[dthomasla]

The Su-16 has been recommended to me by several people, but in exploring several gun forums a few persons have expressed doubt that the rifle was sturdy enough to provide years of good service; they thought it was too flimsy! I even saw an email in this forum where the stock broke off in minor accident.

I am waiting on my gun dealer to get one so I can actully see and touch one. Until then I'd like owners opinions about the strength and durability of the Su-16. How long has it been in production? Are there any long-term owners? Have any of you really treated it so rough that you would endorse its durability without question?

 

[Flyer]

I got one of the very first ones and posted the first review of the rifle on the Internet.

http://www.ktrange.com/articles/a6/a6.html

It's NOT an AR-15.
It's probable you could smash a Mini-14 around a bit more without major breakage...
BUT... I don't know what you'd subject the rifle to that would cause it to break under any reasonable use. I've taken mine afield many times, gone through streams with it, lay prone in the weeds with it resting on it's bipod taking out woodchucks, and taken it camping on several occasions.
In truth there are VERY few guns I'd endorse for durability without question: an AR-15, a Glock, a 1911, and maybe a K-Frame Smith revolver. That's about it!
Is it going to take major abuse like a military rifle? No way.
Is it going to take the same abuse as a plain old bolt-action hunting rifle? You bet!
ANY idea of flimsiness would come from the bipod and it's mounting system, but in fact it's not flimsy at ALL. It's designed to swivel and be very maneuverable to allow precise sighting... and since the legs of the bipod are polymer, not steel or aluminum, I can see where the impression would come from.
So... do I endorse it's durability, without question? No.
Do I endorse the rifle itself? VERY highly.
Flyer

 

[dthomasla]

Thanks for your thorough and realistic reply. In your article you said,

Starting at fifty yards, the rifle was almost dead on, and only an inch of adjustment to the left was needed. We went from 25 to 50 to 100 and finally to 400 yards. With the factory open sights, I got a best group of just over three inches with Black Hills 55 grain soft points at 100 yards.

You gave the results for the 100 yard distance. I was wondering what kind of results you had for any of the higher yardages, 200, 300, 400. Of course, one wouldn't expect a lot, but I am curious....

 

[Flyer]

I've never accurately measured the SU's groups at ranges longer than 100 yards, at least with any significant degree of precision...
I've taken shots at longer ranges at groundhogs, I'd say close to 150 or so... but beyond that I wouldn't risk a shot, since I've not grouped it at that range and don't want to just injure the animal.
Flyer

 

[Gun_Nut_2k1]

I have had mine since Oct 2003. It took the place of the most durable and reliable rifle I have ever owned. I have replaced my 30/30 Win 94 with the SU-16. :shock: I have never had a failure that was not my fault (I.E. blocking the ejection port, etc.). My rifle is plenty accurate, and better looking than an AR (IMHO). It is not as strong as an AR but then I don't plane on wacking people with the buttstock. There is only one rifle so far that may replace it....That is the SU-16C when it comes out. I tend to agree with Flyer on the reliable issue. Few guns make that class. My 686 and 59 are 100% reliable and I trust with out question. The SU is pretty darn close. I use it to protect my family, what more need I say.

 

[Trebuchet]

You guys have got me sold!!

( I think I will wait for the 16-c though )

:twisted:

 

[Whelp]

Well your already sold, but...

The broken stock I had as best as I can tell from the feed back Kel-tec gave me, looks to have been a fluke. They think a small crack had started on the ears early on. This just got worse everytime I un-folded/folded the rifle. My take on this is that the the screws that hold the stock in place "may" I repeat may have been over torqued. This in turn would cause stress to the ears at their weakest point, which is where they cracked and broke. I state this based on what I did when I replaced the stock with the new one Kel-Tec sent me. I found that it would have been real easy to keep on tighting the screws past a point I feel would have been safe. The ears will start to bend in if they are over torqued. I backed them out a wee bit to keep it all straight and no issues yet. I have been back to the range 2x since I put the new stock on, and each time is more fun than the last. I have been getting an avg. of 1.5 - 2 inch groups at both 100yards and 50 yards using factory loads, and a basic Tasco scope. Hell I bet I could hit a dime @ 82.0209975ft !

 

[Big Bear Dave]

Any SU-16 owners out there who have tried any of the steel-cased ammo? Any problems?

 

[Gun_Nut_2k1]

Re:

Any SU-16 owners out there who have tried any of the steel-cased ammo? Any problems?

Wrong Thread but yes I have. No issues with he Silver Bear stuff. It is nickel coated Steel case with HP's. Yet to try the Wolf but I hear it is good stuff. Really wanna stir things up post it as a new topic