Franklin Armory Produces NFA Exempt Short-Barrel Firearm

Longshot231

Longshot231

Four Star General
Full Member
Minuteman
    • Mar 8, 2018
    13,428
    48,433
    #1
    I'll let the videos explain it.







    There isn't much on there website about it. However, they do say the barrel is rifled.


    Here's some more articles about the FA Antithesis. Disclaimer, I haven't had the chance to read through everything yet but will later tonight.

    www.ammoland.com

    Franklin Armory Declares Independence from the NFA with Antithesis

    Franklin Armory announced today the launch of Antithesis, a new class of rifled, short-barrel firearm completely unregulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA).
    www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com


    smokinggun.org

    Trump’s ATF Reclassifies Franklin Armory Reformation and Antithesis

    A win for Franklin Armory, the move is another effort by the Trump administration to weaken federal gun laws.
    smokinggun.org smokinggun.org


    The FA Reformation is old news but I will post these videos anyway. However, IMHO, it's worthless without rifling. Disclaimer, I stopped watching the video when it started keyholing.

     
    • Like
    Reactions: lash, Charmingmander, WeR0206 and 1 other person
    #3
    MO Fugga said:
    Straight rifling?
    Click to expand...
    I don't know for the Antithesis but the reformation has straight lands and grooves, AKA straight rifling. However, unless there is a twist to the lands and grooves, then it really isn't rifling.

    PS: I went back and read the articles. The .223 caliber Antithesis is designed to fire a special projectile. Actually, it's several nickel plated projectiles.

    Here's a picture from one of the articles posted above.

    224_Multi-Piece_Projectile-Web__44144.1758058913.jpg


    Also from the article:

    "How to Use Antithesis Multiple Projectile Assemblies

    For optimal performance, Franklin Armory provides specific instructions for the Antithesis Multiple Projectile Assemblies:

    Chamfer, Bell, and Lube: Each case mouth must be prepared before inserting the projectile assembly.

    Gentle Seating: Carefully seat the projectile assembly into the casing to ensure proper function.

    Compatibility Warning: Not suitable for firearms with suppressors or muzzle brakes.

    Pro Tip: Always follow the manufacturer’s guidelines to ensure safety and performance. Visit Franklin Armory’s website for detailed specifications and purchasing options."

    So with all that said, the Antithesis is kind of worthless to me but kudos to FA for sticking it to the NFA and the ATF!
     
    • Like
    Reactions: WeR0206 and MO Fugga
    #5
    I don’t mean to rain on anybody’s parade….BUT

    To me this is the type of thing that losers celebrate…..

    After having just had the BBC (the butchered Big Beautiful Bill or BBB) shoved up our backside, we are now acting like losers. We need to get a grip on ourselves.

    We would not even be having this conversation if the BBB made it through instead of the BBC.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: WeR0206, TonyAngel and Longshot231
    #6
    TonyAngel said:
    I don't know. I suppose this is a moral victory of sorts, but the solution to the problem isn't much of a usable solution.
    Click to expand...
    Holliday said:
    I don’t mean to rain on anybody’s parade….BUT

    To me this is the type of thing that losers celebrate…..

    After having just had the BBC (the butchered Big Beautiful Bill or BBB) shoved up our backside, we are now acting like losers. We need to get a grip on ourselves.

    We would not even be having this conversation if the BBB made it through instead of the BBC.
    Click to expand...
    I agree with both of you. However, this does show how absurd the NFA is and how absurd the ATF is for their interpretations.

    Rather than criticize FA, they should be commended for doing something.

    My curiosity is beginning to warm with respect to the Antithesis in the 45ACP-45LC-410 configuration. It will be nice to see some reviews on that one.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: lash and Bakwa
    #9
    tsavo303 said:
    Ok we’re missing the point. This is a regular 5.56 1-7 twist AR 7.5-12” bbl. But because they made special shot shells for it, it’s exempt from nfa without form4 or transfer fees or interstate restrictions. And shipping and transferring now due to court victories
    Click to expand...
    So are you saying that we could still shoot regular solid projectiles out of the Antithesis?

    If so, does that necessarily mean we would need to have the specially made shot shells in possession? I don’t think so, because it is designed to shoot the specially made shot shells.

    This where FA needs to do a better job of presenting this to the consumer.

    To recap, are you saying that we could buy the Antithesis in 5.56 and shoot ball ammunition through it as much as we like but not worry about getting special shot shells for it?
     
    #14
    If this is just about the ability to shoot multiple projectiles, hopefully someone smarter than me makes the argument that we can shoot shot shells through 5.56 barrels. Or short barreled shotguns don't need to be regulated if they have rifling if you can shoot a slug or buckshot.

    Maybe there's some magic sauce I'm missing here but fingers crossed.
     
    #15
    Longshot231 said:
    So are you saying that we could still shoot regular solid projectiles out of the Antithesis?

    If so, does that necessarily mean we would need to have the specially made shot shells in possession? I don’t think so, because it is designed to shoot the specially made shot shells.

    This where FA needs to do a better job of presenting this to the consumer.

    To recap, are you saying that we could buy the Antithesis in 5.56 and shoot ball ammunition through it as much as we like but not worry about getting special shot shells for it?
    Click to expand...
    Yes it shoots regular ammo also
     
    • Like
    Reactions: lash, Charmingmander and Longshot231
    #16
    hlee said:
    Like pistol braces and solvent traps, if FA is too overt in their description, even a govt lawyer will see through the ruse…
    Click to expand...
    It’s not a ruse . It’s taking advantage of stupidly worded govt definitions. They spent 1 million in legal fees to get atf to admit it was legal
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: doubloon, lash, Charmingmander and 2 others
    #17
    tsavo303 said:
    Ok we’re missing the point. This is a regular 5.56 1-7 twist AR 7.5-12” bbl. But because they made special shot shells for it, it’s exempt from nfa without form4 or transfer fees or interstate restrictions. And shipping and transferring now due to court victories
    Click to expand...
    This is where I get lost. If the only difference between the FA rig and any other 5.56 pistol is the ammunition that has been developed for it, for use out of their barrel, then the exclusion should or could apply to all 5.56 ARs. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.

    Then what happens if you rebarrel your AR with a FA barrel?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: WeR0206 and Longshot231
    #19
    It’s all semantics. They leveraged the ATF’s definition of what constitutes a rifle, shotgun, and or firearm.
    If there is no specific chamber geometry to be able to fire their multi projectile ammunition this should apply to all 5.56/.223 rifles. There is no way a sane person could argue otherwise.

    But as we know there is very little logic or coherent reasoning behind 99% of gun laws that exist in this country.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: doubloon, Charmingmander, WeR0206 and 1 other person
    #20
    Holliday said:
    I don’t mean to rain on anybody’s parade….BUT

    To me this is the type of thing that losers celebrate…..

    After having just had the BBC (the butchered Big Beautiful Bill or BBB) shoved up our backside, we are now acting like losers. We need to get a grip on ourselves.

    We would not even be having this conversation if the BBB made it through instead of the BBC.
    Click to expand...
    It's just another hole poked through the bullshit. Totally not an sbr, totally not full auto, like pot at what point does it become a joke and unenforceable?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: lash, Charmingmander and .505gibbs
    #27
    Something strange is going on. The video that Franklin Armory put out on the Anthesis isn't on YouTube anymore. The page for the Anthesis line is no longer on their website!

    In addition, the third video that I posted in the OP is no longer there. I can't remember what it was.

    Anyone have an idea or know what's going on?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Charmingmander
    #28
    Longshot231 said:
    Something strange is going on. The video that Franklin Armory put out on the Anthesis isn't on YouTube anymore. The page for the Anthesis line is no longer on their website!

    In addition, the third video that I posted in the OP is no longer there. I can't remember what it was.

    Anyone have an idea or know what's going on?
    Click to expand...
    What the fuck? Everything on the website relating to it has been scrubbed.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: doubloon and Longshot231
    #35
    Charmingmander said:
    The ATF lost in court over it so they shouldn't be able to do anything without appealing it to a higher court.
    Click to expand...
    The DOJ settled with Franklin Armory and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC). They did lose in court but the DOJ decided to settle and not appeal.

    So even if the DOJ and ATF changed their minds, it's too late, they have already agreed to the settlement.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Charmingmander
    #36
    TonyAngel said:
    This is where I get lost. If the only difference between the FA rig and any other 5.56 pistol is the ammunition that has been developed for it, for use out of their barrel, then the exclusion should or could apply to all 5.56 ARs. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.

    Then what happens if you rebarrel your AR with a FA barrel?
    Click to expand...
    Exactly.
    Going forward...all a company would need to do is DESIGN AND DEVELOP their firearm to fire both kinds. That makes it exempt.

    A re-barrel doesn't achieve this because the rifle was not designed and developed that way from the start. Not exempt.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: doubloon, Longshot231 and Charmingmander
    #39
    Charmingmander said:
    What the fuck? Everything on the website relating to it has been scrubbed.
    Click to expand...
    Possibly .. NO multi-projectile ammo in-stock to sell yet ?
    Or.. they dont have anything close to enough actual units produced to meet the 'rush' demand for sales of the firearm ?
    . it not April 1st, so I just assuming that Franklin threw this out to the public to get real feedback to the investment they making,
    .
     
    #40
    TonyAngel said:
    This is where I get lost. If the only difference between the FA rig and any other 5.56 pistol is the ammunition that has been developed for it, for use out of their barrel, then the exclusion should or could apply to all 5.56 ARs. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.

    Then what happens if you rebarrel your AR with a FA barrel?
    Click to expand...

    It's all semantics as has been said.

    It is no different than some AR-15 lowers being pistols and some being rifles.

    I read somewhere the "compatibility" issue is between the Antithesis multi-projectile ammo and muzzle devices.

    Someone on another forum reminded us that "duplex" ammo was a thing and used to exist long before Antithesis ammo.

    I see it as a win in regard to proving just how fkn useless and arbitrary are the ATF and it's rulings.


    TonyAngel said:
    I may be missing it, but exactly what is the "patent pending" on? Is there something that distinguishes the FA rifle from other AR pattern rifles or or is the patent pending on the ammunition?
    Click to expand...

    I haven't found the patent yet but it shoots standard 5.56 ammo so it can't be that different.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: .505gibbs and lash
    #41
    softcock said:
    Possibly .. NO multi-projectile ammo in-stock to sell yet ?
    Or.. they dont have anything close to enough actual units produced to meet the 'rush' demand for sales of the firearm ?
    . it not April 1st, so I just assuming that Franklin threw this out to the public to get real feedback to the investment they making,
    .
    Click to expand...
    Scuttlebutt I'm seeing now is that the ATF posted on X that the settlement only applied to the original firearm that was subject which was a variant in 45LC/410 if I'm understanding the chain of the guns development right. No other variant was covered even if the product has the same name.

    If that's the case, they will have to battle it out again. Also saw some comments that the stock FA made available to distributors was sold out basically immediately. Waiting on some kind of official statement now.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: lash, doubloon and softcock
    #42
    doubloon said:
    It's all semantics as has been said.

    It is no different than some AR-15 lowers being pistols and some being rifles.

    I read somewhere the "compatibility" issue is between the Antithesis multi-projectile ammo and muzzle devices.

    Someone on another forum reminded us that "duplex" ammo was a thing and used to exist long before Antithesis ammo.

    I see it as a win in regard to proving just how fkn useless and arbitrary are the ATF and it's rulings.




    I haven't found the patent yet but it shoots standard 5.56 ammo so it can't be that different.
    Click to expand...
    My understanding is that it's mechanically no different from any other AR15. The difference is legal not mechanical. Because the gun was DESIGNED with the INTENT to use multi piece/projectile ammunition it does not meet the definition of "Rifle" in the GCA or NFA.

    The ammo in question is just a multi projectile load utilizing a standard 556 casing and can fire in a standard 556 barrel.

    DESIGNED and INTENT being the keywords.



    I'd also like to mention, incase some were not aware or forgot, there is at least one instance in court I know of where the AR15 was found to not meet the definition of a firearm period due to the lower receiver not meeting legal criteria to be classified as a firearm due to not having the bolt and chamber in it. By the lower only holding the trigger, it does not meet the legal definition. The upper does not meet the definition because it doesn't hold the trigger along with the bolt and chamber. But in this case, the ATF ended up dropping the firearms charge for obvious reasons. Supposedly other cases have also argued this in the past but without those charges being resolved in the case (the plaintiffs were charged with multiple offences other than just guns) they have not made it to case law.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: doubloon
    #43
    Charmingmander said:
    The ammo in question is just a multi projectile load utilizing a standard 556 casing and can fire in a standard 556 barrel.

    DESIGNED and INTENT being the keywords.
    Click to expand...

    Agreed. They designed the ammo so they could claim the intent.

    The same claim won't work for shotguns as defined or rifles bigger than .50 so .410/Colt is as big as it will go.

    Duplex ammunition, brought to my attention by someone on another forum, met the same multi-projectile definition ... depleted in the 70s it seems. It gives me the heebie-jeebbies.

    1758308965233.jpeg
    3ce272eff407b9b06ab9a2e42e032ca92ef41497_2_689x308.jpeg


     
    • Like
    Reactions: lash
    #44
    As I said above, this was just a minor victory and it appears that it was even more minor than I thought.

    It just didn't make sense as it was presented. A rifle is listed on a 4473 as a rifle. A pistol is listed as a pistol. If you buy a stripped lower receiver, it's listed as "other," and whether it becomes a rifle or pistol is determined by what you build it out as. What's to keep me from taking a receiver listed as "other" and saying it's intended to shoot multiple projectile ammo.
     
    #45
    Charmingmander said:
    Scuttlebutt I'm seeing now is that the ATF posted on X that the settlement only applied to the original firearm that was subject which was a variant in 45LC/410 if I'm understanding the chain of the guns development right. No other variant was covered even if the product has the same name.

    If that's the case, they will have to battle it out again. Also saw some comments that the stock FA made available to distributors was sold out basically immediately. Waiting on some kind of official statement now.
    Click to expand...
    Do you have the link to the ATF posting on X?
     
    #46
    • Like
    Reactions: lash
    #48
    doubloon said:
    links below ... the comments aren't bad

    T3AP2tE.png






    Click to expand...

    It looks like the ATF pulled a fast one on FA. You can always trust the government to screw you.

    On the other hand, we haven't seen the details of the Settlement Agreement. Remember that an open letter is not an agreement.

    Perhaps the FA attorneys are looking through ever jot and tittle of that settlement agreement to see if they got screwed or of the ATF is lying about that agreement. Or the FA attorneys are looking for a new job.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: doubloon and Im2bent
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    THEIS
    BATFE Official Announcement on Franklin Armory Reformation
    Replies
    17
    Views
    1K
    YF12A
    YF12A
    Sean the Nailer
    Something to contemplate,
    Replies
    30
    Views
    2K
    Zeroit
    Zeroit
    Top Bottom
    Back
    Home
    Forums
    Merch
    Alerts