Short Barrel non NFA the new norm
 

It seems like growing these passed couple years, short barreled non NFA guns like AR pistols and AKs seemed to be the norm for a lot of people. Even I'm not immune to it having started with my Scorpion Evo pistol with a brace and now and AR with a brace.

11.5 in barrel ARs seems to be the growing trend as well.

It's because when the coming Second Civil War gets here, we'll have to be the Resistance's black ops and thus we'll need compact weapons with excessively (some say ridiculously) short barrels.

http://www.imfdb.org/images/3/3f/CAPDOA93_2.jpg

Sig brace for OA-93 when?

Nah, still too much drag for our high speed nature.

http://www.hawaiipighunter.com/wp-co...6490-thumb.jpg

Seriously, you know many MK 18 clones I've bumped into this passed month?

The documentary Call of Duty makes it very clear that wars are won by whoever has the most OP submachine gun, after all, and that shooting someone at close range with a pistol is more likely to be fatal than being shot with a 50 cal or having a helicopter fall on them.

The old ways is the best ways

http://askmisterscience.com/1896mauserbackup/009111.jpg

I wish I can get one of those

Cooking something up
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4739/...bf696d7a_c.jpg

My dad has always wanted one of these. I think the "box cannon" has some sort of mythical status for ROC veterans like himself. I had to tell him that even if you could find one of these, he'd need a tax stamp to attach the stock.

If it's an original stock and gun then you don't need a tax stamp. The broomhandle mauser with original stock is exempted from the NFA.

Is that so? Well then...

is it wrong that I own a 7" barreled AR15 pistol and a Mauser C96?

One of them I built and the other is inherited.

Long as he's not from Cali, otherwise when you attach the bit of wood to the pistol, magic wizards in the bit of wood wake up and turn the pistol into a rifle less than 30in long and so it becomes an assault weapon. And the Cali AWB doesn't have a C&R exemption like the NFA SBR law does.

He lives in Florida now, so he can probably buy a gun at a gas station.

Thinking of building an AR pistol/mk18/SBR clone/whatever, should i go 10.5 or 11.5 inch? I considered 300 blackout for a while but I like be able to guilt free do some mag dumps if you know what i mean...

On the topic of AR "pistols" does anyone have any crazy guesses about how the Franklin Armory Reformation is legal before it is unveiled at Shot Show? A lot of people think it is something to do with a binary (or related) trigger but supposedly this is not the case. My guess is that somehow that "stock" is not really a stock, like maybe it doesn't actually lock in the extended position or something like that.

A lot of posts I've read point to the trigger. I'm not sure it can be the stock, they specify the brand and model.

I'd buy it

One of the admins at The Firearm Blog talked to someone at Franklin and was told that it had one of their regular binary triggers, which has a semi setting so fudging of the language about a "single shot per trigger pull" or whatever it says would not be the dodge. Something else is that Franklin says that whatever this is that makes it legal is new and patent pending, whereas binary triggers have been around for years.

What I wondered about the stock is that if the buffer tube lacks the holes to lock the stock into it could still be a regular off the shelf stock but could not lock in the extended position which might not count as a rifle stock. A company did manage to make a "pistol" in the past that had a regular stock that was permanently pinned in the closed position, as (at least at the time) the ATFs position was that if it could not be put into an extended position it was not shoulderable.

EDIT: I just found that there is also a video on their youtube channel which seems to show it firing in both semi and binary. It is hard to tell on the video, but it doesn't look like it is firing on release of the trigger either which was some people's theory. It also looks like the stock is properly locked out, so I have no idea. I'm not 100% certain on SBR laws but people have suggested that if it is built from a pistol receiver you could possibly mount a stock on it if the overall length ended up being more that 26 inches. This might also explain their specific choice of a rather long collapsible stock. I find this hard to believe though, as if it was that simple it would have been done before, and nothing about this is based on unique patentable technology either.

We'll find out today

It has straight lands and grooves in the barrel. As it does not twist it is not rifling so not a rifle, it is not smooth so it is not smooth-bore. This seems dumb as hell, as it totally unstabilized so is 5 MOA with a range of 50 yards.

In a practical sense, it is stupid as hell and overpriced. You can build a budget pistol from assorted parts at under 500 and a good one for under 1000 if you know what you're doing and benefits from it being a rifled barrel.

I think in this case, this gun would only work if states recognized that it is a "firearm" and not a rifle in any legal sense

The thing that I am most interested with about this gun is nothing to with the gun itself (which IMHO is pretty useless). With the precedent that straight lands a grooves do not count as rifling or smoothbore, I think you could have some very interesting short barrelled semi auto .410 firearms. Am I correct in thinking that the only requirement for a weapon like this would be for it to have an OAL of over 26 inches?

In the past I believe that one of the derringer companies tried this straight rifling before for .410 pistols, but were told it didn't count as rifling so wasn't legally a pistol so was an NFA item. I get a bit lost with the US "Any Other Weapons" class, but is that what this derringer would have been? Are these "firearm" non-rifle, non-shotgun, non-pistol grey area guns only legal if they have an overall length of over 26" inches?

Yeah, with your .410 idea since it isn't a smoothbore it isn't a shotgun, so you don't need to worry about putting a stock on it to get the OAL over 26in turning it back into a shotgun (smoothbore + less than 18in barrel + manufactured with a stock (the gun somehow remembers this) + shotgun gauge = SBS, smoothbore + less than 18in barrel + not manufactured with a stock, even if same model + shotgun gauge = AOW unless you stick an arm brace on it to get the length to over 26in without it being a stock, in which case it falls into a category simply called "firearm:" in something like 12 gauge it dodges becoming a destructive device due to the fact that it fires a shotgun cartridge even though it is legally not a shotgun).

The 26 inch length isn't exact because the AOW category being dodged is weapons that are "readily concealable:" history suggests 26in is the minimum length before the ATF start getting their nope on.

Basically NFA and GCA were laws assembled by monkeys.

So what if I were to have a Remington 870 with a 14 inch barrel with straight cut groove rifling like the Reformation......

Not smoothbore and so not a shotgun, not rifled and so not a rifle, fires a shotgun cartridge and so not a DD. It will get AOW'd unless you can make the OAL 12 inches longer than the barrel.

The big thing that changes is that since adding a stock won't make it a shotgun as it would with a smoothbore that fires a shotgun cartridge (and therefore get it dinged as an SBS on barrel length alone) you don't need to use an arm brace for the "not a stock" length bonus.

The thing that I am unsure of with a 12 gauge using this system is the fact that it is over .50 cal. There is generally an exemption for shotguns that use this round, but the problem in this case is that the whole point of the grooves is to make this weapon legally not a shotgun so I don't see how it falls under that exemption. It fires the same round, but the wording of the exemption uses the term "shotgun", so not one of these things. It probably isn't a problem as Fostech got away with that "firearm" version of the Origin 12 (not a shotgun by definition as it used an arm brace so not designed for firing from the shoulder), but it seems to me that these 12 gauge "firearms" are on kind of thin ice.

Something that just occurred to me, I believe this straight lands and grooves thing was tried a while ago with .45/.410 pistols but it was nixed by the ATF (trying to solve a different problem to this use), but the point is if it has already been done by somebody can Franklin file a patent on it? Their argument is that unlike the historic use of black powder firearms their system is patented as it uses metallic cartridges, but this is not new as it has already been done with shotgun (and by extension .45 LC) rounds. I think there have also been shotguns in the past that used straight rifling on the theory that it stops the wad from spinning producing a more consistent pattern. Incidentally, the inability to use straight rifling lead to these derringers having an incredibly slow twist to the rifling that only covers about 1 inch of the barrel but that is enough apparently (there is no minimum rifling standard by the ATF, it just needs to have some degree of twist).

No, it's super rad

Only if they aren't covered in Picatinny rails.

In this case the exemption is on the cartridge, not the weapon

("any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary or his delegate finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes...")

so you're not a DD because you're firing a common sporting shotgun cartridge even though you're not a shotgun. Otherwise all stockless shotguns would be DDs and they're not, they're AOWs.

The ATF can make individual rulings that guns which fire a shotgun cartridge are destructive devices regardless of their features using the "sporting purpose" test, that's what happened to things like the Street Sweeper and USAS-12.

To be honest, normally when I see an AR "pistol" my emotions range between feeling absolutely nothing, and thinking it is fucking stupid. However, for some reason I actually kind of like the new FliteLite SCR Raider.

The SCR Raider has a nifty look to it, but I'm more concerned by the fact that they had a loaded belt-fed machine just sitting there on the table behind them.

Have to be dummy rounds, no way anyone is getting away with a live gun at SHOT show

Why do you have such feelings on an AR pistol?

A brace essentially makes it feel like an SBR but it legally isn't.

I more mean actual "pistol" guns where there is no pseudo stock are the kind that I don't like. These always look silly to me as due to the AR design they have the buffer tube sticking out at the back and they always look kind of awkward. With the SCR it is a lot more sleek and refined looking, and it actually looks like it works firing it without a stock and could actually be pretty effective with a sling. I also like it from a theatrical point of view, as I can imagine these being good in films and TV carried concealed under jackets.

I don't really have a problem with the braced type, although to be honest for an AR I would personally rather have a 14.5" barrel with a permanent flash hider with a proper adjustable stock.

For me, I own an AR pistol and play to build a couple more in different calibers, is thanks to the braces and partly political.

I do not want to give up the freedom to own a weapon without it being registered with the government and subject it to a tax stamp and making it unable to be changed back. I would either have to sell it to another guy with a tax stamp or destroy it.

Suppressors is really where I would draw the line but even that is still stupid to me.

The concept for me is that you can accomplish a lot of the same thing on an 11.5 in barrel as you would a 14.5 in and excelling in CQB without adapting to the length of the gun.

With Shot Show over, there's a few newer braces including a 5 position adjustable one that is even more 1 step from being a stock.

Same here pretty much all the way. I grant there are some shortys that don't look as silly - the Raider being one of them - but I don't know. Mainly it just looks like what it is, a big gun chopped down all tacky like. I guess it's just the old fashioned part of me that thinks a rifle/carbine is supposed to be, well, a rifle/carbine. Proper stock and all as said. But yes, seems to be the popular dish now. I wonder what will be the deal in a decade or so.

If they remove suppressors and SBR/SBS from the NFA, this wouldn't be a discussion.

For me, my shorty is a truck gun. I keep it broken down in a backpack in my car for whatever. The same with my carry gun. Will I ever need it? Statistically, most likely not but...you never know. I also have a good first aid kit and a fire extinguisher too

Are there any statistics on people actually using rifles carried in their car? People use handguns all the time or rifles and shotguns in the home, but how often does somebody actually use a rifle carried in a car? In most situations a pistol will be the more accessible option, and if you are able to go to the trunk of your car and assemble a rifle it seems that you might be on shaky "self defence" grounds. The only situation where I can imagine it being useful is if there is an active shooter situation and you choose to attempt to intervene, but has this ever actually happened? The closest I can think of is that recent church shooting in Texas, but IIRC the guy there got the rifle from his home.