So, I'm thinking of picking up a RFB. Are they any good?

>>31775202
Its a Kel-Tec buy at your own risk

>>31775202
>Are they any good?

No.

>>31775202

There was the drywall screw meme, but aside from that I've heard decent things.

Like most Kel-Tec stuff they can be hit or miss from one gun to another, but by and large they are good rifles. Essentially plastic bullpup FALs (hell, it's even got a tilting breechblock).

For what it's worth, Kel-Tec makes a better bullpup than IWI imo.

>>31775202
same here, going to get one around tax return time
can you buy directly from kel-tec? their website has a cart but it seems to only be for accessories

From what I hear, they don't deserve the normal "lel-kek" shitposting, however most owners I hear from say that they aren't worth the cost. The gas system is finicky and you could get a much better/less-gimmicky rifle for the same or slightly more cost. I really admire Kel-Tec's ideas and creativity, but they really need to be able to produce in such a way that their prices reflect what you're actually buying.

>>31775437
I don't think so. I was looking on GB.

>>31775268
I got to shoot a Tavor a little while back, didn't much care for it.

File: 1475431545971.jpg (245KB, 570x845px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 570x845px

>>31775268
>Kel-Tec makes a better bullpup than IWI imo.

Nope. The keltec MIGHT be a better gun for range shooting, but certainly not for real use. Even Lord Ian said so.

>>31775518
>too lazy to look it up myself
you got a link?

>>31775202
the vast majority of "problems" with that rifle were the result of fuckups not understanding how to use an adjustable gas system
>>31775518
lol, wrong
https://youtu.be/ybQRUl_iFEA?t=50m37s

>>31775614
that's the RDB though

>>31775614
>lol, wrong
>links wrong gun

great job bud

>>31775614

Watch the end where they sum it up, they like it more for general shooting but you would be better served by other options if going to war.

File: yJC9OfK.jpg (793KB, 2419x1814px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 2419x1814px

>>31775202
Yes, they are. 99% of people who say otherwise have never even seen one outside of youtube.

>>31775935
I can't decide whether I want the 24" barrel or not

File: hTYD5FSh.jpg (275KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 768x1024px

>>31775958
I have no experience with the 24, but I love my 18in. Fills my battle rifle niche very well. And it's compact as hell.

I've got one. Had many failure to feed issues with the ds arms magazine that came with it. Bought other mags since then and the issue disappeared.
It's alright, I've shoot like 500 rounds or so through it. Pretty fun and impressive to shoot (as well as for bystanders), lots of noise and flash. Handles pretty well, good ergos.
And that's about it, it's not particularly accurate neither it is particularly useful at any role.

Honestly, I've just been wanting a bullpup in .308

>>31776001
What's so great about the RFB other than the fact that it is a bullpup?

Does it have any other nice bells and whistles?

Also, how heavy is the FS2000? Would you recommend any other bullpups in its place?

>>31777430
It's accurate, reliable, and fun.
>But you can get that in the PTR or FAL
Sure can. Nothing wrong either of those. The RFB is ambidextrous though.
>Fs2000
With the mount and optic I think 9.5 lbs, maybe a bit more. It's the best 5.56 Bullpup IMO, but a AUG is a good substitute, followed by the Tavor. The RDB might be as well, I havent shot mine yet to know.

>>31778102
serious question, what makes the fs2000 better than the AUG?

>>31778109
Seconded, I'd like to know as well.

It seems the big three are FS2000, AUG, and Tavor but almost no one has a fishgun.

>>31778109
>>31778314
Optics mounting, more comfortable and ergonomic, it's ambidextrous, comes with (shitty) back up irons, more accurate in my experience.

>>31777430
>brass goes out the front
>has some elements from the FAL
>uses FAL mags
>looks cool IMHO

>>31775491
>I really admire Kel-Tec's ideas and creativity, but they really need to be able to produce in such a way that their prices reflect what you're actually buying.

They're a relatively small scale operation, what do you expect? Having more staff that actually gave a shit about or we're actually qualified for the job would help but they haven't made anything where the price is unreasonable IMO. The shit that happens once it hits the street is a different story but that's just rarity markup

File: 14393306_1136992066348006_542638216_o.jpg (73KB, 779x1334px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 779x1334px

>>31775202
Most issues people have are with the adjustable gas system as there are like 40 different positions. That being said, my shit was pretty easy to get right. I've never had any reliability issues after close to 1000 rounds, except for FTF with some SP .308 ammo I was forced to buy and pretend to use at an outdoor range that didn't allow FMJ.

In terms of critique, I wish the bottom handguard came with a rail or was easier to attach one, and I wish there were better options for front sling swivels besides their factory included one and mounting one on a rail. I also wish they used AR 10 mags instead of FAL metric mags considering the cost, weight, and relative rarity of those mags. As others have said, the rifle isn't incredibly accurate, but that's inherent in the design and it doesn't bother me because it fills the battle rifle role.

Other than that, everything else is either a positive or non-issue. Here's the same pic of my rifle I always post, for posterity.

>>31775227
>>31775238
Have you ever shot one beta fag?

>>31775202
fuck i want one of these so bad

Can rfb's use Moses mags?

>>31778828
Should be able to, but I've only used surplus, DSA, and Thermold.

>>31778773
>I wish the bottom handguard came with a rail or was easier to attach one
keltec does sell a quad rail for the front
>As others have said, the rifle isn't incredibly accurate, but that's inherent in the design and it doesn't bother me because it fills the battle rifle role.
I would assume if you wanted accuracy above all else you'd be getting a pimped out AR or boltgun

>>31775202
They're overpriced for what they are.

A buddy of mine has one. It's decent. That's about all I can say about it.

>Inaccurate
It's a 1.5-2.5 MOA gun. What are you expecting? The FAL is worse. The PTR is worse. A lot of similarly priced AR10s are worse. The SCAR isn't that much better.

>>31778887
I'm not interested in that meme-tier screw on quad rail. That's added weight all the way on the end of my rifle and they should have had it already incorporated into the gun. I already bought the $1700 rifle, just give me the quad rail ya bastards. It's not 2008 anymore. This shit needs to come with that. Thus, everyone's complaint that they're overpriced.

>I would assume if you wanted accuracy above all else you'd be getting a pimped out AR or boltgun
Exactly. No one claims the RFB is sub MOA. It's a battle rifle capable of ~2 MOA in a nice little bullpup package, not a SPR. People that go into the RFB with the intentions of using it as such will be disappointed and probably poo poo all over the internet about how it's inaccurate when in reality, it's probably more accurate, if not equal to a PTR. I'm sure you could put it into a DMR role, but the tilting bolt design just can't push out the kinda precision accuracy that say, a bolt gun or AR10 would on it's own without modifying the rifle.

>>31779036
would the 24" barrel be any better?
from my limited understanding of ballistics and such longer barrels=better effective range

>>31779066
Probably, because that's my line of thinking as well, but again, not sure if I'd go into it expecting sub MOA accuracy. It'd still probably be around ~1 to 1.5 MOA. I'm sure you could lower that even more by experimenting with ammo and what not, but to me, I don't need it to fill that role. In my opinion, with the 24" Hunter, you're sacrificing the compactness of the rifle, which is it's strongest characteristic, for marginal accuracy improvement. To me, it's not worth spending the extra money on the Hunter and messing with it trying to force it to be something it's not.

>>31779066
The only thing a longer barrel is going to help, accuracy wise, is stabilizing heavier longer bullets. The 18in, or at least mine, likes 147ish grain projectiles. The 168, 175, 180gr and heavier...it's picky about.

File: 1430356404969.jpg (33KB, 636x683px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 636x683px

>>31775202
this thing is fucking ugly

>>31778102
Well when are you going to to shoot the fokken thing? You had it for a while.

File: 12313.jpg (51KB, 543x960px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 543x960px

>>31775202
Love mine. Well worth the money for a great shooting fun rifle that makes you feel like a space marine.