KBintheSLC
Member
I recently purchased a brand new Kel Tec Gen 2 Sub-2000 9mm Glock 19 variant, and was deeply disappointed to discover a major design flaw with the integrated forend accessory rail. The owners manual and the Kel Tec website advertise this product as having a "Picatinny Rail", which is a term that represents the MIL-STD-1913 rail... a rail that has a flat and level top as shown in the attached diagram.
Oddly, the Kel Tec rail has a pointed top, like a very wide and short "A" shape... unlike anything I have ever seen in my 35-years of firearms experience, and a far cry from a "Picatinny Rail" as Kel Tec claims it to possess. MIL-STD-1913 is a well-defined and strict engineering standard used in military and law enforcement, as well as countless civilian arms and accessories around the world. Being an engineering "standard", it has no wiggle room for massively out of spec modifications such as those found on the Sub 2000.
As a result, properly mounting an optic has been utterly impossible. On top of the money spent on the gun and optic [~$800], I have wasted another $75 on various QD risers, none of which will mount flush on the Sub 2K... likely because those actually conform to the MIL-STD-1913 standard with a flat mounting surface. Instead, the optic slops around from one side to another [and everything in between], depending on how I hold it while torquing the screws. This makes a return to zero impossible when removing and replacing the optic when folded. Frankly, I have seen more useful rails on Nerf guns.
So, the question is, does this misrepresentation of the term "Picatinny Rail" constitute "false advertising" under either federal law or FL state law?
Thanks
Oddly, the Kel Tec rail has a pointed top, like a very wide and short "A" shape... unlike anything I have ever seen in my 35-years of firearms experience, and a far cry from a "Picatinny Rail" as Kel Tec claims it to possess. MIL-STD-1913 is a well-defined and strict engineering standard used in military and law enforcement, as well as countless civilian arms and accessories around the world. Being an engineering "standard", it has no wiggle room for massively out of spec modifications such as those found on the Sub 2000.
As a result, properly mounting an optic has been utterly impossible. On top of the money spent on the gun and optic [~$800], I have wasted another $75 on various QD risers, none of which will mount flush on the Sub 2K... likely because those actually conform to the MIL-STD-1913 standard with a flat mounting surface. Instead, the optic slops around from one side to another [and everything in between], depending on how I hold it while torquing the screws. This makes a return to zero impossible when removing and replacing the optic when folded. Frankly, I have seen more useful rails on Nerf guns.
So, the question is, does this misrepresentation of the term "Picatinny Rail" constitute "false advertising" under either federal law or FL state law?
Thanks
