel 5.56. Other than that, it gobbles up everything I feed it, is fairly accurate, takes AR mags, folds into a duffel bag, daypack or in my case into the lid of my ATV box. It's not a perfect gun by any stretch, (that barrel gets crispy), but it's also not meant as a fire support gun either. I love that little SU-16....

 

[browningguy]

I've got a C and an A model SU, as well as AR's in .223. My AR is a free floated, bull barrelled model with a 3x9 scope, much more accurate than the SU's. The main advantage of the SU, to me, is the very light weight, I also agree that you should get a C or CA model for the improved sights, and slightly heavier barrel. My A model is a 1.25-1.5" gun with BLack Hills reloaded 52 gr. Moly loads, but 2"+ with everything else, the C is a 2" gun with most loads, and 1.5" with Black Hill 55 gr. SP loads, good enough for my uses.

 

[Browning]

Personally between the two I'd spend the extra coin and get the AR.

My personal impression of the Kel Tec brand is that they seem to start having problems at the 1000 to 1500 round mark, but for what it's worth I haven't seen people have many problems with the carbines (of couse not many people buy them around here-East TX, so I'm limited to a few examples in that regard). When you rapid fire several mags out of it one after another then it starts to malfunction by the end of the 3rd mag. Once it cools off, it's fine again. Plus if the plan is to have a carbine with a collapsible stock that's readily and easily carried around with minimal effort then out of the two I'd think that the AR comes out ahead in every way but price.

The real test is this, if they were the same exact price which one would you pick?

If you're just buying it because it's a .223 Rem carbine it's cheap and because it doesn't cost that much, then somewhere along the road you'll probably be disappointed because you really didn't buy what you really wanted (an AR). If the choice is between those two it sounds like you want the AR but just don't want to spend the extra money and you're hoping that this will satisfy your new carbine urge. It will probably make you happy in the short term, but in the long term you're probably just going to buy the AR at some point anyway.

That would be my take on it anyway, good luck with your choice.

 

[The Deer Hunter]

Well the Kel-Tecs are kinda novel in comparison. Its almost ugly but at the same time brings the "erb" look.


The CA model also can hold 2 ten round mags in the stock.

 

[scubie02]

if you can't afford an AR at trhe moment, why not go for an AK?

 

[xsquidgator]

I think I'm going to wait and get an AR. Unless I come across one of those KelTec 9mm carbines at an ok price... I see some places offer those butt-ugly HiPoint 9mm carbines for around $150 plus transfer, if they weren't so so ugly and folded in half like the KT I'd think about it.

As far as why not buy an AK instead, good suggestion. I already have a WASR-10 and an SKS in 7.62x39 though (which I like, I just have this thing about wanting an AR too).

 

[Caimlas]

I have an AR, and I like the Keltec, but for the money, I'd say get an AR. You can can an AR for around $550 (after you get a receiver) from Del-ton arms. http://www.del-ton.com/Rifle_Kit_p/rkt103.htm

The SU16 is nice and light, and I like the way it balances. But as sturdy as it seems, I think it's a little expensive. It's not going to stand up to the amount of shooting an AR would, either. Another thing (in case it hasn't been mentioned): an AR will shoot much, much tighter groups than the Keltec (even if it's a rack grade AR).

Get the AR. It's a better long-term investment, particularly if it's your only rifle.