I happen to have both a
T-97and a
SU-16F. Both were purchased used, the T-97 lightly used, the SU-16F a little longer but still working great.
I've done almost no mods or accessorizing on the SU-16F other than put on a Burris Fastfire III with a quick release mount, and a new takedown pin.
http://www.takedownpins.com/Kel-Tec_Takedown_Pins_Online_Store.html
http://www.burrisoptics.com/fastfire.html
The T-97 is stock. No mods or accessories at all.
My observations: I have shot the SU-16 a fair bit, the T-97 only twice. Both rifles have advantages and both have faults. I also own an XCR-M that I really, really like - and so I'm thinking of selling both of these rifles to finance an XCR-L instead. We'll see.
Ergonomics: The
SU-16F wins between the two. The cocking handle is on the right (I'd prefer the left side), but it's got a pretty standard safety and mag release. Maybe because I'm not used to a Bulpup (I spent a good chunk of two decades slinging a C7) the T-97 just doesn't feel right. I like to have my forward hand extended further out than the foregrip on the T-97 permits. The rifle is just too close in – but that could just be me being used to a full length rifle. The cocking handle of the T-97 is in a ridiculous place, and I find the sight plane up on the carrying handle too high. Though a Flat Top Upper would eliminate those problems completely. But regardless, the safety and mag release are a pain in the ass on the T-97, they're way back by your shoulder. The mag release in particular is difficult to use with your left hand.
Cost: Edge goes to the
SU-16F on this one – simple math, it's cheaper. Throw in a Flat Top Upper, and the T-97 is now 50% more than the SU-16F. Throw in a Lower Hand Guard to fix the crumby trigger (more on that below) and you're at probably double the price of a stock SU-16F I would imagine.
Build quality: This one goes to the
T-97. It's built quite well. The plastic parts are only for ergonomics, the receiver and all the functional bits are solid metal. Conversely the receiver on the SU-16F is plastic. It is a lot lighter than the T-97 because of this, but with the T-97's weight closer to the shoulder, the difference is only minor. My concern is going to the arctic or extreme cold – I would worry about dropping / banging the SU-16F and rather than shattering a handguard, you shatter the receiver rendering the rifle inoperable. But I'm talking Tuktoyuktuk type cold here, not the Ottawa Valley in November type cold.
Portability for transport / storage: SLIGHT edge goes to the
SU-16F. The SU-16F folds easily, and can be in action in moments. I got the easy-takedown pin, so I don't even need a tool to break it down. While the T-97 is short on it's own, the folded SU-16F is just slightly shorter.
Trigger: SU-16F wins HANDS DOWN. It's the trigger that is the game-changer here. The trigger on the SU-16F is reasonably crisp (even though it's a polymer trigger, it still breaks sharply with little travel). Conversely, the T-97 trigger is absolutely, iredeemably horrible. I've played with a Tavor once, and people #####ed about that trigger – it's heavenly compared to the T-97. The T-97 trigger is so bad, that one factor would compel me to sell it. It's got a loooooooong travel, you have to pull it back almost a half an inch before anything happens. When the trigger does release the hammer, there's maybe a 10th of a second of a pause for the hammer to travel forward and strike the firing pin. It's really noticeable, I've never encountered a rifle with a trigger / hammer latency time like this. It's disconscerting and frankly, it makes me hate the rifle. For blasting watermelons at 25m it suffices, but I wouldn't go hunting with the T-97, I'm not confident I could hit a moving target - when I pull the trigger, there's just too much time delay before that primer is struck. Seriously, a tenth of a second doesn't sound like a lot, but it seems like too long to me. Maybe there's something wrong with my rifle? Or is this a common thing for these? I don't know...
BUT... There's talk of both the T97.ca Lower Hand Guard (LHG) improving the trigger, but now you're investing into the rifle for another few hundred dollars more. There's also this other potential option:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1075956-T97-trigger-pull-UPDATE-on-page-2
Honestly, if they can improve the trigger and the hammer travel, I'll change my tune on the T-97.
Accuracy: SU-16F wins, but it's close. Both are what you'd expect for the price. I can get 2.5 - 3 MoA out of each rifle at 100m using norinco ammo. But the shots with the SU-16F are a couple of second apart, while I have to really REALLY concentrate and pause to get that accuracy out of the T-97. Shooting at a similar pace results in 3 - 4 MOA with the T-97. The trigger on the T-97 is what kills its accuracy, I think with a better trigger it would outperform the SU-16F. For the SU-16F, the barrel is quite thin that you'll get fliers after it heats up from a period of intense shooting. Yeah, barrel heat – if I'm shooting the SU-16F a lot, I wait a while before I put it into a case, I'm afraid it would melt the foam.
Rapid shooting / target acquisition: T-97 wins. Obviously being shorter, the T-97 handles better. The extra weight isn't noticeable since it's closer to the shoulder. Mag changes are more difficult though, so I'd call this one a draw. (Unlike some others who have found problems, my LAR mags fit perfectly). The SU-16F mag changes are quick. I'm used to a bolt release on a C7, that would have been nice, but you just #### it and you're back in action. Same with the T-97, but that cocking handle on the top is really not jiving with me.
Reliability: Tie. Despite being old, the SU-16F feeds, shoots and extracts quite reliably. So does the T-97, I got it just after the previous owner ran it through a break-in period. I'm quite impressed with both of them in that regard. No issues with either. I'll get the occasional stoppage with either of them (an empty casing got pinched between the ejection port and the bolt, once with the XU-16F, that was weird, but 'stovepipes' like that don't occur regularly. Only seen two of 'em in loads of shooting).
Ease of maintenance: Both of them kind of suck. Stripping the T-97 is a bit of a pain (but again, I'm used to a C7 or an XCR, which is break it open, remove the bolt carrier, and you have access to everything you need in there... So maybe I'm just spoiled). But once the T-97 is stripped, you have access to everything you need to get to. The SU-16F is easier to strip, but you can't look down the barrel from behind the action since the rear of the plastic upper receiver is in the way. Getting in to the guts of the action is more difficult. The chamber is virtually inaccessible without contortionist fingers or some clever tool-use. I'm the sort of guy who cleans his rifles after EVERY shooting, so this is a concern for me. Might be easier with a pull-through string vice a rod I suppose.
Misc points for the SU-16F: The extra mag pouches in the stock of the SU-16F are pointless (LAR mags don't fit tight, they drop out if you bang the rifle around). The bipod is equally poor quality, but it doesn't get in the way and I suppose it's a good backup to have. Don't use it much myself. If I keep the SU-16F I'll add in one of these stocks (no idea how if I can get one in Canada, but I'll keep my eye out).
http://www.keltecweapons.com/su-16-...-and-su-22-accessories/charlie-folding-stock/
Misc points for the T-97: The rear sight on the top of that carrying handle is junk. For the rifle itself, I used froglube CLP on it, and the first time out I must have put it in the wrong places, because that rifle smoked and steamed like a warm dog poo in a snowbank. But that could be my human error, lubing up the wrong parts.
Hope that helps. Again, these are just my observations, I'm not an expert with either rifle, and I can only report my observations, and neither of my rifles are new so they might have come with "gremlins".
Cheers!
