RFB - best.. rifle.. ever.
- Thread starter superlative
- Start date
Wow! Who'd a thunk it. The best rifle ever is a bullpup, and a Kel-Tec no less. Lol. Not sure I agree, but if it makes you happy that's all that matters. Not for me though. Theres no room in my safe for anything made by Kel-Tec. Or Norinco for that matter. That said the RFB is probably the best gun they make.
I'm hoping IWI will make a Tavor in .308, then I'll have one in .223 and in .308
I'm hoping IWI will make a Tavor in .308, then I'll have one in .223 and in .308
mildcustom2
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Surrey, B.C.
The minute IWI makes a man sized caliber Tavor I will trade my first born for it.
But I'll still keep my RFB
The minute IWI makes a man sized caliber Tavor I will trade my first born for it.
But I'll still keep my RFB
would prefer a 7.62 x39mm for me that a real round not like the .223 that thing is soo smaller !
are you 
I'll take .223 over 7.62x39 any day. A round is no good if you can't hit anything beyond 150yds. The best thing about x39 is that it's cheap, but once your not shooting corrosive it's not that much cheaper and I sure as hell wouldn't shoot corrosive through a $2500+ rifle.
.223 has plenty of jam to do whatever is needed other than big game hunting and even that isn't out of the question with appropriate bullet selection and proper shot placement. Definitely not my first choice for a hunting round but it would do the job if you needed it to.
A Tavor in .308 would be nice but only if it didn't drive up the price any more. I like the Tavor but I'm not convinced it's worth $2700. I don't think I'd sell my RFB to get one even if it was in .308.
Have you actually handled them or are you just going by the internet crap people like to barf out? Almost all issues people have with reliability is from an improperly adjusted gas regulator. I definitely don't think you would be classing them with Norinco if you had played with one.
I know the SU-16 and the Sub2000 are pretty much all plastic but those are the econo line and I've actually got zero complaints with my Sub2000 (never held a SU-16 so no comment). My Sub2000 is reliable, accurate, light, uses Glock pistol mags and cheap 9mm, and it folds in half, what else do you want for $600?
The RFB and the KSG are both very solid and mostly steel. They both have good triggers, are reliable and easy to field strip. My KSG doesn't have enough rounds through it to say it's 100% reliable yet but it hasn't choked on anything I've fed it yet after over 100 rounds of every kind of ammo I've tried. My RFB on the other hand hasn't had a single failure that wasn't from me not giving it enough gas, when adjusted properly it has been 100%. Adjusting the gas every time you switch ammo is a little bit of a pain in the ass but it's not like you really switch ammo that often in a rifle anyway. Find what it shoots well and stick with it.
If you are anywhere around Edmonton PM me and we can try to line up a range day and I'll let you run a few mags through the RFB and maybe you'll have a better opinion of them. I won't say that it's built better than a Tavor but it is a quality rifle that is way beyond a Norinco and in my opinion was worth every penny.
I'll take .223 over 7.62x39 any day. A round is no good if you can't hit anything beyond 150yds. The best thing about x39 is that it's cheap, but once your not shooting corrosive it's not that much cheaper and I sure as hell wouldn't shoot corrosive through a $2500+ rifle.
.223 has plenty of jam to do whatever is needed other than big game hunting and even that isn't out of the question with appropriate bullet selection and proper shot placement. Definitely not my first choice for a hunting round but it would do the job if you needed it to.
A Tavor in .308 would be nice but only if it didn't drive up the price any more. I like the Tavor but I'm not convinced it's worth $2700. I don't think I'd sell my RFB to get one even if it was in .308.
if you cant hit anything farther than 150 yards with a 7.62 x39 mm you will not be better with any other caliber , the shooter is one of the most important thing and some are poor shooter and personally having à 2500$ gun will not be a issue shooting corrosive in i just clean after
7.62x39 have more stopping power than a .223 and will go throw many thing before that bullet will stop not like the 223
after which oil is better for your truck we go to the 7.62 vs 223 ...
Look, lets not even go there. Besides, everyone knows 7.92x57mm > All.
I've only owned one rifle in x39, an SKS and it's long gone. To be accurate beyond 150-200 with x39 is pretty much not going to happen, at least not to the degree a .223 can be anyway.
I have done some testing and found that using regular FMJ a .223 and a x39 will both go completely through a car (not through the engine block of course), they both punch through 1/4 inch plate steel, and both go through a 8-10 inch tree and come out the back side. How much more do you need? I can consistently hit pop cans at 200yds with my .223's and i doubt you would be doing that with any 7.62x39 out there especially with cheap corrosive ammo.
Yes you can spend 2 hours cleaning your rifle after every shooting session with corrosive to save the life of your rifle but why would you want to? If I get home late and want to watch a movie with the wife instead of cleaning my rifle then forget about it for a couple days no harm done. When I first got my SKS I learned the hard way that you can't do that and ended up spending 5 hours scrubbing and scraping just to get it to cycle again. No way on Earth I'd put that ammo through an expensive rifle, maybe another SKS or an 858 but never a $2500 rifle.
And just so you know the 7.62x39 124gr only has about 300 ft-lb more energy at 100yds than a 62gr .223.
Does it really hit that much harder? Does it really matter? Both rounds are popular with military groups around the world so they must both be effective.
So, if IWI decides to build another caliber then I think .308 is definitely the one most would like to see and would buy.
IchBinEinSniper
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Brockvegas
300 blackout in a Tavor?
I have shot Kel-Tec rifles. I've even owned a few. I had a Sub2k for a while. It was a fun plinker, it was accurate, and its the only rifle of it's kind. But I just didn't have faith that it would stand the test of time. I had a SU-16 too, but same thing. It felt cheap and I didn't think it would last. Both were reliable and decently accurate as long as I had them. But now I tend to stick with proven rifles that, hopefully, I'll be able to pass to my children one day. I wasn't bashing the RFB, It's a very cool bullpup, and it's in my favorite caliber. I just don't think Kel-Tec makes anything that'll last for the decades to come.
And thanks for the offer! But I'm in Calgary and don't make it up your way too often. I have a wicked shooting spot in Sundre I go too at least once a month. If your interested let me know. It's a bit of a drive, but well worth it.
I've shot an 858 before, wasn't impressed. Just a fancy SKS with a better stock for a lot more money.
Try my 18 inch AR or my HK and you'll see what I'm talking about. I have 2 factory loads and a couple combinations from my first batch of handloads that are doing 5 round groups just over 1 inch at 100 yards and the HK only has a 1-4 power scope and the AR has a 2-7x. If I put a higher magnification scope on either I'm sure I would be doing an inch or less. plus I can easily take them out to 300 yards.
Anyway back to the RFB ####
View attachment 7589
With the Burris laser scope on there it makes things pretty easy at any range.
Last edited:
The RFB is nothing like the Sub or the SU, totally different build quality and materials.
I come to Calgary from time to time, if I will have some free time I'll PM you and try to line up a couple hour excursion.
Sounds like we'll have to invite ztune along so he can learn how much better 308 and 223 are than x39
I'll bring a few tracers I have left over from when I had my x39 for his 858 and maybe some of my 147gr 308 tracer handloads so we all have fun ones.
So much fail here...
A bolt action x39 guns with good ammo shoot great. A 50+ year old guns semi auto gun with poor sights, 30+ year old "meh" quality ammo and a shooter (who knows how good he/she is?) What shooting position is being used? Why do you NEED to hit a pop can at 200 yards? A man/deer are much bigger then that. An SKS was made very simple and its use is for man sized targets while aiming at the torso from 0-300 yards and it does that job very well with fast follow up shots available.
A modern bolt action .223Rem with a scope is made from the get go to hit small targets at a distance and semi auto .223s are made with better barrels, lock up and tolerances...not to mention your probably using no surplus in these.
Both the .223 guns and ammo set up are more $$$ then the SKS/x39 combo. What else did you expect?
It's like comparing a TT-33 and a Glock 17. Just don't.
Would also like to address the TWO HOURS it takes to clean the gun...boiling water or windex down the barrel...strip the gun down...again boiling water or windex on all the parts and let it sit for a few, whip off all the black fouling with some paper towels, more boiling water. Clean normally. With a kettle, some rags and G96 an SKS or CZ 858/58 should take you 30mins TOPS to clean.
haters gona hate,weather they know what they are talking about or not,I have hunted since I was 8 I am now 44,I have used a lot of different rifles,but now my rfb is my primary deer rifle,90% of shots are under 150 yards and this short reliable bush gun fits the bill perfectly.
So much fail? really?
This started when someone mentioned that a Tavor in 308 would be good competition for the RFB and that it would be a superior rifle to the RFB (which is probably true), then it was suggested that a Tavor in 7.62x39 would be better than the .223. I'm saying that the x39 would not be a good cartridge for a Tavor or any other modern manufacture high dollar semi auto because of the poor ballistics (accuracy and range) compared to the already available 223 and that shooting corrosive ammo through a rifle that cost close to $3000 is foolish. the only advantage I see x39 having is that it's cheap but if you want similar ballistics then in my opinion a Tavor (or any other) in 300 blackout would be much better caliber to build. At least then you have flexibility in your loads and can run anything from 110gr supersonic (which is comparable to x39) all the way up to 220gr subsonics which would be better if we could use supressors here but even without one they are quieter and they hit like a ton of bricks on a steel gong at 100 yards and also print some pretty tight groups.
Running corrosive ammo is pretty much turning your rifle into a disposable firearm as the vast majority of shooters aren't going to go through the process you do to properly clean their rifles immediately after shooting.
Ya, your cleaning process sounds great
, do you do that in the kitchen sink? bathtub? on the driveway? If I started cleaning my rifles in the kitchen sink I don't think I'd be getting much play from the wife anymore. I'll stick to giving my rifle a quick wipe down, a shot of wipe-out, a few patches down the bore and then a few drops of oil.
7.62x39 is fine in a cheap rifle if you are just going to the range to make some noise and then come home and spend another hour cleaning up but for me I would never run that in a rifle that cost over $2000 and since it was brought up in regards to a Tavor then we are talking about a rifle worth almost $3000. If you switch to higher quality ammo your not saving money over the .223 and the round has no category left where it shines brighter than the .223.
No one ever mentioned anything about bolt actions so I don't know where you got that from but I would put a bolt action .223 up against a bolt action x39 any day. Guess what? .223 is going to stomp all over it. Have you ever seen anyone using x39 in competitive shooting? There might be a reason for that.
Shooting position makes no difference as long as shots from either rifle are done in the same position and I guarantee no x39 is going to come close to a .223.
Why do I need to hit pop cans at 200 yards? Because I can and it's showing the accuracy which can be stretched out to further distances and still have the ability to make accurate hits on whatever I'm pointing at.
Hunting with x39? Sure, if you're within 100 yards. Not only is the accuracy not good enough but the energy at extended ranges is dropping fast and you can not guarantee an ethical kill on a deer sized target much beyond 150 yards.
So yes a Tavor in 308 would be nice and would be great competition for the RFB but building a Tavor in 7.62x39 especially as a second offering on a rifle that isn't really know for accuracy would be a waste of time and money. It's fine that the Tavor isn't the most accurate rifle out there, it's a battle rifle and as long as it's reliable and can remain in the 2-3 MOA range it's fine but running a round like the x39 would probably turn it into a 6MOA rifle which is just an expensive SKS and not worth the money. I'm actually very surprised Rob Arms has sold many XCR's in x39 for the same reasons, the rifle is too expensive to be running garbage ammo through and there are just so many better options out there.
Maybe in a few years when we have some other caliber options in these rifles it would make more sense to try and satisfy the small market that still want to shoot cheap surplus but if you can afford a $3000 rifle I think you should be able to afford to feed it quality ammo and at that point I want a rifle that can hit what I point at and can reach out to 300 yards and still hit consistently.
Last edited:
The 858 is a service rifle, designed for shooting people as another CGN mentioned, stop trying to turn a service rifle into a precision rifle, it doesn't work and its a dumb idea. As for the 858 being a "fancy SKS". You'd be wrong. Far better design and far more efficient than an SKS could ever hope to be. As for "pop can" accuracy, I as well as those I shoot with have zero issues hitting gophers at 100 yards with iron sights and an 858. Does it happen every shot? No. Then again, the front sight is slightly larger than the fur balls at that range.
The RFB is nothing like the Sub or the SU, totally different build quality and materials.
I come to Calgary from time to time, if I will have some free time I'll PM you and try to line up a couple hour excursion.
Sounds like we'll have to invite ztune along so he can learn how much better 308 and 223 are than x39
I'll bring a few tracers I have left over from when I had my x39 for his 858 and maybe some of my 147gr 308 tracer handloads so we all have fun ones.
So why would a company put a half a$$ed attempt into the majority of their line, then really put effort into the RFB? That kind of inconsistency does not speak well of Keltec.
Reliable for what, the 10 rounds you fire a year? I agree that the RFB by design is quite the handy hunting rifle. That being said, its still just a hunting rifle, just one that's been dressed up to look cool.
This started when someone mentioned that a Tavor in 308 would be good competition for the RFB and that it would be a superior rifle to the RFB (which is probably true), then it was suggested that a Tavor in 7.62x39 would be better than the .223. I'm saying that the x39 would not be a good cartridge for a Tavor or any other modern manufacture high dollar semi auto because of the poor ballistics (accuracy and range) compared to the already available 223 and that shooting corrosive ammo through a rifle that cost close to $3000 is foolish. the only advantage I see x39 having is that it's cheap but if you want similar ballistics then in my opinion a Tavor (or any other) in 300 blackout would be much better caliber to build. At least then you have flexibility in your loads and can run anything from 110gr supersonic (which is comparable to x39) all the way up to 220gr subsonics which would be better if we could use supressors here but even without one they are quieter and they hit like a ton of bricks on a steel gong at 100 yards and also print some pretty tight groups.
Running corrosive ammo is pretty much turning your rifle into a disposable firearm as the vast majority of shooters aren't going to go through the process you do to properly clean their rifles immediately after shooting.
Ya, your cleaning process sounds great
I'll stick to giving my rifle a quick wipe down, a shot of wipe-out, a few patches down the bore and then a few drops of oil.
7.62x39 is fine in a cheap rifle if you are just going to the range to make some noise and then come home and spend another hour cleaning up but for me I would never run that in a rifle that cost over $2000 and since it was brought up in regards to a Tavor then we are talking about a rifle worth almost $3000. If you switch to higher quality ammo your not saving money over the .223 and the round has no category left where it shines brighter than the .223.
No one ever mentioned anything about bolt actions so I don't know where you got that from but I would put a bolt action .223 up against a bolt action x39 any day. Guess what? .223 is going to stomp all over it. Have you ever seen anyone using x39 in competitive shooting? There might be a reason for that.
Shooting position makes no difference as long as shots from either rifle are done in the same position and I guarantee no x39 is going to come close to a .223.
Why do I need to hit pop cans at 200 yards? Because I can and it's showing the accuracy which can be stretched out to further distances and still have the ability to make accurate hits on whatever I'm pointing at.
Hunting with x39? Sure, if your within 100 yards. Not only is the accuracy not good enough but the energy at extended ranges is dropping fast and you can not guarantee an ethical kill on a deer sized target much beyond 150 yards.
The accuracy potential of x39 is just fine. Its an INTERMEDIATE DISTANCE CARTRIDGE, its not designed nor was it intended for long range work. Again, it was designed specifically for iron sight rifles used to shoot people. An ethical kill is never guaranteed, there are plenty who hunt deer with a magnum which is completely unnecessary and yet they still have runners or need more than one shot. Shot placement is the key to any productive shot, focus on skill set not hardware.
So yes a Tavor in 308 would be nice and would be great competition for the RFB but building a Tavor in 7.62x39 especially as a second offering on a rifle that isn't really know for accuracy would be a waste of time and money. It's fine that the Tavor isn't the most accurate rifle out there, it's a battle rifle and as long as it's reliable and can remain in the 2-3 MOA range it's fine but running a round like the x39 would probably turn it into a 6MOA rifle which is just an expensive SKS and not worth the money. I'm actually very surprised Rob Arms has sold many XCR's in x39 for the same reasons, the rifle is too expensive to be running garbage ammo through and there are just so many better options out there.
Maybe in a few years when we have some other caliber options in these rifles it would make more sense to try and satisfy the small market that still want to shoot cheap surplus but if you can afford a $3000 rifle I think you should be able to afford to feed it quality ammo and at that point I want a rifle that can hit what I point at and can reach out to 300 yards and still hit consistently.
I think the large appeal to a Tavor in x39 is the availability of cheap ammo. If I had my choice, x39 isnt it, 223 is the better option.
TDC
My RFB is amazing for hunting. Riding the quad there is no long barrel hanging out catching branches and walking through the bush it's almost too short but you never get hung up on little bushes or anything.
The only reason I haven't used mine this year is that I wanted to put a notch on the stock of my 45/70 and my new 308 Savage.
Once more people open their minds to the fact that not all Kel-Tec products are built like an SU-16 or a Sub2000 they will realize that it isn't an overpriced plastic gun but instead that it's a well built modern design rifle that blends a proven action and proven magazine system with some innovative ideas in a very compact package.
