You know what they should make? A folding .22 semiauto like Kel-Tec SUB

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

the naked prophet

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
1,237
Location
MO
I really like the idea of the Kel-Tec folding pistol-caliber carbines.

And I was thinking about that post in the S&T section, about a .22 for a bug-out bag.

What I would really like is a .22 rifle in a small, folding package like the Kel-Tec SUB rifles. Have one version that takes Ruger MkII magazines, one that takes NEOS magazines, etc.

I think it should have a faster rifling, so heavier subsonic ammo could be used in addition to the hypervelocity ammo. I'm a big fan of the Aguila SSS 60 grain round - very quiet, and hard-hitting. The only problem is that many rifles and pistols don't spin it fast enough to stabilize it.

It would be a great rifle to fit in a backpack or BOB, for taking small game without attracting too much attention in an emergency situation, or just for plinking and cheaper fun than the 9mm and .40 versions.

Any opinions?
 
Maybe something like the Marlin Papoose? I know it doesn't fold, but it fits in a backpack really easy
 
Compare a disassembled Marlin Papoose to a Kel-Tec SUB:

The Papoose is two parts which can clatter and bang around or get lost - the Kel-Tec is a single square-shaped block.

The Papoose is oddly shaped when disassembled - the Kel-Tec is more or less square-shaped and flat.

Plus, I'll bet the Kel-Tec would be a good deal cheaper.
 
Star with a Ruger Charger with a long enough stock that makes it legal and add a folding shoulder stock to it. How hard could it be?
 
Why not just put a folding stock on a 10/22?

s7_227292_imageset_01
 
Star with a Ruger Charger with a long enough stock that makes it legal and add a folding shoulder stock to it. How hard could it be?
Click to expand...

Harder than that, if you want to avoid prison. The Charger has a 10" barrel. Even with a stock to make the overall length 26" it would still be an SBR, since the barrel is less than 16".

Interesting concept with the Kel Tec. I just measured a folded one and it came out to 16". No non-SBR Ruger 10/22 will be as short storage wise, because there will be a 16" barrel plus the length of the receiver.

The only things that come close storage wise that I can think of would be the papoose, the Browning semi-auto take down (and copies), and the Henry Survival .22 (and predecessors). As mentioned, none of these have a folding mechanism.
 
There is also the Henry Survival Rifle: http://www.henryrepeating.com/h002_survival.cfm

However, if you buy one, be careful cleaning it. I used "Power Blaster", and found out that it removed the Powder Coating.

I'm rather surprised at how accurate it is, or perhaps I just lucked out.

I believe it is also known as the AR-7 design.

Ever shoot the folding Kel-Tec? I shoot 9mm handguns all the time. However, shooting the Kel-Tec off the bench was quite a surprise. I couldn't believe a 9mm could kick that hard.
 
The big difference between a folding Kel-Tec SUB-style rifle and the others mentioned here is that the Kel-Tec just folds and unfolds, snap, and it's done. The others require screwing in a barrel, storage of two different parts, etc.

I'm glad that they're coming out with a .22 folding rifle!
 
I'm looking forward to this one, too -- Kel-Tec is one company it would be feasible for even one with a budget as modest as me to realistically contemplate buying "one of each they've ever made."

(I bought a Sub-2000 a few months back, have had only a few chances to shoot it, but am pleased so far. Thinking about a small -- CCW appropriate -- Kel-Tec pistol as well.)

timothy
 
From the pic they look like black dog machine mags that were designed for the AR15 ceiner .22 conversion kit. I haven't handled the Kel-Tec in a long time, do they use and AR15 bolt? If so, it could be that Kel Tec is simply setting these up with a ceiner kit and being done with it. Or perhaps they designed their .22 version to use a ceiner type bolt.

Porter
 
I would rather have a Ruger 10-22 with a folding stock like I have over that ugly thing called a Keltec. KT is usually fairly decent but that is not good enough to call an abomination, It is the same frame as the 223 version and could not be more clunky looking.
 
Yes it uses "Ciener" type conversion mags, No it doesn't use a ciener conversion, its a Kel-Tec designed and made system (The ciener bolt will not fit).

And it will be cheaper than the GSG-5 and hold a few more rounds in the mag (and it's made in USA)...Of course, it doesn't look like an MP-5, so if you wan't an MP-5 look alike, go with the GSG.
 
What I'd really like to see is a .22 version of the P-32, P3AT. Would make practise easier and less expensive.
 
I like the idea of the Kel-Tec, but putting it in the full size .223 rifle frame is a waste of space with unnecessary weight.
I'd prefer something well built but reasonably trim.
Something efficient - that's what a .22 should be fired from.
 
Bear in mind, a SBR lisence isn't that expensive or hard to get. I believe the cost of the tax stamp $200 to manufacture one. You dealer will help you with that. If you have a clean criminal record and are will to do the paperwork, it would be fun.

Joe
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of the Kel-Tec, but putting it in the full size .223 rifle frame is a waste of space with unnecessary weight.
I'd prefer something well built but reasonably trim.
Something efficient - that's what a .22 should be fired from.
Click to expand...
Well it does give the SU-16 owner a .22 LR practice firearm. It also works on economy of scale because it's just a few small parts changes to the SU16 which already has the R&D and tooling paid for. The SU-16s are already pretty light & compact for a .223 anyway.
 
Harder than that, if you want to avoid prison. The Charger has a 10" barrel. Even with a stock to make the overall length 26" it would still be an SBR, since the barrel is less than 16".
Click to expand...

I guess I should have spelled it out in detail..."And with a 16" or longer barrel, you are legal... how hard could it be?"
 
ugaarguy said:
Well it does give the SU-16 owner a .22 LR practice firearm. It also works on economy of scale because it's just a few small parts changes to the SU16 which already has the R&D and tooling paid for. The SU-16s are already pretty light & compact for a .223 anyway.
Click to expand...

I can see the logic behind using the same tooling, but making the magazine the size of an AR mag is kind of stupid IMO.
With an AR conversion I guess it's sometimes a necessity. You already have such a big magwell to and you're making something else work as an afterthought so I understand that.

But if you're going to assemble it as a .22 from the start, why use such a huge mag?
Or if you do, make it hold 75 rounds.

It just doesn't seem like an efficient use of space to me.
 
Well comparing the 16" barrel model 10/22 ( http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdSpecsView?model=1168 ) to the SU-22 ( http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/images/downloads/newfor2008.jpg ), the 10/22 weighs 1/2 lb more and they are both the same length. I would say the SU22 is more efficient when it comes to weight.

Granted, the magazine is bigger, but it is still narrower than that rotary magazine in use by the 10/22. Kel-Tec is known for using existing magazines whenever possible (the SUB2000 rifle can use glock, or sig, or berretta magazines). So it makes sense that they used the existing AR-15 conversion magazines.

Just think, all that extra room in the magwell means it will be even easier to go up in caliber (Like to 22 magnum) once a magazine is available :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Only one rifle Ruger 10/22 vs Kel Tec sub 2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Impala
I
W
  • Locked
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 vs Hi-Point Carbine or other
2 3
Replies
53
Views
31K
Girodin
G
C
  • Locked
Kel-Tec sub 2000 pros/cons?
Replies
16
Views
3K
thriftyjoe
T
B
  • Locked
anybody customized thier KEL TEC SUB 2000
Replies
5
Views
2K
Speedo66
Speedo66
D
  • Locked
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 Range Report
Replies
2
Views
828
Doug S
D
Back
Top