Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

This is interesting.. how, what is the trick here. I need a refund from the ATF.

https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2018/01 ... -approval/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

11.5" Barrel and conventional stock AR with no NFA stamp required..

Press release
http://mailchi.mp/franklinarmory/press- ... 41878c05c5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I’ll admit, I am intrigued.

One of the more plausible speculations I've seen is a twisted oval cross section to the bore so it isn't "rifled" in the traditional sense. Here's an article describing a cartridge based on this bore type:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... -tkm-news/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My bet is that it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder, and therefore is not a "rifle". Not sure this would then not be a pistol, but whatever. It sounds like a similar case to the Shockwave firearm that is not a shotgun.

marca wrote:My bet is that it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder, and therefore is not a "rifle".

It has a standard rifle stock, so by definition it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.

I'll wait and see how this plays out. And then I'll build my own.

As with many others, I'm completely intrigued by this offering: scratching my head at what Franklin could have exploited as the loop-hole.

Just remember: What the BATFE approveth, the BATFE can later denieth.

Personally I'm not enamored of AR/AK pistols much at all. Too noisy and muzzle flashy. The SBR is a little bit better idea, but not enough for me to justify the time and hassle of approval.

The press release says they have, "received approval as a non-rifle" from ATF. They've found some loophole like the Shockwave, as others have suggested. Also, as others have suggested, just because ATF approved it today doesn't mean they un-approve it later (see: bumpstocks). No thanks... I'll keep my SBRs...

How about we get Congress to do away with the whole SBR/SBS silliness? Should anyone care how long a barrel is?

So, I guess it has straight grooves instead of twist rifling. Sounds like they got 3-4 MOA at 100yds with it, good enough I guess for what it's intended for. I also read that Franklin is working on special ammo for it. Projectile looks like a nerf football with fins.

Dave Shooter wrote:How about we get Congress to do away with the whole SBR/SBS silliness? Should anyone care how long a barrel is?

There are people that care about that issue. The anti gun crowd already wants "assault pistols" that take so called large capacity magazines banned, because they think people will conceal them easily, sneak into someplace, and commit mass murder or armed robberies. They also don't like folding stocks or bullpup rifles either. In fact, they'll tell you that the current reg's aren't enough, and we need even more. How to deal with one gun being legal, and the other restricted? In their minds restrict the legal one also. I've found from personal experience that they don't care about hearing facts or logic in regards to this topic.

M-Quigley wrote:

Dave Shooter wrote:How about we get Congress to do away with the whole SBR/SBS silliness? Should anyone care how long a barrel is?

There are people that care about that issue. The anti gun crowd already wants "assault pistols" that take so called large capacity magazines banned, because they think people will conceal them easily, sneak into someplace, and commit mass murder or armed robberies. They also don't like folding stocks or bullpup rifles either. In fact, they'll tell you that the current reg's aren't enough, and we need even more. How to deal with one gun being legal, and the other restricted? In their minds restrict the legal one also. I've found from personal experience that they don't care about hearing facts or logic in regards to this topic.

Maybe I should have asked whether anyone in their right mind should care.
A gun is a gun is a gun. Even some of the antis understand that (they won't admit it). Hence their long term goal to control everything, including muzzleloaders.

JustaShooter wrote:One of the more plausible speculations I've seen is a twisted oval cross section to the bore so it isn't "rifled" in the traditional sense. Here's an article describing a cartridge based on this bore type:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... -tkm-news/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So ATF is willing to split hairs on what constitutes "rifling"? Then why not a polygonal barrel? And are we talking about really expensive, specialized ammunition?

The ATF doesn't generally approve an "exception" unless there is a major downside. Some folks think it's cool that they can have a pseudo-SBR with a SIG Brace or a Shockwave Blade that kinda, sorta looks like a real buttstock, but functionally speaking, both are garbage. I think that's why ATF allows that.

dingode wrote:So, I guess it has straight grooves instead of twist rifling. Sounds like they got 3-4 MOA at 100yds with it, good enough I guess for what it's intended for. I also read that Franklin is working on special ammo for it. Projectile looks like a nerf football with fins.

The video I saw had a FA rep say 4-5 MOA at 50 yards, and the nerf-bullet is needed to get additional range (I doubt they can get better accuracy).

For the price of that thing, you'd be better off spending the tax stamp on a reciever and buying a completed pistol upper to slap on it