[Dragunov]

Quote:       Originally Posted by JMcDonald

It is about in line with middle-of-the-road M1As. And if you think about the cost of developing a completely new (and very innovative) design in the current market, versus Springfield Armory simply continuing to build the same rifle they have for the last 35 years, I think the price is very fair. For example, if SA or Colt or Armalite or Bushmaster (or any of the other big "black rifle" companies) had built the exact same thing, I'd bet they'd be charging over $2500 for it. Expensive, yes, but very far from overpriced. Not to mention the features you get for the money, like both the weight being balanced nearer to the grip (if not slightly behind it for the short version), and the OAL being 14" shorter than an M1A for the same barrel length. The 26" (18" BBL) version of the RFB is probably one of the most powerful long guns one could have in such a compact size. And I think they should have called it the BFR... I'm sure they thought about it, but chickened out and scrambled up the words, heh. Though I think there was a revolver called the "BFR" ("Biggest, Finest" Revolver), so maybe thats why. But how about the BFW, with the "W" being "Weapon." It's nickname could have been "The BeefDub." As far as the SU16, I think the new ones, specifically the C and CA models with their shorter, beefier barrels, are very fine rifles. Accuracy is near MOA, they seem very reliable, and the folding feature, as mentioned, is very handy. It is among the top few entries on my list of long guns I often consider buying. At least once a month I toy with the idea of picking one up.

Good for you! Don't discount the 16B model, It's a fine rifle and the thinner barrel hasn't been an issue with me.

[jrswanson1]

An AR-10 costs less than the Keltec. So does a SA M1A Loaded. I think they missed the price point on this.

Jim

[larmus]

where did this 1800 dollar price tag come from i dont understand this is the su-16c on keltecs home page its $770.00...

Kel Tec

[JMcDonald]

Quote:       Originally Posted by larmus

where did this 1800 dollar price tag come from i dont understand this is the su-16c on keltecs home page its $770.00... Kel Tec

They are talking about the RFB.


And an interesting side note is that the SU16s regularly sell for $100-$200 less than the listed MSRP on the Kel Tec website.

So that puts the RFB at probably $1600, or even less if the mark-down is more about a percentage than a fixed value.

[jrswanson1]

Quote:       Originally Posted by JMcDonald

They are talking about the RFB. And an interesting side note is that the SU16s regularly sell for $100-$200 less than the listed MSRP on the Kel Tec website. So that puts the RFB at probably $1600, or even less if the mark-down is more about a percentage than a fixed value.

Unfortunately, they get put on GB and have gone for over $2000. See my previous post and link.

Jim

[MosinRuger]

what about the Saiga .223 for a budget .223, i have been considering one.

[stinkybriches]

yeah i can think of a lot of rifles that i would rather have that i could get for 2000. heck that price would cover nice optics as well. im surprised noone has pointed out how many mosins that would buy.....

[MosinRuger]

haha more mosins than one could carry in a survivl situation. but yeah for $2000 id def. get an ar15 with any accesoris/ optics i wanted and some ammo! id like a m1a but not for a survival situation, theyre too heavy.

[Rex in OTZ]

The AR/M series rifles have good points and bad, the availability of parts & its surpluse/specilized ammo is a pluse but this weapon was developed as a military assult rifle, it was never ment to effectively kill anything but wound defenders assulting a position as a military tactical manuver.
The weapons biggest libility is the round its designed to fire.
Would you count on a 5.56x45 FMJ to effectively kill a critter bigger than a coyote?
The .223/5.56 with soft point hunting rounds are hell on wheels on pesky varmits like coyotes but lite in the critter killing dept when the poundage is over 100# then one needs a bigger grain hunting bullet.
Would I count on the 5.56/.223 to survive?
Heck No! its not all that effective on deer or other creatures in that size
catagory.
I see allot of folk like military style weapons, but remember what they were supposed to do? mame and wound and possibly kill but dont confuse man killing weapons of WWII with man mamers of the 21st century.
If I was to survive I'd want my few preciouse hoarded rounds to count and would be shooting to kill whatever I was shooting at otherwise its kinda cruel to wound and mame and its a waste of time and effort to have to shoot something multiple times and still not kill it.

[MosinRuger]

But if your just trying to survive you dont really need to kill a large game animal, you wouldnt be able to eat all the meat before it spoiled. Varmint and small game would be ideal i think, unless your using it to defend yourself against humans, but it has been working for the military for many years.

[tinman77865]

it isnt true that the 5.56 was designed to maim, it was designed to be light, rapid firing, easy to maintain, and to have less recoil than other weapons. the 5.56 is a flat out killing machine. our troops still carry it, and its dropping enemy combatants right now. that tumbling bullet leaves an incredible amount of damage in its wake. its all about shot placement. that said, i dont think i would say the 5.56 is the best bet for a survival rifle, for that i would choose a 22lr. kills everything from fish to moose with minimal loss of meat, just pop em in the head at reasonable range. and its still the cheapest ammo out there.

[Dragunov]

Quote:       Originally Posted by stinkybriches

yeah i can think of a lot of rifles that i would rather have that i could get for 2000. heck that price would cover nice optics as well. im surprised noone has pointed out how many mosins that would buy.....

Ever shoot a squirrel or a rabbit with a Mosin? (FAIL!)

[Ten Man]

Quote:       Originally Posted by tinman77865

it isnt true that the 5.56 was designed to maim,.....

Back to the books.

The .223 was designed as a Varmint round. It was then adapted to the Armalite Rifle platform in 5.56 NATO, at the request of the DOD/Army. They wanted a lighter weapon that would shoot more rounds with less weight to carry for the troops.

It's a tradeoff. More power = More weight. Less power = More rounds. Since much of the firing in Viet Nam was "suppressing fire" this round made more sense than the .308, for the majority of battle situations they used it for. The last statistic I read was that the US troops fired 25 THOUSAND rounds for every single Viet Cong soldier killed.

Not what I would call a "killing machine" as you put it.

[Dragunov]

Quote:       Originally Posted by tinman77865

it isnt true that the 5.56 was designed to maim, it was designed to be light, rapid firing, easy to maintain, and to have less recoil than other weapons. the 5.56 is a flat out killing machine. our troops still carry it, and its dropping enemy combatants right now. that tumbling bullet leaves an incredible amount of damage in its wake. its all about shot placement. that said, i dont think i would say the 5.56 is the best bet for a survival rifle, for that i would choose a 22lr. kills everything from fish to moose with minimal loss of meat, just pop em in the head at reasonable range. and its still the cheapest ammo out there.

I concur! I have some REALLY graphic photos of what a 5.56 NATO 55gr FMJ round will do to a human being. It will literally chop you to pieces!

[Ten Man]

Quote:       Originally Posted by MosinRuger

But if your just trying to survive you dont really need to kill a large game animal, you wouldnt be able to eat all the meat before it spoiled. ......

If you were just trying to survive, you wouldn't care if it spoiled before you ate it all. You would just use the left overs as bait to kill something else to eat, or just leave it and move on.

[MosinRuger]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Ten Man

If you were just trying to survive, you wouldn't care if it spoiled before you ate it all. You would just use the left overs as bait to kill something else to eat, or just leave it and move on.

Good point, but id still try to kill something smaller first. Im with the .22lr is the best "survival" rifle crowd though so i guess im in a different boat.

[tinman77865]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Ten Man

Back to the books. The .223 was designed as a Varmint round. It was then adapted to the Armalite Rifle platform in 5.56 NATO, at the request of the DOD/Army. They wanted a lighter weapon that would shoot more rounds with less weight to carry for the troops. It's a tradeoff. More power = More weight. Less power = More rounds. Since much of the firing in Viet Nam was "suppressing fire" this round made more sense than the .308, for the majority of battle situations they used it for. The last statistic I read was that the US troops fired 25 THOUSAND rounds for every single Viet Cong soldier killed. Not what I would call a "killing machine" as you put it.

so you are saying that the intent of the .223 was to maim varmints? when i shoot em, i mean to kill em. and the fact that in viet nam, where scared kids were spaying bullets like they were holding fire hoses doesnt change the fact that the m16/ar15 is a kiklling machine. they were in a jungle invironment with mostly iron sights. todays soldiers are volunteers, so they are professionals who receive extensive training, not a crash course in spray and pray, equiped with modern optics which brings it down to a reasonable ratio of ammo expended: enemies killed. your statement is like me saying that because it took joe blow 15 shots with a rem 700 to drop a deer that its not an effective rifle. out of those 25k rounds per vc, how many actually HIT them, and of the ones that didnt hit, how many were aimed and not just pointed in the general direction of the enemy? who btw was shooting back. and the idea was for using it to survive with, as in putting food in my belly, not fight a pitched battle anyway. small to midsized game dont shoot at you, so you can pretty much take your time to AIM. if your talking war, give me a .338 lapua mag so i can hold em to long range, its good over 1200 yds, and i think im good enough that it would only take me a couple rounds to walk em into the enemy, but i admit that i only have 600 yds to practice at. close quarter battle? ar15....more rounds per because they would be close enough i would be duckin and jukin....

i know im new here, and you been here longer, and i truly aint trying to denigrate your knowlege, so please dont get offended, but wrong is wrong, and you are wrong. the m16/ar15 is one of the finest gun/ammo combos out there for killing.

[tinman77865]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Dragunov

Ever shoot a squirrel or a rabbit with a Mosin? (FAIL!)

no, but ive shot em both with my 270. took the heads off several rabbits and left their edible parts untouched. and ive even managed to find quite a few of the squirrels tails....lol. why squirrels with a 270? aim small, miss small. who eats tree rats anyway unless they are starving? my neighbors son uses a 22-250 and pops em in the head and eats em, but hes strange anyway......

[larmus]

i've been looking into getting a new "survival" rifle, something that is compact, light weight and dependable... i think this fits the bill... now that it has been revamped to a better standard...

Henry Repeating Arms Rifles

[Dragunov]

Quote:       Originally Posted by tinman77865

no, but ive shot em both with my 270. took the heads off several rabbits and left their edible parts untouched. and ive even managed to find quite a few of the squirrels tails....lol. why squirrels with a 270? aim small, miss small. who eats tree rats anyway unless they are starving? my neighbors son uses a 22-250 and pops em in the head and eats em, but hes strange anyway......

Careful there! You may offend us Hillbillies that eat those "tree rats" and find them delicious!