KelTec sub 2000 gen2 Glock questions

My son bought one here recently, the trigger pull is terrible, but not as bad as the standard sights, you/me cannot get a proper cheek hold in order to get a decent sight picture. I was not impressed, as my cheap Hi-Point was very accurate and reliable. The trigger pull can be taken care of, but the only correction for the sights is installing a red dot or comparable scope, however you're losing the portability of folding it up. I'm not sure if they corrected the sight problem yet or not. Just telling ya mine and my sons conclusion of said firearm.

I looked at the different calibers offered and the grips seemed to be the same. I bought the model that accepted Glock mags due to the availability of those mags. I didn't keep the carbine very long and sold it. You really have to force your cheek against the stock in order to use the sights. After a few rounds that gets really painful. I tried the aftermarket rubber tube that fits over the recoil tube/stock and it didn't do any good. If you can shoot one before you buy, do so and then decide if you want one. The sights are a pain to adjust. I put a red dot on it and that helped a lot but then I lost the ability to fold it up for storage which was the main reason I bought it. I bought a Ruger PCC and it was much more pleasant to shoot and the sales prices weren't that far apart. The Ruger accepts Glock mags also.

My son got the 9mm with the Glock magazines, I believe it took the Glock 17 mag. BTW neither one of us has a Glock pistol, I do have Berretta, Sig Sauer, Colt, a couple of Taurus's, HK's, etc. but I just never got into the Glocks, although I did got to a armorer's course on the Glock. I just wouldn't recommend a Keltec, as a defense weapon due to the sighting it has, nor a range tool.

We have one in Glock 40 S&W. All of our magazines are after-market, except the original one, and all work great. The trigger is horrible in every way. No you can't get a cheek weld, but we didn't get it for Camp Perry. We got it for under the seat, camping, fishing, and kayaking. Accuracy? I was able to 'carve' a face on a pumpkin at 35 yards offhand without to much trouble. It fits nicely in a briefcase, so we always take it when we are on the road. It is cheap, ugly, plastic, and goes bang. It is also super light, very compact, reliable, fun and utilitarian. It is as easy to maintain as it is to stash. The new ones are easy to upgrade, but a lot of upgrades are more $ than we want to put in it. Decent Red Dots and Lasers are getting cheaper by the day though. So we added a rail, folding grip, and laser. None of which interferes with it folding.We plan on buying 2 surplused Glocks to go with it, (if/when deals present) for camping, fishing etc, that way we can leave the ones we love safe (in the safe) at home. There just isn't anything out there that does what it does. Another tool in the box.

Whatever floats your boat, there Ridgewalker, what I'm saying is there are a lot of other compact carbines out there, that are really a whole lot of fun to shoot and do it accurately, without having to be uncomfortable in shooting. Perhaps I'm just an old fuddy dud, but I wouldn't give ya a plug nickel for one of those.

needmorecowbell said:

Would put a small red dot on it.

Click to expand...

These days mounts exist for Subbies that allow optics to swing out when you're folding the gun. The problem is money. Optic plus mount cost as much as the gun itself.

needmorecowbell said:

Is Ruger easy to takedown and throw in a backpack?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's very easy. But the halves do not have any built-in way to stick them together and just clang in the backpack.

I had a Gen I in .40 that took Glock mags, was very happy with the portability and accuracy. I sold it when we needed the money more than the gun and sort of regretted it for no reason. We now have a Gen II in 9mm that takes the G19 mags. I haven’t had any issues with it, I don’t think it’s that uncomfortable to shoot and it is more accurate than it looks. It really shines in the fact that you can go from folded and stored with a mag to shooting within seconds just by folding it open. The only drawback, I feel, is the fact that it’s hard as hell to charge it compared to every other gun I’ve ever shot. But I like it anyway. If you are getting one I would get the version that takes G19 mags, you just have more versatility.

More Cowbell, if what you are looking for is a survival gun the Chiappa Double Badger, they fold up to where you can carry them in a back pack, they come in a over under version of .22WMR/.410 shotgun as well as the .22LR/.410 shotgun, as well as the .22WMR/ 20ga. and .223/20ga. Personally I own two one in the .22LR/.410 and the .22WMR/.410. Both are very accurate, and I carry them in my motor home, to where we will camp and then put it in my back pack when I go on a hike. The sights are very usable and have a peep on the back with fluorescent front sight, very easy to see. The over- all length when folded is 22". If worse came to worse, I'm sure I could depend on those firearms to provide me with game to sustain me, as well as reasonable protection from the elements. Note you can also have the .223/20ga, and I understand that they were in the course of making a .308/20ga. Just my two cents worth.

Well my son just bought his about a month ago, so I would presume it is the 2.

Gen 2 is much better. I had one that took Glock 19 mags. It was ok, less fun to shoot than I thought it would be, but the way it folds up is nice. If portability is a higher priority than shootability for you, it is a great option. Mine went away when I needed the cash for other projects.

The Glock 19 model has a shorter grip to accommodate the 15rd OEM magazines, the Glock 17 model will not accept those magazines as it is sized to fit the 17rd OEM magazines or larger only.

Mine is accurate and the trigger is fine imo, definitely not good but it's good enough for excellent 25-50yd accuracy. Same goes for the sights, 50 is pushing it but they're adequate at that range and it's not a 100yd round anyways.

I quite like mine.

I like mine too. I read lots of comments about not being able to see through the sites very well. I saw one in a store and that was the first thing I checked. I don’t have any trouble seeing through the sites. That changed my mind about buying one. Mine is very fun to shoot. I don’t have any complaints.

To each his own, however I wouldn't buy one sight unseen, I'd check the sights first, perhaps my son just got a lemon.

I have a Gen 2, Glock 19. It will take G19, G17, and Glock 33 round magazines. In my opinion, it's best feature is concealability. I like it for a backup firearm in my vehicle. It is a compromise in ergonomics and shootability. I have limited experience with other pistol caliber carbines. I assume they might be easier to shoot.

The ability to use the sights properly depends on your face shape. A person with a narrow type face will not have much of a problem but I have a wide face and it just doesn't work for me.

Cokeman said:

I like mine too. I read lots of comments about not being able to see through the sites very well. I saw one in a store and that was the first thing I checked. I don’t have any trouble seeing through the sites. That changed my mind about buying one. Mine is very fun to shoot. I don’t have any complaints.

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who can see through the rear aperture and pick up the front sight post without dropping their head to lower their eye relative to the cheekbone that's in contact with the buffer tube; the sights are just too low for a traditional heads-up / offhand shooting position.

I've got a Gen 1 and enjoy it for what it is. Not a large investment, accurate, takes 33 round Glock mags, and it folds.

Enough reasons to justify it for me.

If you want a decent carbine that will take Glock mags look into the Ruger PC Carbine. I have one and it’s a sweet package. It’s takedown too if your wanting that compact transportable rifle.

I know a lot of people with the Kel-Tec 2000’s and they are decent rifles. Just everyone I know buys the indexing rail and puts a red dot on them because the iron sights are a pain.

rbernie said:

I don't know anyone who can see through the rear aperture and pick up the front sight post without dropping their head to lower their eye relative to the cheekbone that's in contact with the buffer tube; the sights are just too low for a traditional heads-up / offhand shooting position.

Click to expand...

Then I must be different than everyone else because I don’t have a problem with it.

Cokeman said:

Then I must be different than everyone else because I don’t have a problem with it.

Click to expand...

Rejoice, because I really wanted to fit it. They're a neat inexpensive carbine.