• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

School me on SBR

I spoke with a local ATF agent the other day.
It seems like the honey badger issue was a result of Q more or less thumbing their nose at the ATF.
The way he explained it is this:
If you look at the other manufacturers of pistol caliber AR's, they also catalog rifle variants of the same or similar thing, their intention being to offer both a pistol and a rifle.
If you look at the Q website, they ONLY offer a pistol, no rifle variant, so for them, Q was trying to circumvent the rules.
A specious argument for sure, because ANYONE that buys a pistol varian with a brace is trying to circumvent the stupid rules.

Extremely short barrels on a 5.56 are pretty fucking stupid. When you consider the military complains of piss poor performance from a 14.5" carbine, WTF do think is going to happen when you go less than half of that.
Here is a dandy chart showing the difference between 5.56 and .300 blk.
If you want a 5" barrel, go with a pistol caliber.

View attachment 7490632

That ATF agent you spoke with is simply misinformed and completely ignorant of Q’s SKU offerings. The ATF Boston office is the one thumbing its nose at its oversight committee in Congress and the WH by sending the Cease and Desist to Q, after having their pee-pees slapped repeatedly this year for doing what ATF is known for: regulating and ruling arbitrarily on specs with zero published standards.

Q Honey Badger SBR:

iu


Q Honey Badger Pistol:

iu


iu



As usual, may 1000 curses befall the ATF. May cancer eat their innards rapidly, and may the Constitution haunt them every time they look in the mirror.

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Also, the military doesn’t complain of poor performance from 14.5” guns. With M855, we get an average of 2920fps mv from a lightweight little carbine. How much velocity do you want? M193 averages over 3000fps from 14.5” guns.
 
Last edited:
Here’s an interesting thing I’ve learned after spending decades studying this issue.

The unconstitutional SBR and SBS provisions of 1934 are really more of a set of artifacts from the original legislation draft that would ban pistols (or require $200 stamp tax on all pistols).

In anticipation of their massive assault on the right to keep and bear arms, the Progressive socialist-minded Congress, drunk with power and exemption from their own Prohibition legislation, knew that many freedom-minded Americans would simply cut-down their shotguns and rifles into pistol-length firearms to get around the pistol ban.

They didn’t draft the SBS and SBR legislation because of any argument about production short-barreled shotguns and rifles. The target all-along was pistols, driven primarily by the assassination attempt on FDR before his inauguration in 1933. Giuseppe "Joe" Zangara, an Italian immigrant and unemployed bricklayer, fired 5 rounds from an Iver Johnson/US Revolver Company .32 Smith & Wesson at FDR when he was in Florida giving a speech, killing Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak and wounding several others.

iu


iu


Congress held hearings on the legislation once it got out of committee, where “expert witnesses” testified about the suitability of pistols for self-defense, as long as you had a permit for such a weapon. The pistol ban/taxation provisions were scratched from the 1934 NFA prior to it passing, but the artifacts of the anticipated attempts of people to bypass the removed pistol ban were left in place, forming the ridiculous SBS and SBR provisions we all think we know today.

Interestingly, the barrel length limit for both shotguns and rifles was set at 18”. Then, for reasons I still have not been able to find, rifles were amended to 16” minimum barrel length. It was rumored that this was because of M-1 Carbine bring-backs from the War, but this makes no sense since the M-1 Carbine has an 18” barrel.

The entire NFA is a direct assault on the Bill of Rights, has no legal basis for even making it out of committee, and went against all of the Supreme Court Rulings on firearms possession cases from the century prior. The SBS and SBR provisions of 1934 would not hold up in a SCOTUS case if you took it there, simply citing a list of Supreme Court rulings that show how the Court recognized that the right to bear arms for self-protection and the protection of society is not granted nor restricted by men under US Law.

These recent stunts by ATF only highlight that. The moment you’re discussing whether or not another man is going to allow you to posses this or that type of arms, you no longer are working under US law.
 
That ATF agent you spoke with its simple misinformed and completely ignorant of Q’s SKU offerings. The ATF Boston office is the one thumbing its nose at its oversight committee in Congress and the WH by sending the Cease and Desist to Q, after having their pee-pees slapped repeatedly this year for doing what ATF is known for: regulating and ruling arbitrarily on specs with zero published standards.

Q Honey Badger SBR:

iu


Q Honey Badger Pistol:

iu


iu



As usual, may 1000 curses befall the ATF. May cancer eat their innards rapidly, and may the Constitution haunt them every time they look in the mirror.

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Also, the military doesn’t complain of poor performance from 14.5” guns. With M855, we get an average of 2920fps mv from a lightweight little carbine. How much velocity do you want? M193 averages over 3000fps from 14.5” guns.
I was just repeating what I was told. Didn't say I agreed with it or otherwise.
When I was forward deployed to Kuwait doing ammunition administration I had plenty of conversations in regards to short barrel rifles and the ineffectiveness of the 5.56.
M855 requires 2700 fps to reliably upset and yaw. When you're starting at 2900, that doesn't give you much range for RELIABLE terminal performance.
5.56 was designed around a 20 in barrel to meet specific requirements. Once you star chopping velocity, which happens VERY quickly once you go below 16", you lose energy and reduce the range for reliable upset. When you're talking about a marginal caliber to begin with it is a bad thing
 
...Also, the military doesn’t complain of poor performance from 14.5” guns. With M855, we get an average of 2920fps mv from a lightweight little carbine. How much velocity do you want? M193 averages over 3000fps from 14.5” guns.

Yes they do. On balance they thought about it and decided they like shorter guns (even armies carry more than shoot), so being an army have attacked it from the other side, and M855A1 is designed to have adequate terminal performance around (IIRC) 200 fps lower, which gives +/- the same performance range band as M855 out of a 20" gun. Also, other bullet weights for even shorter guns for some special units, etc.
 
I was just repeating what I was told. Didn't say I agreed with it or otherwise.
When I was forward deployed to Kuwait doing ammunition administration I had plenty of conversations in regards to short barrel rifles and the ineffectiveness of the 5.56.
M855 requires 2700 fps to reliably upset and yaw. When you're starting at 2900, that doesn't give you much range for RELIABLE terminal performance.
5.56 was designed around a 20 in barrel to meet specific requirements. Once you star chopping velocity, which happens VERY quickly once you go below 16", you lose energy and reduce the range for reliable upset. When you're talking about a marginal caliber to begin with it is a bad thing
I’ve personally seen multiple people who were shot with 5.56 NATO, not only in CENTCOM, but in Korea and Panama over a span of many years. I think the only 20” example I’ve seen was in Korea, since that was from a Daewoo K2 with the South Korean M855-produced ammo. It was at close range and canoe’d the NorK’s head. We got a detailed G2 debrief on the incident as well, with sequential photographs of the guy floating in the Imjin River with his arm outstretched from the water, down to him being stripped naked (to document his wearing of a South Korean uniform).

Me on the North side of the Imjin, Camp Greaves ROK, 1996. The NorK SF Scout Swimmer incident happened to the left of this picture’s FOV, down on the trail that was regularly-patrolled by ROK Army units. That bridge was called “Freedom Bridge”, which we had to rotate guard duties over in our Battalion. My Recon Platoon was on Bridge Guard when the incident occurred in much more temperate weather. This photo was obviously taken when it was winter.
iu


Years later, we had a guy from my unit in the 82nd that took 5.56 M855 from a short barrel after it blew through a thin wall, skipped off his SAPI plate, and turned his left ulna and radius into fragments, real heavy bleeder with traumatic avulsion of the tissues in his arm. I got to see his post-op X-Rays as well once we got back Stateside to Bragg, before he was medically-retired.

More importantly, I had access to a non-open source black book of US Army terminal ballistics studies that had far larger sample sizes of wounds, and also participated in some things on the medical side where you get to see what high velocity projectiles do on a regular basis.

Whether you’re shooting 7.62 NATO or 5.56, at a certain distance, they both will start to exhibit more of a through-and-through wound channel with minimal diameter to the permanent wound cavity. At the higher velocities up-close, they will do a lot more permanent disruption to tissue.

M855 has a penetrator design for helmets and light-skinned vehicles with the steel cone under the nose, but wound ballistics vary with it due to variations in jacket thickness uniformity lot-to-lot, and maker-to-maker (US vs some NATO and non-NATO nations, also with lot variations).

I have zero reservations about using M855 or M193 from short barrels. If your expectation is explosive terminal performance at distance, you’ll want to invest in a larger cartridge that starts out even faster with a BC and bullet weight that is more than twice that what is available in .224”. Just going to a 20” 5.56 only gives you 150yds for the arbitrary 2700fps impact speed.

With 14.5” M855 at 2920fps, you’ll have .357 Magnum 158gr/1250fps muzzle energy out to 330yds at sea level. You’ll have 9mm muzzle energy out to 400yds. That’s enough to penetrate a head or torso and kill.

At 100yds from the 14.5”, you still have 942ft-lbs of energy and 2617fps impact speed. Anytime you see impact speeds like that, you get yawing, but the yawing might happen deeper in the medium. If the medium isn’t that deep, then there will be more of a through-and-through hole effect. This is why some people don’t like M855 and prefer an expanding bullet design.

For that, you can use Barnes 70gr TSX, Gold Dots, whatever floats your boat. It does make sense to run the ballistics and know the projectile’s expansion velocity if you’re counting on that at certain distances. Short barrels do have an influence on that for sure. The frequent claims about 5.56 M855 from 14.5” guns is not so drastically different than 20” rifles to warrant the 20” guns in my opinion.
 
I’ve personally seen multiple people who were shot with 5.56 NATO, not only in CENTCOM, but in Korea and Panama over a span of many years. I think the only 20” example I’ve seen was in Korea, since that was from a Daewoo K2 with the South Korean M855-produced ammo. It was at close range and canoe’d the NorK’s head. We got a detailed G2 debrief on the incident as well, with sequential photographs of the guy floating in the Imjin River with his arm outstretched from the water, down to him being stripped naked (to document his wearing of a South Korean uniform).

Me on the North side of the Imjin, Camp Greaves ROK, 1996. The NorK SF Scout Swimmer incident happened to the left of this picture’s FOV, down on the trail that was regularly-patrolled by ROK Army units. That bridge was called “Freedom Bridge”, which we had to rotate guard duties over in our Battalion. My Recon Platoon was on Bridge Guard when the incident occurred in much more temperate weather. This photo was obviously taken when it was winter.
iu


Years later, we had a guy from my unit in the 82nd that took 5.56 M855 from a short barrel after it blew through a thin wall, skipped off his SAPI plate, and turned his left ulna and radius into fragments, real heavy bleeder with traumatic avulsion of the tissues in his arm. I got to see his post-op X-Rays as well once we got back Stateside to Bragg, before he was medically-retired.

More importantly, I had access to a non-open source black book of US Army terminal ballistics studies that had far larger sample sizes of wounds, and also participated in some things on the medical side where you get to see what high velocity projectiles do on a regular basis.

Whether you’re shooting 7.62 NATO or 5.56, at a certain distance, they both will start to exhibit more of a through-and-through wound channel with minimal diameter to the permanent wound cavity. At the higher velocities up-close, they will do a lot more permanent disruption to tissue.

M855 has a penetrator design for helmets and light-skinned vehicles with the steel cone under the nose, but wound ballistics vary with it due to variations in jacket thickness uniformity lot-to-lot, and maker-to-maker (US vs some NATO and non-NATO nations, also with lot variations).

I have zero reservations about using M855 or M193 from short barrels. If your expectation is explosive terminal performance at distance, you’ll want to invest in a larger cartridge that starts out even faster with a BC and bullet weight that is more than twice that what is available in .224”. Just going to a 20” 5.56 only gives you 150yds for the arbitrary 2700fps impact speed.

With 14.5” M855 at 2920fps, you’ll have .357 Magnum 158gr/1250fps muzzle energy out to 330yds at sea level. You’ll have 9mm muzzle energy out to 400yds. That’s enough to penetrate a head or torso and kill.

At 100yds from the 14.5”, you still have 942ft-lbs of energy and 2617fps impact speed. Anytime you see impact speeds like that, you get yawing, but the yawing might happen deeper in the medium. If the medium isn’t that deep, then there will be more of a through-and-through hole effect. This is why some people don’t like M855 and prefer an expanding bullet design.

For that, you can use Barnes 70gr TSX, Gold Dots, whatever floats your boat. It does make sense to run the ballistics and know the projectile’s expansion velocity if you’re counting on that at certain distances. Short barrels do have an influence on that for sure. The frequent claims about 5.56 M855 from 14.5” guns is not so drastically different than 20” rifles to warrant the 20” guns in my opinion.
Comparing the muzzle energy of pistol rounds and rifle rounds is not relevant.
While it might have the energy of a 9mm at 400 yards, it doesn't have the diameter of a 9mm.
It will have lost so much velocity that you won't get the massive cavitation that you do at closer ranges. Can it kill? Of course it can. But if I'm shooting such a light weight projectile, I'll take as much velocity as I can get.
Of course, the OP isn't even talking about 14.5", he is talking 5".
I do enjoy your perspective though.
I'm not saying a 14.5" is completely ineffective, but they are not as effective as longer barreled rifles attaining significantly higher velocities.
Hell, they were shooting Somalis using, primarily 20" rifles and there were MANY complaints about ineffectiveness.
 
Comparing the muzzle energy of pistol rounds and rifle rounds is not relevant.
While it might have the energy of a 9mm at 400 yards, it doesn't have the diameter of a 9mm.
It will have lost so much velocity that you won't get the massive cavitation that you do at closer ranges. Can it kill? Of course it can. But if I'm shooting such a light weight projectile, I'll take as much velocity as I can get.
Of course, the OP isn't even talking about 14.5", he is talking 5".
I do enjoy your perspective though.
I'm not saying a 14.5" is completely ineffective, but they are not as effective as longer barreled rifles attaining significantly higher velocities.
Hell, they were shooting Somalis using, primarily 20" rifles and there were MANY complaints about ineffectiveness.
The reports from Somalia were overblown by Matt Bowden's lack of perspective, zeroing-in on one shooter who wasn’t making his hits, that had complaints. Verified from Command and Control bird footage, that shooter was missing repeatedly.

How many Unit guys did Matt Bowden get access to versus guys from B Co, 3/75? Matt Bowden failed at “breadth" and “completeness" with that, but it was great story-telling to rivet the reader even more. Then came the M-14 aficionado gun rag articles.

Most of the 5.56 effective fire was being laid down by 14.5” 723s. No complaints.

1. SEA: The most desired shoulder-fired weapon in SOG was the 11.5” XM177E2, no complaints of terminal effectiveness.
2. Grenada: No complaints. If there had been, they would have asked for ammo changes.
3. Panama: No complaints. There were multiple stages of that operation where 5.56 Colt Commandos were employed effectively shooting M855.
4. Somalia: No complaints other than one guy who happens to get interviewed and his comments get put into Bowden’s book, Blackhawk Down.
5. Initial operations in Afghanistan: The main request was to augment 5.56 carbines with DMRs, both in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, not necessarily because of terminal performance, but effective range in more open and mountainous terrain. Several elements and organizations within DoD had already been working on what became the SPR and the 77gr Mk.262, as well as the SDMR.

What happened in the long run? Guys that could ended up using the match triggers from 18” SPRs, and shooting Mk.262 through free-floated 14.5” and 10.3” guns suppressed as part of SOPMOD Block II, with LPVOs. They went even shorter overall.

This has generated a lot more interest in AR-15 SBRs and pistols. I agree that 5.56 from 5” barrels is kinda ridiculous. Once you drop from 11.5” to 10”, the velocity loss curve really starts to dive, but 10” suppressed is very common among units that have been stacking corpses left and right for the better part of the last 2 decades.

The Unit went from 10” Hk416s to 11” Hk416A5s, so that might be worth considering. I personally really like 11.5”-12.5” 5.56 NATO.
 
Get a tax stamp and forget the flip flopping ATF. Don't believe all the BS about short barrels not shooting well, just be aware of the potential to damage to suppressors that aren't rated for the blast.

9" 300 BLK OUT
i-3RtLKPb-XL.jpg


10.5" .223
i-NtrGR4D-XL.jpg


Plus you throw whatever upper you want on there....

i-wTFPCJv-XL.jpg
 
Last edited:
This. Was at the range over the weekend and someone had a short , I think he said it was 7" I don't remember, 5.56/.223 AR and that little thing was loud as hell.
So I’m guessing a 7.5 inch 7.62x39 would be the express lane to hearing loss?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Badfinger
FWIW, staying off the 5" topic, here's my 12.5" + suppressor range card as glued to the top of the scope cover.
Screen Shot 2020-12-05 at 10.10.29.png

Multi-foot holdovers are hard so I rarely hit point targets with those, at least not right away but it tends to surprise the people who think 5.56 is short range and anything less than 16 is hopeless when I get easy hits at 3-400 yds. And I am not that great a shot.

(In the long long ago I shot a rifle match with a 9mm CALICO, and was successfully using a 10 ft holdover with a red dot, good scores on the targets hit, but... that took some planning).
 
FWIW, staying off the 5" topic, here's my 12.5" + suppressor range card as glued to the top of the scope cover.
View attachment 7492318
Multi-foot holdovers are hard so I rarely hit point targets with those, at least not right away but it tends to surprise the people who think 5.56 is short range and anything less than 16 is hopeless when I get easy hits at 3-400 yds. And I am not that great a shot.

(In the long long ago I shot a rifle match with a 9mm CALICO, and was successfully using a 10 ft holdover with a red dot, good scores on the targets hit, but... that took some planning).
Yes, making hits (on sils at least) with the short guns is pretty boring out to 300yds even with RDS.

You really should consider a 50 or 200yd zero with that one. That will be 1.3” high at 100yds with M855, 1.4” high with M193 even though the M193 is faster. BC of M193 gives it more arc due to rapid velocity loss.

Think partially-exposed targets and how your rounds will wizz over heads using the 300yd zero. The Army’s 25/300m zero is a really bad idea when it comes to zeros for that reason.

10.5” with Mk.262 just for illustration:

iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: long range sponge
That's a Maximum Point Blank Range zero, so theoretically as long a (12"?) point blank zone as I can get, because I had poor performance and weird holds trying the 25/200 zero with that particular gun. It just /happens/ to be close to zero at 300 m/yd, but I didn't do that on purpose.

Still got precision guns at 100 yd zero, most rifles at 25-ish / 200, but trying MPBR and it seems clever for some things like this.

ETA: for someone like me being a hobbyist so I do sorta everything with the gun as the fancy strikes me. I can imagine many jobs where you have friends with other guns, it would make much more sense to make the short carbine a better 0-200m gun, as you propose. Roles matter, indeed.
 
Last edited:
That's a Maximum Point Blank Range zero, so theoretically as long a (12"?) point blank zone as I can get, because I had poor performance and weird holds trying the 25/200 zero with that particular gun. It just /happens/ to be close to zero at 300 m/yd, but I didn't do that on purpose.

Still got precision guns at 100 yd zero, most rifles at 25-ish / 200, but trying MPBR and it seems clever for some things like this.

ETA: for someone like me being a hobbyist so I do sorta everything with the gun as the fancy strikes me. I can imagine many jobs where you have friends with other guns, it would make much more sense to make the short carbine a better 0-200m gun, as you propose. Roles matter, indeed.
What kind of scope are you using, and are you converting from inches to angular units and back to inches to make your hold overs? Wouldn’t listing holdovers in moa or mrad be easier?
 
1) none of us are shooting anything but paper past 25 yds with our SBRs/Pistols...debating the effectiveness of a 5.56 out to 300 yds with a SBR is mental masturbatory rambo fantasy.

2) at HD/ SD ranges...a 5.56 is going to do the exact same thing to a person whether its shot out of a 5" barrel, or a 20" barrel.

if the guy you shot at 15 yds is still walking after being shot with a 5" barrel......an extra 15" of barrel length isnt going to do anything for you.


fuck, reliability is FAR more important to discuss than the minutia of 5.56 ballistics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FishinGuns
I also have a 10.5” and have had great success with it with a brace. But I agree with everyone else, only put the brace on till my form 1 came back. For what it’s worth CMC has great barrels at the sub $200 price point.
 
So I’m guessing a 7.5 inch 7.62x39 would be the express lane to hearing loss?
I have a AKS74U with a 8.1 inch barrel. I could not imagine firing it in a enclosed space. Muzzle blast is impressive.
 
What kind of scope are you using, and are you converting from inches to angular units and back to inches to make your hold overs? Wouldn’t listing holdovers in moa or mrad be easier?
Good point also. This one is RDS + magnifier. The holds are in feet because I guesstimate based off target size, terrain features, etc.

For my dialable / millable scopes I keep it all in MRAD. As a short barrel example for the fun of it, here's the .300 subsonic where it stands now (not finished picking a load as you may expect due to timing, etc so just a working sheet, not taped to the gun yet). I can hold, or dial, in those units.
Screen Shot 2020-12-05 at 20.37.40.png



(And sometimes I get to "shoot" at people with FOF systems so use the same to aim but lasers don't drop so sadly I never get to practice holdover or see the effects of short barrel inaccuracy, etc. there)
 
1) none of us are shooting anything but paper past 25 yds with our SBRs/Pistols...debating the effectiveness of a 5.56 out to 300 yds with a SBR is mental masturbatory rambo fantasy.

2) at HD/ SD ranges...a 5.56 is going to do the exact same thing to a person whether its shot out of a 5" barrel, or a 20" barrel.

if the guy you shot at 15 yds is still walking after being shot with a 5" barrel......an extra 15" of barrel length isnt going to do anything for you.


fuck, reliability is FAR more important to discuss than the minutia of 5.56 ballistics.

Speak for yourself on #1. I hunt with my SBR 6.5 Grendel (although I agree to some extent in that I don't care what the terminal ballistics of FMJ 223 are because I have the option of using better bullets).

#2 is a pretty stupid claim and sounds like you don't understand terminal ballistics at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoobe01
Speak for yourself on #1. I hunt with my SBR 6.5 Grendel (although I agree to some extent in that I don't care what the terminal ballistics of FMJ 223 are because I have the option of using better bullets).

#2 is a pretty stupid claim and sounds like you don't understand terminal ballistics at all.
At the muzzle on a 6" pistol shooting 193, you are getting 2200 fps

That is the same velocity you are getting from a 20" barrel at 300yds

I've not heard one person argue a 20" rifle is ineffective at 300.....ever

So yes.....at 20 feet, it's not going to make any fucking difference wether you shot the guy with a 20" or a 6"......

Now shut the fuck up and stop acting like you know what you are talking about...frankly you sound like you are out of your league here pal
 
At the muzzle on a 6" pistol shooting 193, you are getting 2200 fps

That is the same velocity you are getting from a 20" barrel at 300yds

I've not heard one person argue a 20" rifle is ineffective at 300.....ever

So yes.....at 20 feet, it's not going to make any fucking difference wether you shot the guy with a 20" or a 6"......

Now shut the fuck up and stop acting like you know what you are talking about...frankly you sound like you are out of your league here pal

:rolleyes:
 
I say screw it. A 5.5 at sounds cool. I wouldn’t bet my life on it, but it sounds fun. I’d also skip the forum 1 on the lower unless you also assemble a non retarded length upper to live most of the time on it. but I would put a form one can on it just for fun. I also I wouldn’t spend a lot of money on it. I’d try and get it done for around 400$ For the upper total all in bcg and everything. Cut down a cheap m lock rail and put an eotech 512 or a holosun on it. Be sure to take videos of you shooting it at night unsupressed. And post them up! Also check out slr, they make stupid short l556 and even a 7.5 308 that they run full auto supressed. There is a video on their Instagram of it. It looks like they are running aac cans (if you’re gonna ruin a can might as well be aac)
 
The Sig MPX brace in 9mm or a DD4 in .300 blk both work well. I'd shoot subs and budget for a can. I wouldn't want to shoot supersonic (556) without a can.

I'd also add that shooting a short-barrel supersonic 5.56 with a suppressor is likely to drive the need to "tune" your AR with at least a heavier buffer and spring to keep the BCG from bottoming out hard, as the suppressor will make it significantly over-gassed, and it will run HARD. I've actually a piston-driven SBE 5.56 that would split the Spring Cup on the piston in less than 20 shots when shot with a suppressor.
 
So considering the political climate, do you think it makes sense to rush to SBR an existing AR pistol? I hate to voluntarily register and pay tax for anything. But I also wonder how long the Form 1 process might take if I wait until after ATF cracks down on braces, assuming they do so.
 
So considering the political climate, do you think it makes sense to rush to SBR an existing AR pistol? I hate to voluntarily register and pay tax for anything. But I also wonder how long the Form 1 process might take if I wait until after ATF cracks down on braces, assuming they do so.
i would have at least 1 SBR and 1 pistol.....that way your bases are covered.

i wouldnt rush to SBR all my pistol builds though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo_K
Go Form 1 SBR. the shortest 5.56 I'll do is a 11.5", shortest 300AAC i'd do is probably a 9". If it's home defense you better suppress it or if you ever have to pull the trigger inside you'll be nearly flash-banging yourself.
 
Go Form 1 SBR. the shortest 5.56 I'll do is a 11.5", shortest 300AAC i'd do is probably a 9". If it's home defense you better suppress it or if you ever have to pull the trigger inside you'll be nearly flash-banging yourself.
-
SBR . Go to the Dark Side, ... LOL .. 8.5" barrel and fold stock Krink , with 5.45x39
.
 
The AKSU-74's 8-ish" barrel was driven by space requirements, gave marginal performance even with an increased twist rate, due to loss of velocity mostly. Note the current carbine verson, the AK104, has a ~12.5" barrel. Hmmm... almost like 22-ish caliber projectiles all have to follow the same laws of physics or something :LOL:
 
Consider a Tavor. Sort of the AK of bullpups, they're super reliable, super simple, well thought out weapons. This one is 9mm, comes in 5.56, .300blk and there are conversion kits for all 3. SAR is the older one, the one I have (but it integrates the laser switch on the Mepro MOR into the handguard, had one already so had to have it...). Compared to an 11.5" SBR, it has a 17"bbl. and of course far more energy. In 9mm, it pretty much maxes what the round is capable of and +P+ hit pretty fucking hard. It's also a serious defensive weapon, not a toy, and it's not all that expensive for a used SAR. $1350 is what I paid for this one earlier in the year. Less than that SBR cost to build. It's "accurate enough", it'll do 4" at 100. Probably in 9mm too, I haven't tried. Little recoil, easy to manage, nice little rifle. I love mine, got it as a 9mm toy, now I want the 5.56 conversion since it actually sees use.

And it doesn't require a tax stamp.

IMG_1289.JPG


Only upside to the brace bullshit is it allows me to carry that weapon loaded in the vehicle or concealed --technically it's a pistol. But I never expected that to last for as long as it did.
 
+1 on the Tavor. I also have the earlier SAR and it is a great gun. Very reliable and fun to shoot. It takes a while to get comfortable with the layout if you're used to an AR, but not really that hard to pick up. Takes AR mags, which is nice. They are a little heavy, but most of the weight is at the rear, which makes them very easy to handle and shoot offhand. Smaller than a lot of SBR's but with a 16" barrel.

Honestly, I think some of the accuracy issues is that they are hard to bench. With ammo it likes you should be able to get at least 2 MOA.

I do think they require a couple of upgrades though. The stock trigger (especially in the SAR) sucks. Geissele makes a pretty good replacement trigger, and it just drops in so installing it is a snap. Of course, it's expensive. Also, as you can see from the above picture, rail is basically even with the top of the stock. This means you're going to need a very high mount, or to add a separate picatinny rail to the top of the existing rail to mount optics to - at least if you have a fat face like me.
 
-
20 inch OAL on the fold

-
Oh yeah, they are short, and short things are fun. But just imagine if the Soviets had not cheapened out (by going with tiny service rifle) and adopted something more like the original concepts. THIS takes full power 5.45. Yeah, magazine as pistol grip (I assume for stowage as a PDW most of all. Nothing sticks down):
ao_46-tm-tfb.jpg


To keep more on topic: that would be so worth a Form 1. I have put light thought into getting a B&T USW because man that's a neat solution, and not deadly flashy. But lots of money for basically a toy as far as I'd use it.