Kel-Tec Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
HI Gang!
Am new here, but had been at KTOG--seems to be down this week. Was asking Q's and looking for A's re: the SU-16. Am probably going to check one out at my local FFL's tomorrow--Sat. at the latest. Am probably going to unload a Mini-14 to get it...
So now a new dumb question: 5.56 vs. .223....these AREN'T the same?!?!?! All I buy is surplus 5.56mm, like Sellier & Bellot (yes, i know it isn't REAL surplus, but it is NATO spec), South African and PMC FMJ...Does the SU handle the 62gr or 55gr FMJ better?
Anybody have any experience with these in the SU? I don't know if I want to be buying 5.56 for my Bushmaster and some "brand" .223 rather than surplus...
Thanks,
msw
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
The difference between 5.56 and .223 is one of specification. 5.56 is based on NATO specs, .223 is based on SAMMI specs. They are NOT the same but are very close. The SU-16 will fire either. The 1:9 twist in the SU barrel will handle both 55 and 62gr bullets well. I use a 69gr myself for competition in a 1:9 barrel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
See the earlier thread "SU-16 and MilSpec/NATO 5.56 ammo." Flyer states "Yep, the SU was designed to use the Nato round. It handles standard .223 just fine, too. It likes either one equally." I have no reason to doubt his claim but it would be nice to have an official, definitive answer from Kel-Tec.

I posed the question to both Kel-Tec tech support and cuxtomer service but have yet to recieve a response. When (if?) I do I will post to this BB and the KTOG BB (if and when it is back on line.)

For details on the .223 Remington versus 5.56/NATO chamber differences go to http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,800 Posts
jfn,
I've spoken on the phone directly to Kel-Tec and their gunsmith about this very issue. Other issues, too.
The SU was DESIGNED for the 5.56 NATO.
Anything that shoots that will also handle the .223 Remmie perfectly.
Flyer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
:D
OK, SU-16 # N07XX followed me home. Kinda cool! I must say that I'm amazed at the progress in rifle technology--a plastic upper reciever!!! I remember the hoopla about aluminum, then stamped sheet metal.... :shock: I understand, since certain plastics are actually stronger than steel.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to F&B for the SU-16? I read about the 30 rnd mags--sure enough, the steel after-markets wouldn't seat at the dealers. Will check out my own GI surplus.

msw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Flyer - thannks for following up with Kel-Tec by phone. That was my attention if I had no response to e-mails -and I've had none yet. Can I assume you talked to Marty?

This is a global issue that Kel-Tec should clarify on appropriate fora including this one. More importantly, Kel-Tec should clarify in their literature and on their web site.

To Mikeg22 - you wrote in the other thread:

"....in the specs they give it in metric and american .223 and 5.56mm. I'd assume it's probably fine. I bet they didn't do any significant testing either way and that is why they haven't responded to the email yet. Keep us updated if you get anything back from them."

Not to pick nits but Kel-Tec uses the terms .223 Remington or .223 (5.56) Remington everywhere else on their site and in the owner's manual. One should not infer the chamber is MilSpec/NATO chambered simply because the metric dimension is used.

Another point-I would hope they did extensive of testing with a variety of cartridges.

Again thanks and once more, I don't mean to be nit picky but the issue is important to me as well as all prospective SU-16 owners - and so easily clarified by Kel-Tec.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top