Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
5.56mm isn't a legal deer hunting round in my state, so there's that consideration too for some folks.
I don't know anywhere it's legal for deer (with maybe the exception of harvesting them with a property destruction permit), but it's a legal varmint round (things like coyotes, wild boar, etc.) in at least my home state, and I'm guessing in others.
Yep, we can take boar and coyote with it. I'd like to try someday. I'm sure the local farmers appreciate it! The DNR was asking people to shoot boar on sight at one point, the population had gotten so out of hand.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/17 04:53:10
What are some popular non AR-15 semi-automatic rifles on here? I've got a few different bolt-actions and I'm thinking about branching out and getting my 1st semi-auto. Most likely going to be a .22 for blinking, but I'm keeping my options open.
d-usa wrote: What are some popular non AR-15 semi-automatic rifles on here? I've got a few different bolt-actions and I'm thinking about branching out and getting my 1st semi-auto. Most likely going to be a .22 for blinking, but I'm keeping my options open.
If not for ARs (and AR pistols) I'd be all over a bullpup - either a Tavor or a MSAR (AUG).
Other options include the SCAR and ACR rifles.
I've shot the SCAR and it is phenomenal, but if I didn't already have the trigger time with an AR I'd say the Tavor is probably a better rifle for a lot of reasons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/17 05:12:33
There's also a few other semiauto rifles based on military rifles that are good alternatives, like the SIG550. There are some civilian only rifles like the Mini 14. There are a lot of options if you look.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
d-usa wrote: What are some popular non AR-15 semi-automatic rifles on here? I've got a few different bolt-actions and I'm thinking about branching out and getting my 1st semi-auto. Most likely going to be a .22 for blinking, but I'm keeping my options open.
I like the AK quite a bit. However, I suggest a 10/22 for plinking. It's cheaper and more fun.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
d-usa wrote: What are some popular non AR-15 semi-automatic rifles on here? I've got a few different bolt-actions and I'm thinking about branching out and getting my 1st semi-auto. Most likely going to be a .22 for blinking, but I'm keeping my options open.
You'll pay a bit more in the ammo department, but M14's are fun as hell. That being said, there are a gak ton. You want a bullpub or a conventional?
EDIT: Also, you can get just about any modern rifle chambered in .22LR.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/17 06:06:29
Ouze wrote: However, I suggest a 10/22 for plinking. It's cheaper and more fun.
Aye, and also very quiet with a suppressor. Less noise pollution for the neighbors. My plinking rifle is a Sako in .22LR with a scope and suppressor, very nice though a bit pricey compared to many US manufacturers with larger production runs.
Yes, sound suppressors are legal here with no additional permit required. Protecting your own hearing - and your hunting dog's - is good. Use a "silenced" gun in a crime and you will probably get extra time though, as it's that much harder to explain how it wasn't premeditated.
Spetulhu wrote: Aye, and also very quiet with a suppressor. Less noise pollution for the neighbors. My plinking rifle is a Sako in .22LR with a scope and suppressor, very nice though a bit pricey compared to many US manufacturers with larger production runs.
Yes, sound suppressors are legal here with no additional permit required. Protecting your own hearing - and your hunting dog's - is good. Use a "silenced" gun in a crime and you will probably get extra time though, as it's that much harder to explain how it wasn't premeditated.
In the US you need to get permission (Form 4) from the ATF for a suppressor, and pay the tax stamp. This might end up costing the same or more than the rifle itself.
I own an AK and a PSL. I'd recommend the PSL if you could still get them for $600l, but now they're up to $1000. :(
For bullpups, I really want a Tavor and FS2000. Fired the FS several times and it's my guilty pleasure gun.
If you got the money, I highly, highly recommend getting a Crusader rifle. They're custom AR's that are by far the best I've shot. Ever.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
d-usa wrote: What are some popular non AR-15 semi-automatic rifles on here? I've got a few different bolt-actions and I'm thinking about branching out and getting my 1st semi-auto. Most likely going to be a .22 for blinking, but I'm keeping my options open.
I got a M4 looking .22 (Umarex/Colt collaboration)
Other companies make them, and you can get HK looking ones, and others as well.
Mine is a blast, even the daughter can handle it and we regularly empty a few magazines out on the range set up behind the pond.
One of my other non-AR semis is a HK-91. Much more expensive to shoot, but it is a great rifle.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Discussions on the wisdom or lack thereof of the ATF would still be off topic, I post this just as an informational aid to anyone looking to build or buy an AR pistol with a SIG brace.
Spoiler:
OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”
The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use
of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s
aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped
pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style
pistol.
These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable
support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a
firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms
Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed.
When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under
16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.
The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or
barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16
inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).
Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that
a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA
“firearm.” For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of
less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a
“short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”
In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as
well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer
noted that
The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the
AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also
performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce
bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace
onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the
weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to
dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and
recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without
compromising safety or comfort.
In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or
her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for
additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with
additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped
to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from
the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device -2-
is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification
ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the
stated intent.
ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while
shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be
attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous
inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the
NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing
brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled
barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.
The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning.
“Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New
College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has
previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing antipersonnel
ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling
95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a
weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although
otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an
“any other weapon.”
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,
and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor
has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary
to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol
(having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18
inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting
firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.
If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms
and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Discussions on the wisdom or lack thereof of the ATF would still be off topic, I post this just as an informational aid to anyone looking to build or buy an AR pistol with a SIG brace.
Spoiler:
OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”
The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use
of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s
aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped
pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style
pistol.
These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable
support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a
firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms
Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed.
When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under
16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.
The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or
barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16
inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).
Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that
a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA
“firearm.” For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of
less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a
“short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”
In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as
well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer
noted that
The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the
AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also
performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce
bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace
onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the
weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to
dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and
recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without
compromising safety or comfort.
In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or
her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for
additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with
additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped
to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from
the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device -2-
is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification
ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the
stated intent.
ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while
shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be
attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous
inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the
NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing
brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled
barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.
The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning.
“Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New
College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has
previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing antipersonnel
ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling
95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a
weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although
otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an
“any other weapon.”
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,
and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor
has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary
to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol
(having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18
inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting
firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.
If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms
and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300.
Can't say I didn't see that charging in from a mile away. Sucks, but, again, was coming the moment feth-tards started throwing gak up on youtube about it.
I can't see it standing up in court if challenged, as there's been no actual redesign of the firearm itself, only the way someone handles it.
That said, we all expected this at some point. However, by largely the same logic with their definition of "redesign", using any handgun two handed (as a proper shooting grip really should) would also then qualify as a "redesign" it would appear...
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: I can't see it standing up in court if challenged, as there's been no actual redesign of the firearm itself, only the way someone handles it.
That said, we all expected this at some point. However, by largely the same logic with their definition of "redesign", using any handgun two handed (as a proper shooting grip really should) would also then qualify as a "redesign" it would appear...
Not unless you add a vertical grip, I don't think.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/17 20:50:02
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Vaktathi wrote: I can't see it standing up in court if challenged, as there's been no actual redesign of the firearm itself, only the way someone handles it.
That said, we all expected this at some point. However, by largely the same logic with their definition of "redesign", using any handgun two handed (as a proper shooting grip really should) would also then qualify as a "redesign" it would appear...
Not unless you add a vertical grip, I don't think.
This was (and possibly still is) legal on pistols with an OAL > 26" because they are technically no longer pistols but "firearms" at that point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/17 21:38:40
NuggzTheNinja wrote: This was (and possibly still is) legal on pistols with an OAL > 26" because they are technically no longer pistols but "firearms" at that point.
I'm aware of the distinction but it should definitely have been pointed out, thanks for that. In a thread where people, especially overseas people are unfamiliar with the vagaries of US law it's probably best to be precise.
Personally, I feel like once you have an OAL of 26", you might as well just get a full length 16" barrel, AR-wise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/17 22:04:23
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Really, the whole thing is pretty stupid if you bother to stop and think about it. I mean, they have laws regarding short-barrel rifles ostensibly because they're concealable, but it's not like you can hide an AR pistol in your back pocket. Even with a 10.5" barrel, an AR-15 with a stock is long enough it won't fit in most common backpacks without being disassembled, and if that's the case then it's easy to fit most any firearm in a large backpack or dufflebag.. The only criminally relevant use of of concealable firearms would apply to actual pistols small enough to hid in the waistband or pockets, and as it turns out the vast majority of crimes are committed with exactly that: cheap, small handguns. From the standpoint of preventing crime, there's no logical reason for short barrel rifle laws in the first place.
But, hey, they look scary and stuff.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
Well, there might be something of an issue there for defendants, and, depending on how the ATF makes their argument, the case of the ATF might be stronger than one might initially think.
If the ATF were to bring someone to court and argue that that individual made the gun illegal by their use of it, then the case of the ATF could be hard to make; however, if the ATF argues that the brace was INITIALLY purchased with INTENT to be used to create an SBR and circumvent the tax, the ATF could use a picture of someone firing their "pistol" while shouldering it as evidence of an individual's intent to use the brace as a stock, which makes that specific addition a modification with intent to create an SBR. If they use that argument, the legality of using this brace or the brace itself doesn't change, because they wouldn't be making the argument that improper use is illegal, rather that the improper use is evidence of intent illegally circumvent the tax by creating an SBR without a license.
That all being said, I doubt they will need to take people to court. The fear that they could will probably stop enough people from screwing with this rather than risking being taken to court.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/17 22:57:00
Stonebeard thanks for the analysis. Here's an issue to ponder - say you buy a pistol and Sig brace it and never fire it from the shoulder. Now you hand it to a friend and he shoulders it. What happens now?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Stonebeard thanks for the analysis. Here's an issue to ponder - say you buy a pistol and Sig brace it and never fire it from the shoulder. Now you hand it to a friend and he shoulders it. What happens now?
The ruling is totally a crazy can of worms!
Shooting an SBR isn't illegal, as far as I know, so the ATF couldn't do anything to your friend. If they were going to charge anyone there, they would have to charge the owner, and then they would have to make the argument that your friend firing your pistol improperly proves that you, as the owner, originally purchased the weapon with the intent to create an SBR and avoid taxation and registration, despite having no evidence of you using the weapon improperly. The argument would be an ungodly cluster-feth for them to make.
To be perfectly honest - and, note that I am saying this as a person who disagrees vehemently with the laws' very existence to begin with - according to the spirit of the law and the obvious outcome, they probably should have never given sig the go ahead to begin with. This opinion, essentially, is how they have to rule on this brace given what every moron who sent letter to them has asked. If asked, they HAVE to say that to purchase this brace with the intent (which is KEY here) to shoulder it is illegal unless you apply for a license. Why? Because intent is everything in the law, and, if asked if it ok the purchase this brace and shoulder it you are at least implying that your intent is to purchase the brace to create an SBR, which means they would (and did) have to say that that would be illegal, because to say otherwise would be to give at least tacit approval to tax evasion, which they cannot do. But, yeah, it's a cluster-feth.
EDIT: It should be noted that I am saying this without any formal legal training, so EVERYTHING I have said could be complete bs
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/18 00:58:13
It doesn't have to be ugly, there's quite literally eleventy billion and seven ways to configure an AR platform rifle or pistol, for example this lovely engraved, color case hardened and wood furniture number from Turnbull.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Damn sexy!
I'll bet it costs a fortune though.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
It's a one of kind and sold for somewhere over 100k.
You can do similar set ups on your own for significantly less... and far more usability though. Wood AR stock sets for example are becoming quite popular.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
d-usa wrote: Thanks for the feedback everyone. I know the AR-15 is popular, but I just think it's fugly.
There are so many after market parts for it that you can set it up to look how you want. Is there a particular part of the design you feel is off putting?
