Author Topic: 'Nuff said...for now...  (Read 13748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3722
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2014, 04:47:05 AM »

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18808
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2014, 06:33:46 PM »
BREN officially released today, just under $2K MSRP.

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3722
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2014, 05:35:32 PM »
Just saw this today:
http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/breaking-atf-issues-new-opinion-letter-stating-that-shouldering-sig-brace-is-illegal/
Quote
BREAKING: ATF Issues New Opinion Letter Stating That Shouldering Sig Brace Could Be Illegal
DECEMBER 26 2014
[...]
However, several recent letters, including the one that just emerged in the last 24 hours, tends to show that the ATF is changing their tune on shouldering arm braces.
Here is the letter in question which was posted AR15.com earlier today (however the letter seems to be from November). Note paragraph 5 of the 2nd page:
[...]
Quote
The Sig Sauer SB-15 pistol stabilizing brace is designed so 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.  As designed, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand  Consequently, a Sig SB-15 shoting brace is not designed or intended for firing a weapon from the shoulder.

Consequently, the attachment of the SB-15 to an AR-type pistol alone; would not change the classification of the pistol to an SBR.  However, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, thus designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon design to be fired from the shoulder; this assembly would constitute the making of a "rifle" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(7).
[...]
Further, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, in the designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder, which incorporates a barrel length of less than 16 inches; this assemble would constitute the making of a "a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length"; an NFA firearm as defined in 26 U.S.C., Section 5845(a)(3).
[...]
It would seem that all recent letters to the ATF are getting a similar response in regards to braces ? the ATF isn?t cool with it.
[...]
Once again, these are just opinion letters. The real test would come in a criminal court if someone was caught shouldering an AR pistol and arrested.

Click through for more: http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/breaking-atf-issues-new-opinion-letter-stating-that-shouldering-sig-brace-is-illegal/

Alpha Sierra

  • Guest
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2014, 12:37:10 AM »
BREN officially released today, just under $2K MSRP.
DOA when I can have a Tavor for $400 less

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18808
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2014, 12:09:02 PM »
Serious problem if the SiG Brace is now illegal to shoulder. If so, it will be NFA toy only for those who can afford to SBR the gun. I'd still love to do that...but highly unlikely, as the extra $200 plsu who knows what the original stock would cost as an extra.

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3722
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2014, 09:33:17 PM »
Yep, and to have any stock or shoulder any "pistol" would also appear to make it a rifle under the latest letters as well -- which as you pointed out would require 922r, since SBRing any weapon, be it pistol or rifle, is for all intents "manufacturing" a new weapon -- and 922r is required at the manufacture phase of the process...

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18808
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2014, 01:13:22 PM »
Oddly enough, another website is stating that the ATFE refusal letter was for ONE pistol, because the individual was stupid enough to brag to ATFE that he was bending the rules to "make" and SBR and there wasn't anything they could do about it...so ATFE declared THAT pistol to be an NFA SBr...it sounds like something ATFE would do, with their non-existent rule book.

No, don't have to fool around 922(r), as an NFA firearm is exempt from 922(r). A GCA non NFA imported rifle has to qualify under 922(r), but not a pistol, so once you've gotten your completed Form 1 and paid for tax stamp delivered, it's no longer under the purview of 922(r).

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3722
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #22 on: December 30, 2014, 03:58:13 PM »
That's not accurate.  My understanding is that the NFA exemption only applies to full auto weapons, not semi-auto SBRs...  B/c they are either military/le/ffl or pre-ban for both full auto and non-sporting restrictions...  Here's the exact code being referenced, 922r and the sporting test:

Quote
Finally, the GCA, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(r), specifically states the following:
Quote
It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under the?[GCA]?Section 925(d)(3).as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes ?.
Also, 27 C.F.R. ? 478.39 states:
Quote
(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes ?.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the provisions of [?478.151(formerly 178.151)]; or (3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the replacement of any part of such firearm.

As a result of a 1989 study by the U.S. Treasury Department regarding the importability of certain firearms, an import ban was placed on military-style firearms. This ban included not only military-type firearms, but also extended to firearms with certain features that were considered to be ?nonsporting.?
Among such nonsporting features were the ability to accept a detachable magazine; folding/telescoping stocks; separate pistol grips; and the ability to accept a bayonet, flash suppressors, bipods, grenade launchers, and night sights.
Please note that the foreign parts kits that are sold through commercial means are usually cut up machineguns, such as Russian AK-47 types, British Sten types, etc. Generally, an acceptable semiautomatic copy of a machinegun is one that has been significantly redesigned. The receiver must be incapable of accepting the original fire-control components that are designed to permit full automatic fire. The method of operation should employ a closed-bolt firing design that incorporates an inertia-type firing pin within the bolt assembly.
Further, an acceptably redesigned semiautomatic copy of nonsporting firearm must be limited to using less than 10 of the imported parts listed in 27 CFR ? 478.39(c). Otherwise, it is considered to be assembled into a nonsporting configuration per the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3) and is thus a violation of ? 922(r).
Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

Basically, 922r was designed to make "non-importable," "illegal" firearms "legal" by having the sum of parts at a sufficient quantity so that the ATF determined them to be of "domestic manufacture" which means these foreign-built guns no longer have to pass the "sporting" test and accordingly allows them to largely exist in their original dress/specs...

922r doesn't apply for pistols but does apply to shotguns and rifles -- yes, semi-auto, but full auto aren't importable by but a few specially licensed/permitted civilians regardless...

From the horse's mouth:
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 04:14:54 PM by RSR »

Offline Franz Maurer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
  • http://youtu.be/dtUdllX5Vpo
    • http://youtu.be/dtUdllX5Vpo
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2014, 10:55:20 PM »
G36



SCAR-L



BREN 805



*And I'm using the flash hider size relative to barrels as my reference point since can't see these side by side w/ exact proportions.

It would be nice to see a good comparison between the bren805 and  the msbs

75B .40 ; P-01 ; kadet2 ; '94 witness .45 - slim nose 1of999 ; samopal vz.58 ; tin foil hat.

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3722
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2015, 07:39:44 PM »
Can't say I'm a fan of the MSBS -- way too much polymer, especially in the other than black versions where its harder to see what's what:






And bear in mind the reason for polymer is that it's cheap and light -- and much easier to produce than aluminum or other similar alloy that requires skill and materials wear out machining, opening up tolerances if not carefully controlled...

Good list of next gen assault rifles -- some wrong info, but fairly complete list nonetheless:
http://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/2014/03/01/the-assault-rifles-of-the-near-future-2-updated/

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18808
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2015, 11:04:03 PM »
Never heard of the MBS, news to me. Odd looking firearm... :o The only bullpup that appeale to me, modern version, is the Tavor. Old style would be the old Bushmaster M-17S...always liked that thing, no idea why.

Now we have to wait with eager anticipation for the BREN 805 authorized RIFLE...c'mon, Santa! 8) ;D

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3722
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2015, 01:44:38 AM »
Bullpups I feel are only necessary if you have a specific type of ammo you have to use, like 5.56...  If they had the option of 300BLK for a service rifle (ballistically similar to 7.62x39), that cartridge burns all powder w/in 9inches of barrel vs 5.56 that requires 20" of barrel to burn all the powder...  So a 9" AR would be ~27.3" stock collapsed and 30" stock extended. 

The Tavor w/ 15" barrel runs 25.2", w/ 13" barrel runs 23.2" (why bother with a bullpup w/ that barrel length as you lose ergos and lose velocity/ballistics as well as get all the blast/flash that's mitigated w/ a longer barrel weapon?).
The Tavor w/ 18" barrel runs 28.3", 20" barrel (not sure if offered) would run 30.3", so there aren't substantial size gains if you can customize the your weapon/cartridge to your needs.. 

The main advantage of the tavor over similar bullpups is the super sabra trigger... 

And the operating system of the Tavor reminds me of the AR18, ACR, etc.  In this family, the 2nd Gen Masterpiece Arms 5.56 really strikes my interest.  Probably something about it being all metal ...
Quote
What is more, its manufacture process was much cheaper than AR-15, due to the mass use of deformed and spot welded sheets, without complicated procedures like pressure casting and milling. Despite all these advantages, it has never replaced AR-15 in the US armed forces. One of the reasons was that its full auto mode was somewhat unreliable and required further refinement. This didn?t stop constructors to experiment and use this system in many newer rifles like Steyr AUG, SA-80, SAR-80/RS-88, Howa Type-89, Bushmaster M17, G36 and almost all western rifles of today.

On trials for Australian Army?s new assault rifle, which would replace the obsolete L1A1, the main competitors were Austrian AUG and Australian-made AR-18, designated T2 and produced by Leader Dynamics. The winner was AUG, which was then produced in Australia under the name of F88. T2 Mk5 was produced as a semi-auto rifle for the civilian market until 1996. The American company ?Masterpiece Arms?, which became famous for its M10 and M11 machine pistols, based its MPAR-556 rifle on the Australian model T4.

http://stateofguns.com/mpar-556-homecoming-ar-18-1983/

On Gen2: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/12/second-generation-mpar-556-rifle/
« Last Edit: January 02, 2015, 01:56:51 AM by RSR »

Offline Franz Maurer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
  • http://youtu.be/dtUdllX5Vpo
    • http://youtu.be/dtUdllX5Vpo
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2015, 11:03:15 AM »
Can't say I'm a fan of the MSBS -- way too much polymer, especially in the other than black versions where its harder to see what's what:

I'm pretty sure the amount of polymer is about the same as on 805 that being the lower only, well and the stock...
The short stroke upper is all aluminum and steel

As for the 300 blk , that round makes sense only in subsonic variety with heavy bullets and suppressed
Otherwise it's got nothing on 7.62x39
You can load x39 with same fast powder
75B .40 ; P-01 ; kadet2 ; '94 witness .45 - slim nose 1of999 ; samopal vz.58 ; tin foil hat.

Alpha Sierra

  • Guest
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2015, 11:01:39 PM »
G36 = a failure in real world service
SCAR = who uses that?
BREN = almost zero real world operational record
TAVOR = battle proven by arguably the most successful and combat-experienced army of modern times

A bullpup has the dominating advantage of not needing to be SBR'd to make it compact, concealable, and maneuverable indoors.

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18808
Re: 'Nuff said...for now...
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2015, 06:35:45 PM »
I agree, but the BREN is getting battle experience right now in the sand boxes. It is going through it's teething times.
Tavor is really nifty, and I'd love to try one, but the price tag there is prohibitive.
I still wanna try the BREN 805 S1 rifle, if they can get it US civilian legal.

 

anything