Talk:Kel-Tec SU-16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Goaliejerryy: I dispute the claim that the SU-16 is more accurate than the Ruger Mini-14. On the contrary, there are articles on the internet, such as this one: http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec-SU16.htm in which the shooter is intimately familiar with both firearms, and concludes that the "Accuracy is on par with the majority of Mini-14s." As such, I feel it inaccurate to state that the SU-16 is more accurate than the Ruger Mini-14.

I also raise issue with the price comparison. Ruger Mini-14'a range more in the $575 to $700 range.

Goaliejerryy: I have edited the section in dispute only to make the section sound less like an advertisement and more like a factual article regarding the SU-16. I changed nothing other than language in certain areas which was favorable and flowery with regards to the SU-16. I was careful to modify only the tone, and not the substance.

[edit] AK-47

The Kel-tec is in fact not very similar to the Kalashnikov operating system in many ways. While it does have a long stroke gas system where the gas piston is attached directly to the bolt carrier, this is about where the similarities end. In the Kalashnikov series of rifles the bolt carrier is pushed forward by a powerful spring (riding on a telescopic spring guide)that is resting against the rear trunnion. In this system the rifles recoil force and counter push by the spring are all pressing against the rear trunnion of the rifle.

The SU-16 action is much simpler (in my opinion) and compact, it is as far as I have read (having never handled them in real life) very similar to the SIG series of rifles or the Italian AR-70 rifle. The biggest difference is the gas piston *IS* the recoil spring guide. The recoil spring sits around the gas piston, it is attached via a removable gas piston head. The spring PULLS the bolt carrier forward. The recoil forces of the rifle are between the gas piston head and the gas tube's recoil lug resting against the front trunnion.

So in the kel-tec, it eliminates the need for a heavy metal rear trunnion, as only the front trunnion deals with the forces of the bolt carriers movement. Also it has no need for a spring guide, because the gas piston serves that role. Because of all these changes, I feel that it is really not accurate to call it a kalashnikov style gas system as it's only relation in that regard is the single fixed piston, and other rifles use that method also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.95.73.245 (talk) 10:35, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove picture?

Yeah, I know, everyone loves pictures. But what good is the picture of a heavy modified SU-16 made to look like an AR-15 carbine with pistol grip and telescopic stock? The article even mentions that the SU-16 does not have a pistol grip, making it compatible with the more restrictive American states. The folding stock of the SU-16 is an interesting feature, even if only because it shows that the gas system is different from the AR-15 line. Also, it is butt-ugly characteristic. Tierlieb (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know of another free image that is more suitable, replace it. If not, I think having even the current image is obviously better than having none at all. If you have an SU-16 or you live near a gun store with a stock model (any variant), you could certainly improve the article by snapping a picture and contributing it. The caption on this image does note the after-market modifications, of course. Also, how does the folding stock of the SU-16 say anything about the "gas system" of the AR-15? The only moving part in the AR-15's stock is the recoil buffer spring assembly, which has nothing to do with the gas system which need not be located aft of the receiver. Of course, if you removed the foregrip from each weapon, that would allow the difference in gas systems to be readily apparent (at least in terms of the diameter of the gas tube; the piston in the SU-16 would still be concealed). DickClarkMises (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't own a SU-16 (really hard to get in Germany). So I appreciate your request for another picture and all the work invested. Regarding the "gas system". I figure I translated it wrong when trying to refer to the whole mechanism of the gun, but yes, I was referring to the characteristic buffer tube of the AR-15. This precludes you from using a folding stock like the SU-16 does, unless you change the whatever-the-whole-system-is-called of the AR-15 to use a piston. Tierlieb (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The OA-93 AR-15 pistol was an earlier pistol developed without a recoil buffer tube to the rear of the receiver. However, you are right. The recoil buffer assembly is necessary because the direct impingement gas plumbing doesn't restrain the travel of the bolt like the piston system does. Olympic Arms attempted to solve that by moving the recoil assembly above the bolt. I don't own an SU-16 either, but I am familiar with the PLR-16, which is essentially the same gas piston system. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a request in the SU-16 forum at KTOG for someone to take a picture of a stock SU-16 and release it into the public domain. We'll see what happens. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also note that the addition of the pistol grip may be effected using a kit from Kel-Tec, described here: [1]. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. As an alternative picture this makes sense, because I guess we both see the temptation to come closer to the AR-15 looks. But the main idea behind the SU-16 was -in my opinion- to build something differently. A "pc" or "friendly" gun. Like Molot and Saiga are doing it with most of the AK clones they sell. So I would really prefer a picture of the gun in basic configuration. Tierlieb (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would too. That isn't the issue here, though. The issue is whether this image is worse than no image at all. As soon as another image becomes available, we'll add it as the main image at the top of the article. Until then, I am of the opinion that this image, with the caption noting the modifications, offers some value to the encyclopedia article. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree on that. Tierlieb (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, mission accomplished. We now have a stock SU-16 for the main image, with the modified rifle pictured below in the "variants" section, which seems to me appropriate. DickClarkMises (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work! Tierlieb (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)