Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 17, 2018, 05:42:07 AM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  Kel-Tec RFB, RDB, M-43 (Moderator: Ronmar)
| | |-+  Kel-Tec RFB20 (prototype 20" Barrel)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Kel-Tec RFB20 (prototype 20" Barrel)  (Read 504 times)
odinforever2000
.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« on: May 16, 2018, 11:42:21 PM »

From the Keltec Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/KelTecWeapons/)..

Quoted from the facebook page:
"It's a 20" with a different twist rate than production. I'm currently testing it. Been getting 1 MOA or better so far. Hopefully we can eventually offer this barrel."

I wonder if thats all they did..If so..What do we do to get it..Send the current rifle we have in? Can it be shorter (I do like my 18")


* RFB 20.jpg (103.16 KB, 750x1280 - viewed 159 times.)
Logged

May God stand between you and harm......in all the empty places you must walk -Ancient egyptian blessing
Clarke-Sensei
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 290



« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2018, 11:46:36 PM »

A 20" barrel looks surprisingly good on it, and if those comments hold truth, I'd definitely be far more interested in picking up an RFB.
Logged
Potss
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2018, 03:40:52 PM »

1.) I thought the RFB still had reliability issues, especially when it came to ejection?

2.) Companies love to claim 1moa without showing targets, I'll jump when I see a proper 5x5 test on video.  More to the point, the barrel isn't free floated as far as I know, so unless they've made some changes there (which I hope they have) I don't see how it could be 1moa with any practicality.
Logged
TNC
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792


« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2018, 04:18:01 PM »

1.) I thought the RFB still had reliability issues, especially when it came to ejection?

2.) Companies love to claim 1moa without showing targets, I'll jump when I see a proper 5x5 test on video.  More to the point, the barrel isn't free floated as far as I know, so unless they've made some changes there (which I hope they have) I don't see how it could be 1moa with any practicality.

I know what you mean, but trying to lump all RFB's into one basket is hard to do.  KelTec is funny about doing changes and mods to their guns without official public notification.  The numerous gas pistons on the RFB is just one example.  What I do like is that they do usually "move forward" with tweaks and mods to address issues.  Yes, it would be better customer service to have a fully, gremlin-free, firearm at the point of initial release, but we've all seen this is often not the case.  Guess it's why they have the frequent classification of Gen1, Gen2, etc. on some of their firearms.

That said, I've had little to complain about on my Gen2 RFB as far as cycling reliability goes.  Still, there are some general complaints that are too numerous to disregard.  Most/all RFB's seem to have an unusual chamber that affects accuracy...not a headspace issue but a diameter/length anomaly.  This alleged new barrel could easily address that issue.  The more common problem is cycling because of the design of the gas system.  This is where owners seem to get lucky or unlucky.  The very fact that KT has used several gas piston designs tends to point that out.  This cycling snafu can often be attributed to the magazine selection available for this rifle also.  They used an obsolete FAL mag as their pattern, and lack of availability of quality FAL mags has been somewhat of a problem.  Lastly, I don't think the recoil design is up to running the rifle suppressed over time.

If this new barrel turns out to be an actual component available to current owners, I'd be surprised if KT hasn't done some serious research at this point in the RFB's existence to insure that the gas system and chamber size are more optimum.  But who knows...may just be vaporware.
Logged
odinforever2000
.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2018, 08:32:03 PM »

1.) I thought the RFB still had reliability issues, especially when it came to ejection?

2.) Companies love to claim 1moa without showing targets, I'll jump when I see a proper 5x5 test on video.  More to the point, the barrel isn't free floated as far as I know, so unless they've made some changes there (which I hope they have) I don't see how it could be 1moa with any practicality.

1.) Reliability issues around ejection? Cant say Ive read this..But Im still running a Factory stock Gen 1...Ejection was never an issue..

2.) I've read and tested to confirm myself (The chamber depth on my RFB is triple that of my STG Fal and FA91 seating at magazine length .20 off lands vs .130 @ 2.825 OAL)..

These rifles have (to quote Ronmar) "a chamber and throat (not) to a SAMI spec... If it had gotten that one detail, I think it would be easily sub MOA."

Im hoping that ..Beyond just a twist rate change ..they also (hopefully) reamed the barrel to the SAMI spec...But like you..I want to see a good test 5x5 test.
Logged

May God stand between you and harm......in all the empty places you must walk -Ancient egyptian blessing
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!