Community for Kel-Tec Shooters banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Like the title says, these are my observations of my Sub 2000 .40 Glock 22 model. I have owned it now a little less than 1 month.

New out of the box the bore, chamber, and bolt area were very dirty. It needed a good cleaning and to be lubed.

The sights. Did'nt care for the rear or front. I opened the apperature up some on the rear, and totally blacked out my front. This was my preference and it works for me. Again, I opened it up a tiny bit and it is a little brighter and gives a true "ghost ring" for me. This gun will primarily be a plinker, and I do not expect to be shooting at more than 25 yards. Will I lose some accuracy at 50 or 100 yards? Maybe, but I will never know. It was dead on center right out of the box at 25 yards.

I have an old Blackhawk basic sling hung single point through the slot in the rear stock. No bungee, no extra hardware. Simple and it works. Plus I had it just laying around.

I ordered the KT stock extension, and it made the LOP just a little too long for me. I am back to stock. It works, and I will keep it that way.

I did not see the need for a grip wrap. It is fine the way it is for me. Feels very Glock-like.

I ordered the tacticool buffer tube cover and it works well. I like it. I didn't want the charging handle cushion because I like the factory handle. It easy for me to "hook" with my finger. Mine is the new style handle, the old one looks like it could use the cover.

I did order the KT mini rail, and have a small light attached. It works well. I am planning on mounting a lower rail that is longer at some point and to mount an AFG. I was contemplating the KT quad-rail, but just felt it would be a waste for me. I don't plan on any optics, just a small light and an angled fore-grip.

I do not plan on modding the gun any further. I bought it because it folds, shares mags with one of my Glocks, and would be a great plinker for fun.

Recoil to me is about right. Not too harsh, and about right for a .40sw that is this long and weighs 4lb.

It has fed, shot and ejected everything I have put in it. Mostly 180gr ball and 180gr JHP. I did 100 rounds of 165gr winchester ball too. It has performed as I expected. No stoppages in 500+ rounds.

I am merely posting observations and how the gun works for me. Bottom line is VERY WELL. It is simple, it works well, and was accurate out of the box. I feel this forum is a wealth of information, but can be addicting. Also, it can be deceiving. One of the mods posted a reply that newbies to this gun should remember : The issues, complaints, ect you read are a SMALL percentage of Sub2K owners. Most, like mine, are good to go right out of the box, and will last longer than you care to own it. Just my .02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Good report.

I'm like you, I like the way the gun was designed, and don't see the need for mods. I'm taller, so I like the stock extension. And I like the Tacticool tube cover. That's it. I like it the way it is.

BTW, if you ever get the chance to try 135gr. bullets, you'll find the recoil is a little less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
I am attching a pic of the front and rear sights. Like I said, I went a tiny bit larger on the rear, just enough to brighten it some. There are actually two "steps" on the rear sight, and I just increased it to the first lip. Then I smoothed it all and rounded it out. I blacked out the front, I am used to black sights. Just my preference. Sorry if the pics are a little blurry, there were taken with my phone.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited by Moderator)
I'm taller, so I like the stock extension.
I would not say I am short, but I didn't want be have to "lean" into the sights to get a good sight picture. With the rear sight slightly larger, and no stock extension, I can get a super quick target picture. No need to adjust your position, get a perfect cheek weld, ect. For me now I just firmly shoulder the weapon and send the rounds downrange. Like I said it works for me. I wish it was as easy for me with the extension, I like the way it protects and lines up the front sight when folded!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Good tip on the sights! I may have to try it if/when I get mine.
Try them stock first to see how they work for you. What you want is a nice fuzzy "ghost" ring. If you open the sight and don't need to, the apperature will be too large to get the right picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Did you use a drill on the sight to open it. I have contemplated doing it as my vision is not too good and it seems as tho the sight picture through the ring is just too small to fuzzy I feel like it would be beter a little more open for me. My bow has I think the widest hole peep and it works perfect for me what do you think .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Did you use a drill on the sight to open it. I have contemplated doing it as my vision is not too good and it seems as tho the sight picture through the ring is just too small to fuzzy I feel like it would be beter a little more open for me. My bow has I think the widest hole peep and it works perfect for me what do you think .
Yes, just a tiny amount bigger. I will check the bit size when I get home. I think it is 5/32" or 9/64" but don't hold me to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
If it is right on at 20 yds it should be right on at 100 (so says the manual). I haven't tried a 100 yd shot yet but if it will take out a milk jug at that distance..:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
If it is right on at 20 yds it should be right on at 100 (so says the manual). I haven't tried a 100 yd shot yet but if it will take out a milk jug at that distance..:D
Correct. But the larger apperature would make sighting slightly more difficult, thus a perceived "reduced" accuracy.

Again, this was my preference, it wouldn't be the best for everyone. I have an AR that I would feel more comfortable with at anything past the 25-30 yard mark. I'd trust it with my life out to 300 yards :D With an enhanced optic who knows..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
I've had my 9mm Sub 2000 for almost a year and shot it at both the range and at my property many times. Holding the rifle takes a certain "finesse" that comes with a 16" rifle when obtaining a certain sight picture. Once you get use to it, it becomes acceptable. I was at my gun shop just this morning, and was talking to guy behind the counter. He mentioned having the same difficulty with sighting the picture on his Sub-2000, and mentioned drilling out the hole a tiny bit on his rear sight. That was the first I heard of this, but at this point, I'm not convinced this doesn't come at a cost. I'm just not sure what the cost is.

As far as mods - I kept it simple.

1) a 3" rail on the bottom of the fore end and a small, bright tactical light.
2) a single point swivel on butt stock for an optional single point bungee sling.

I really can't find a way to improve upon this weapon any more for my uses.

also, i'm one of the ones that was able to run hundreds of rounds "out of the box" with zero issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
The cost would be long range accuracy due to the larger apperature. It is no different than a dual apperature rear sight: Larger for close range, smaller for "target" or longer range.

The benefit for me is a very quick taget aquisition once the rifle is shouldered. I can un-fold the gun, shoulder it, and be sending rounds downrange accurately out to 25-30 yards in less than a second. No leaning in, no craning my neck.

Again, this works for ME. Myself, and possibly others. Possibly is the key word. Try the gun, see if the sight picture works. I am not interested in having to "finesse" a carbine to make it a quick shooter. I am not bragging at all, but I have thick shoulders, and it places the rear sight too far away to shoot it instinctive. The KT stock extension makes it worse. If I was able to shorten the LOP 3/4 of an inch, then it would be acceptable. I have stated all along, it was my choice, and it may not work for everyone. I have an AR for longer range targets, and have no problem with the sights. It does have an adjustable butt-stock which helps.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,763 Posts
No one is attacking you Jim. The aperture mod has been done before and will be done again. It's all good.

;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
No one is attacking you Jim. The aperture mod has been done before and will be done again. It's all good.

;)
Understood. I was just being very clear that this is not a mod everyone should just go and do. If the stock sights work for you, leave 'em alone. I wasn't being defensive, I just don't want to see a "I drilled my rear sight, now it's too big" thread. It's all good. I carefully went up one tiny step and tested until it was good for me. I didn't want someone to get over zealous and take out the drill pre-maturely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,793 Posts
Ah, they're cheap. I actually cut mine to a V-notch when I got the .40 then I still didn't like the factories. But I knew I wasn't out big bucks to change it back if needed.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top