AR pistols

[Rocketgeezer]

Rich Kid, I did refute one basis of your arguments, that being that Thompson-LaGarde was a 'rigorous scientific test'.

You're correct: The M16 was not a good weapon as it was introduced in Vietnam. You are not correct: That it is still not a good weapon.

It, unlike you, has developed. It, unlike you, has moved well beyond its past mistakes. It, unlike you, has come into the modern age.

Stop living in the past. Discard the old notions. It's better than it was, far better than it was. Acknowledge that or remain shrouded by history. The rest of us, in the meantime, will consider and evaluate what is today and not what was yesterday.

If you choose not to move forward, I for one will be quite pleased to leave you behind.

Oh boy, now your really going to piss him off, your using common sense

 

[K7lvo]

Is everyone that doesn't follow your herd of sheep a troll? As always I am amazed at the woefully inadequate weapons many if you are willing to bet your lives on.

I'm still waiting for you to join a thread without coming off like a condescending smarta$$...

 

[K7lvo]

That's assuming you're using an AR chambered in .223
I'm using an AR pistol with an 8" barrel in .300 AAC for home defense, and it's quite a capable firearm out to 100 yards, which is far beyond any distance inside my home, and about the ragne from my home to the street that delineates the end of my property line. I'm considering going with a suppressor on that gun when I convert it to an SBR. If the supporessor is integral, I'll only need to tax stamp the suppressor, since the barrel will end up being 16" with the suppressor.

No, troll. Plenty of people disagree with me on a great number of topics on this forum, and so far, you're one of the only trolls I've encountered. Christ, you're not even very good at it. Are you even trying?

If the barrel is >16" won't it be too long to be a pistol, and need a stock to make it a rifle?

 

[GlassWolf]

If the barrel is >16" won't it be too long to be a pistol, and need a stock to make it a rifle?

I think you missed the part where I mentioned adding the suppressor after converting the pistol to an SBR, which requires waiting on the tax stamp for the suppressor. If that suppressor is removeable, and the barrel is under 16", then it would need two tax stamps.

 

[Warbirds]

K7lvo, I am not aware of any law or regulation that dictates a maximum barrel length for a pistol.

Glass you are really pigeon holeing yourself with that particular suppressor. It won't handle 308 pressures or any other large caliber, and I wonder if it could even handle 223. It's an interesting idea, but I went with a full 308 suppressor with a quick detach mount so I can use it on any caliber below 300 magnum except .22 . The money you will save on not going the SBR route you will pay in the cost of other suppressors and tax stamps. Like I said, to reach their own, but I went with a more economical route in the long run.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[GlassWolf]

Well, good point of course, but firstly, an AR-10 (.308) is an entirely different receiver/rifle.. It's not like I could just swap barrels or even upper receivers on an AR-15 platform and go to a .308. I'd have to spend about 2 to 3 grand to put a -10 together. That said though, keep in mind I was considering welding the supressor to the barrel, so using it on a different gun, or even chambering isn't really an option at that point either. It just really annoys me that the government believes you should pay them $200 for each and every supressor and SBR you want to own. This especially annoys me because by black letter law, the NFA/federal firearms act doesn't even apply to you and me, unless we happen to be on property owned exclusively by the federal government, or ceded to the fed by a state for use as a battery, arsenal, or compound. For personal ownership in a sovereign state, the law doesn't apply.. yet the courts won't even hear such argument, because the courts are bought and paid for by the same government you'd be fighting against. signed and sealed corruption. The other irritating thing is not being able to use a vertical foregrip on an AR pistol without making it an NFA controlled "AOW." That was another reason I considered building an SBR.

 

[Warbirds]

Well, good point of course, but firstly, an AR-10 (.308) is an entirely different receiver/rifle.. It's not like I could just swap barrels or even upper receivers on an AR-15 platform and go to a .308. I'd have to spend about 2 to 3 grand to put a -10 together. That said though, keep in mind I was considering welding the supressor to the barrel, so using it on a different gun, or even chambering isn't really an option at that point either. It just really annoys me that the government believes you should pay them $200 for each and every supressor and SBR you want to own. This especially annoys me because by black letter law, the NFA/federal firearms act doesn't even apply to you and me, unless we happen to be on property owned exclusively by the federal government, or ceded to the fed by a state for use as a battery, arsenal, or compound. For personal ownership in a sovereign state, the law doesn't apply.. yet the courts won't even hear such argument, because the courts are bought and paid for by the same government you'd be fighting against. signed and sealed corruption. The other irritating thing is not being able to use a vertical foregrip on an AR pistol without making it an NFA controlled "AOW." That was another reason I considered building an SBR.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Being able to move a suppressor from rifle to rifle can save a lot of money. It is common for people to but a suppressor in .45 and use it in lower calibers the same it is to buy a 308 and use it on multiple rifles.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[GlassWolf]

yes, but my initial point was that by affixing the supressor to the barrel permanently, it would, in reality be a supressed SBR, but it wouldn't require two separate tax stamps.