SBS/SBS or Automatic


PDA






Ragnar Danneskjold
September 27, 2010, 01:38 AM
If you could choose to have one prohibition stricken from both Federal and all state laws today, choosing between either the ban on the importation of automatic weapons/having to pay the tax to purchase OR the ban/tax on short barreled rifles and shotguns, which would you choose. Basically, if you could have one or the other become totally unregulated overnight, which would you rather have?

If you enjoyed reading about "SBS/SBS or Automatic" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PTK
September 27, 2010, 01:42 AM
Undoing the Hughes Amendment in the 1986 FOPA would be my choice. I figure you meant that, not "importation" of MGs, since even if we could import those we couldn't own them due to the Hughes Amendment. ;)

Ragnar Danneskjold
September 27, 2010, 01:58 AM
I'm not trying to be super specific with statutes and case laws here. There are a lot of restrictions on various government levels on guns that can shoot more than once per trigger pull. There are a lot of restrictions at various government levels on rifles and shotguns that have barrel lengths less than 16 or 18 inches. If you could all of a sudden just go to a gun shop and buy either an SBR/SBS or a MG with about as much hassle and paperwork as it takes to buy any old hunting rifle, which would you choose?

Gord
September 27, 2010, 02:07 AM
I'd rather have free reign over SBR and SBS mods. I can think of a lot of practical and just-plain-fun applications for shortened barrels or stock kits for handguns, sans $200 tax. I'd chop my 870 down to 14" this instant if I could.

Full-auto, on the other hand, just makes me wince at the thought of ammo costs. Besides, I can't see why I'd ever want anything more than a Lage-11, and those are only, what, $6k or so? That really isn't too bad. I'd pay that and likely will someday.

Of course, suppressors should be added as an option as well.

PTK
September 27, 2010, 02:09 AM
Okay, it's just that your original question seemed to specifically address the importation of MGs.

From a practicality standpoint, I'd say MGs would be best off being completely unregulated - give the citizens back our teeth, is all.... ;)

TheCol.U.S.M.C.
September 27, 2010, 02:18 AM
Full Auto all the way

Ragnar Danneskjold
September 27, 2010, 02:33 AM
As for me, I would prefer SBR/SBS. There are so many more weapon configurations that open up if the restrictions were lifted. Having a compact carbine in the trunk of a car, or a small shotgun inside a backpack. Even just being able to put a standard Glock into a stock system for extra support and accuracy. As a .mil guy, I do get the option to use select fire weapons at training, and honestly, full-auto is pretty useless outside of vehicle mounted crew served weapons. And that's with essentially unlimited ammunition. As a civilian, even if I had an M4 with 3rd burst or FA, I would never use it. It really is just a fast way to burn through mags with little value in combat. I personally see the utility of a small carbine that one can conceal or wield easily indoors to be of greater practical value.

Rail Driver
September 27, 2010, 03:32 AM
I say SBS/SBR. I'd love to get a 10" upper and put it on my rifle without paperwork, wait times, and $200. (no discussions about constructive possession and all that crud please, this is a hypothetical)

PTK
September 27, 2010, 04:58 AM
As a .mil guy, I do get the option to use select fire weapons at training, and honestly, full-auto is pretty useless outside of vehicle mounted crew served weapons. And that's with essentially unlimited ammunition.

...which is why, of course, almost no military forces currently deployed by the USA or any other modern country have full-auto weapons in each and every person's hands. ;)

LHRGunslinger
September 27, 2010, 06:26 AM
I'd like to see some parts of the Clinton-Yeltsin trade agreement removed so I could get my hands on the MP412 REX. A .357 Magnum top-break revolver.

Shytheed Dumas
September 27, 2010, 07:29 AM
When it comes to pure inexpensive fun, it would be very hard to beat a full auto .22 and I would own one immediately if the silly restrictive laws were lifted.

CHEVELLE427
September 27, 2010, 08:53 AM
I had to go with the short barrel guns,
I cant fork out 5-15k for an automatic,
But I can take a saw to my old shotgun.

41magsnub
September 27, 2010, 09:06 AM
Having to pick one..MG definitely.. the costs would go way down. They are only high right now due to the artificial limited supply enforced by the Hughes amendment. After everything shook out I imagine a full auto AR-15 would only be a little more than a semi-auto one, and even then just because of the novelty of it since the MFG costs are the same either way. SBR/SBS/suppressors are not THAT hard to get right now. Annoying, but not difficult.

Additionally, there would be new makes and models available which we haven't seen in the US for a long time.

forindooruseonly
September 27, 2010, 09:32 AM
There should be a suppressor option, to me that is the most annoying of the regulated items. Other than that I voted MGs because of the limited supply. Open it up and make it cheap. I can build an SBS anytime but there are no new machine guns entering the registry, but more and more shooters interested in them.

CleverNickname
September 27, 2010, 11:59 AM
Machine guns have no barrel length or OAL limits so you could have both by just getting the laws on machine guns removed. Well, I guess single shot or manually operated SBRs or SBSes would still be restricted...

As for ammo costs, it's called "select fire" for a reason.

DoubleTapDrew
September 27, 2010, 01:36 PM
^ that was my thoughts. MG overrides length restrictions.
I had to go with the short barrel guns,
I cant fork out 5-15k for an automatic,
But I can take a saw to my old shotgun.
Remove the Hughes amendment and they'll be back down to the same price as semi-auto variants. The reason they are so expensive is the artificial supply cap due to that amendment (that apparently didn't pass but they stuck it in the FOPA anyway, thanks a lot guys :fire:).

TraditionalCatholic
September 27, 2010, 01:51 PM
Would have to vote for select fire weapons. It would be very nice to be able to purchase a brand spankin' new full auto off the shelf at a dealer.

waterhouse
September 27, 2010, 02:22 PM
I have little to no desire to own a full auto. I've shot a lot of them, and always had a good time, but I wouldn't want to pay for the ammo. I do love the full auto .22 conversion ARs, but given the choice I'd still pick shorter barrels.

As for ammo costs, it's called "select fire" for a reason.

This is true, but since I wouldn't choose to use the full auto feature I'd prefer to have shorter barrels, which I do find useful.

It isn't worth $200 tax to me to go from 18" to 14", but if the barrel cost was the only issue I'd already have a 14" barrel for my shotgun.

Given the choice, my first pick would be no laws on suppressors, then SBS/SBR, then full auto.

CHEVELLE427
September 27, 2010, 02:56 PM
full auto would be tons of fun, but i would run through my ammo stash a hurry,
like shooting a 22, once i start i don't want to stop. for some reason running 10 fast rounds out of that ruger just feels good :D

dovedescending
September 27, 2010, 03:08 PM
SBR/SBS. I think a few super-portable "long" guns would be just the ticket.

desidog
September 27, 2010, 09:46 PM
Um, all of the above?

I'm surprised that no-one has used Heller yet as a means to legalize barrels of any size.

My interpretation of 2A is that civilians should have firearms to rival an oppressive government; which in this day and age is a moot point since fighter jets and ICBMs have changed the game since the flintlock...so yes to F/A as well.

Further, I imagine that my neighbors would like me more if i had a suppressor. In Europe it's rude to bang away at the range and force the guy in the next lane to double up on his hearing-protection; and being next to a guy with a big muzzle brake is just plain not fun.

I think the only way this will happen is after the next revolution...Design revolution that is. All us gun-toters will be laughed at by the guy with the +/-40 Watt Phased-Pulse Plasma Rifle. I mean, the military standard M16/M4-design is older than the majority of the guys in the military who use it. A lot of the lower receivers too.

Hanzo581
September 27, 2010, 10:33 PM
I don't know a whole lot about the laws here, but wouldn't allowing full auto without special paperwork a much more substantial change? Right now unless you are well off you can't afford a MG, but anyone willing to fork over $200 can buy a SBR fairly cheap right?

41magsnub
September 27, 2010, 10:35 PM
I'll explain my position another way. I can have any sort of SBS/SBR/Suppressor I want (as long as it does not stray into MG territory) with some hassle and a $200 tax stamp. However, I cannot have an MG MFG'd after 1986.

Ragnar Danneskjold
September 27, 2010, 10:46 PM
Right now unless you are well off you can't afford a MG, but anyone willing to fork over $200 can buy a SBR fairly cheap right?

Ha. I wish.

devildog32713
September 27, 2010, 11:32 PM
To me it seems best to keep the regulation on laws with machine guns, BUT, do away with the machine gun had to have been manufactured before May 1986, that rule makes no sense, doesn't help anyone except Brady

Gord
September 27, 2010, 11:50 PM
What several of you seem to be missing is that if MGs were to become unregulated, it's highly doubtful they'd then retain their exemption from SBR status as well.

mboylan
September 28, 2010, 04:25 AM
.....

mboylan
September 28, 2010, 04:27 AM
...which is why, of course, almost no military forces currently deployed by the USA or any other modern country have full-auto weapons in each and every person's hands. ;)
Almost all M4s in combat are used as semi-automatics.

rfurtkamp
September 28, 2010, 06:26 AM
What several of you seem to be missing is that if MGs were to become unregulated, it's highly doubtful they'd then retain their exemption from SBR status as well.


Assuming the fantasy world of this scenario came to pass, existing case law and regulations would still apply in practice - meaning OAL and barrel length would be moot if on the books as a machinegun.

Furthermore, some autos would become cheaper than their semi counterparts - open bolt guns, for instance, are far easier and cheaper to build and design, and military surplus designs would be even cheaper since no hoops or re-engineering would have to be done.

Even if the hoops were present for SBR/SBS but MGs were kosher, sign me up for my $1k full-auto that I had to pay a $200 accessory tax on to have a < 16" barrel.

And the ugly final truth if this fantasy land came to pass: go machinegun all the way - think surplus M16s and M14s and the like through CMP.

TexasRifleman
September 28, 2010, 09:43 AM
Well of course I'd like to see them all go but if I was forced to choose one thing we could get out of NFA today it would be suppressors.

The shooting sports face lots of opponents especially in more urban areas. Ranges all over the country are being forced to close as homes move in closer and closer. People move in next to airports and shooting ranges where the land is cheap then immediately begin complaining about the noise.

We should all be able to buy suppressors at Wal Mart (hi Justin) and every place else that sells firearm accessories.

Suppressors shouldn't be viewed any differently than earmuffs, they are a simple safety device.

huntsman
September 28, 2010, 10:41 AM
The SBS is all I could afford.

Gord
September 28, 2010, 01:32 PM
Anyone have an idea what suppressors would likely cost after deregulation?

I know they're still pretty expensive in Europe. Unfortunately, I just can't see American shooters going out in droves to spend $300+ on suppressors in order to be good neighbors and protect our rights - too many idjits who'd ignore the reality and just say "aw, screw it, we was here first." Ranges would have to implement rules requiring suppressor use (which might not be a bad idea, actually - they could even rent 'em).

41magsnub
September 28, 2010, 02:29 PM
I have to think they would go down dramatically once it all shook out. Right now it is a niche market, if they were wide open then more manufactures would make them creating more competition. When the sporting goods stores start stocking suppressors and firearms MFGs start making them stock or providing for attachment of suppressors without a trip to the gunsmith then the economy of scale will kick in on the pricing.

waterhouse
September 28, 2010, 02:43 PM
Unfortunately, I just can't see American shooters going out in droves to spend $300+ on suppressors in order to be good neighbors and protect our rights

I don't know if they would do it to be good neighbors or protect rights, but I bet a lot of people would buy them because they are fun. A lot of people who shoot my suppressed guns end up getting a suppressor. I actually bought a .22 from a friend so that he could put the money towards the tax on his can. IOW, at least some people are willing to own fewer guns to have a silencer.

I doubt the guys who shoot a few boxes of ammo a year (which is most gun owners) would buy them, but the volume shooters who make the most noise would probably spend several hundred dollars on a firearm accessory that made shooting more fun and enjoyable.

IMO, relatively few people have them now due to the paperwork/tax hassle and perception (i.e., silencers are illegal, silencers are for poachers, only assassins use suppressors, if my neighbor is shooting his wife I want to hear it etc. (by the way, I've heard all of these comment in the past few years when gun owners have shot my suppressed guns)). If you get rid of the paperwork and tax, and sell them over the counter, more people would by them and the perception issue would lessen quite a bit.

redneckdan
September 28, 2010, 07:19 PM
I'd have to go with short barrel shotgun. I wish I could just chop my grouse gun at the end of the magazine. Would be so much handier in the really thick stuff. I've pretty much given up on the shotgun and taken to a .22 pistol or .38 revolver and hope to catch them n the ground or in a tree.

Carter
September 28, 2010, 09:21 PM
Can I vote for both?

I voted for SBR just because I can't afford to shoot full auto, but it would be nice to own new auto's.

The 1986 rule is so one day all the auto's out there are worn out/broken and we the people won't have anymore.

TexasRifleman
September 28, 2010, 09:59 PM
Unfortunately, I just can't see American shooters going out in droves to spend $300+ on suppressors in order to be good neighbors and protect our rights

I suspect the prices in Europe are higher simply because of volume. Economies of scale here would drive the price down and competition up without all the regulation.

Mass produced by one of the big companies I could see them $100 or less for average performance, not to mention many manufacturers would include one in a package deal. Buy an XDm and get a case, holster, 3 mags, a bumper sticker, and a suppressor :)

desidog
September 28, 2010, 10:43 PM
Unfortunately, I just can't see American shooters going out in droves to spend $300+ on suppressors in order to be good neighbors

I can see that...lines out the door and backorders in the first few months, first for some as "cool" and "I can" factor, then as they become commonplace, there'd be far fewer noise complaints to police stations from annoyed neighbors, and far fewer people suffering hearing loss when their earplug comes out a bit.

I'd pay 300; if that's what it cost to make plus a margin for the fabricator. I object to an additional 200, a 66% tax on the 300, just because some gun-shy liberals think that you must be up to something nefarious if you want to protect your hearing and limit noise pollution in your area.

Still, one day i'm gonna knowingly get hosed and go in for one at the current rates. It wouldn't be the first time i got overtaxed in a country that was started by guys who didn't want to pay taxes.

Girodin
September 28, 2010, 10:44 PM
Full auto. Purely for economic reasons. I can afford a $200 tax stamp for a SBR or SBS pretty easily. I've yet been able to justify $15K+ for various full autos. If you do away with the current restrictions on machine guns those prices will tumble very very quickly.

o Unforgiven o
September 29, 2010, 12:05 AM
I had to go with full auto. The only reason I chose that is because most SBS/SBR options are already pretty attainable with a tax stamp, while new production or pre-ban MGs are for most of us not realistic.

For me my dream AR with a FA/Burst selector would just be icing on the cake, would'nt burn through $1000 bucks a weekend but would be nice to have it.

And for those saying they could not afford MGs anyway, if they were legal the prices on the ones out there would come way down and tons of companys would be cranking out new ones. Just something to consider before voting.

jerkface11
September 29, 2010, 01:11 AM
If suppressors were unregulated there would probably be cheaply made ones for under $100. More than likely made in China.

jmorris
September 29, 2010, 09:49 AM
The SBS is all I could afford.


That is because they are rare when they could make and sell all they wanted, todays $3000 MAC's cost less than $200.

Anyone have an idea what suppressors would likely cost after deregulation?


$200 less. I have a good supply of “drops” of chrome moly and aluminum. All of my form 1 builds have been made for little more than my time.

Ingsoc75
September 29, 2010, 10:42 AM
REPEAL OF THE HUGHES AMENDMENT!!!

A select fire MP44/Stg44 is my dream gun but at $15k + there is no way it's going to happen at present. :banghead:

If Hughes was repealed, that dream could come closer to reality. :)

The same goes for a select fire AK74.

A SBS has no appeal to me.

huntsman
September 29, 2010, 12:27 PM
That is because they are rare when they could make and sell all they wanted, todays $3000 MAC's cost less than $200.



$200 less. I have a good supply of “drops” of chrome moly and aluminum. All of my form 1 builds have been made for little more than my time.
Ahh yes but you have cost of feeding (ammo) also, I wouldn't want a full auto and have to have it be in a diet ;)

btwiceborn
September 29, 2010, 02:04 PM
i prefer simply undoing hughes amendment, gca 68, and nfa 34.

jpatterson
September 29, 2010, 02:41 PM
I think one of the most beautiful things in the world is an old Remington 870 with good-looking wood furniture and a hacked off barrel.

thorazine
October 7, 2010, 11:46 AM
Neither.

My vote would go to suppressors.

texas bulldog
October 9, 2010, 02:03 AM
I voted a while ago, but didn't post. Interesting that it's neck and neck every time I check back.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to strike all the gun laws off the books. But I voted for SBS/SBR because they are more practical to me personally. Full auto doesn't interest me that much. At the same time, I'm sure my AR would be select fire if it were legal and the price was only nominally more than the current SA versions.

Frankly, I want all of the above, including the suppressors. But as it stands, my first foray into NFA items will be this:
an old Remington 870 with good-looking wood furniture and a hacked off barrel

mrnkc130
October 10, 2010, 02:18 AM
FA for sure, since they are the only thing prohibitively expensive...Im suprised the vote is so close...

Pyro
October 10, 2010, 09:20 AM
I say neither for safety concerns, can't imagine another nutcase buying a legal SBR/full-auto and going to the nearest University.
But I voted for the short barrel, since I don't really see a point to full-auto.

Lou McGopher
October 10, 2010, 11:33 AM
...which is why, of course, almost no military forces currently deployed by the USA or any other modern country have full-auto weapons in each and every person's hands. ;)

Not everything government does is a good idea. ;)

My vote goes to short barrels. Automatic has its uses, but I think the restriction is less of a hindrance to personal security.

Gord
October 10, 2010, 06:35 PM
I say neither for safety concerns, can't imagine another nutcase buying a legal SBR/full-auto and going to the nearest University.

Uh... that makes no sense. If your plan is to "go to the nearest University" - the purpose for which is implied - why would you give a flying crap about the legalities of your gun?

:scrutiny:

bgrav321
October 10, 2010, 08:43 PM
A full auto AR or AK, while kind of cool, has limited application.

I think we would want both repealed, because if full auto and SBR were gone at the same time, we may witness a resurgence in the popularity of the submachine gun. Once a fixation in every major army, the application especially in close combat of semi-accurate full auto could be very very popular. As a noob at full auto, I was able to do well with an uzi at 15 yards or so on full auto, meaning 30 rounds in the torso on the target.

If MP5s, Uzis, and old Sterlings, etc, were available to the public, they would sell. Heck I'd buy an Uzi so fast...

texas bulldog
October 12, 2010, 10:13 PM
I say neither for safety concerns, can't imagine another nutcase buying a legal SBR/full-auto and going to the nearest University.
But I voted for the short barrel, since I don't really see a point to full-auto.

Seriously, dude? This might not be the forum for you if you really believe that. Law abiding citizens aren't going to shoot up a university regardless of the functional specifics of the weapon, and criminals are going to do what they want no matter how many laws you pile up on top of what is already illegal. There is no gun control law that has been proven effective in actually preventing crime.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 13, 2010, 05:03 AM
Uh... that makes no sense. If your plan is to "go to the nearest University" - the purpose for which is implied - why would you give a flying crap about the legalities of your gun?

That is a question no one, Pyro included, has an answer to. AS you well know, the premise is inherently illogical. One who breaks laws does not follow laws. One who has decided to commit murder will not decide to follow firearms laws.

I for one would love to hear Pyro's answer, though I can guarantee it won't make any sense. Not to be rude Pyro, as I hope you do come to the light and start to understand what gun rights really mean, but texas bulldog may be right. If you really think that an otherwise law abiding non-murderer, will all of a sudden have a desire to kill if his weapon loses a few inches off the barrel, then this may not be the forum for you.

Also Pryo, consider this: Both fully automatic firearms, and short barreled rifles and shotguns are already legal in some places. Why have we not seen the increase in crime you predict in those places?

CoRoMo
October 13, 2010, 10:11 AM
+1 on the suppressor idea. It isn't a firearm. It shouldn't be treated like one.

But for this poll, I say can the full auto regs. Undo them, desensitize the public over a generation or two, and every other gun law will unravel from its own absurdity. I think that if the barrel length reg was to be tossed, full auto would still remain taboo forever and ever.

Gord
October 13, 2010, 10:46 PM
I wish more people would actually post on threads with polls, instead of just hitting the poll up with no explanation.

Honestly, I'm surprised that this is so close - and I'm assuming a lot of the votes on the MG side are just coming from people whose thought process goes no further than "omg a masheengun would b so kool," on the same logical plane as people who lust over Ferraris.

Maverick223
October 14, 2010, 02:40 AM
Since you termed the OP as "totally deregulated" I had to vote for MGs, because you would be allowed to purchase new FA parts for existing SA rifles...and who wouldn't like a FA 10/22 (or other suitable .22LR)? Exclusive of your poll, I would rather see an end to the regulation of sound suppressors as that would be particularly useful for both target shooting and hunting.

:)

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 14, 2010, 04:08 AM
There seems to be a common theme. MGs seem to be more of a "living up to the true intent of the 2A" kind of thing, as it would give us weapons that are far closer to true militia arms than we have now, and more of a significant blow against excessive gun regulation. Whereas SBR/SBS are things that people would find more use of on a day to day basis. Nothing really exciting or groundbreaking about them, just the ability to have some guns that fill niche roles better than they do now. People voting for MGs are thinking "this would help restore the 2A" and people voting for SBR/SBS are thinking "this is something I would use".

mrnkc130
October 14, 2010, 04:43 AM
Or its coming from people who think, I can have and SBR SBS or a silencer and it only costs me 200 extra dollars. On the other hand I can't buy a G36 or SAW at all, and a 40yr old m16 will still cost me 12-18k.

Unless you live in a state that doesnt allow SBR, SBS or silencers (CA,NY, etc) i dont see why anyone would take a little less restriction over not having something at all. And most likely if repealed on federal level states like CA, NY etc would most likely not allow them anyways...

oh well, I'm sure we will never get the choice anyways...

CoRoMo
October 14, 2010, 02:48 PM
...I'm assuming a lot of the votes on the MG side are just coming from people whose thought process goes no further than "omg a masheengun would b so kool,"...
That's like saying, 'the votes on the SBS/SBR side are just coming from people whose thought process goes no further than "Joe Public should never be allowed to convert his rifle to full auto,"'

Not me. I explained how I would view either . If we kill the FA regs, barrel lengths would eventually become as silly as other trivial legislative terms, such as 'barrel shroud', 'bayonet lug', etc. Those regs would be far easier to undo once the public got used to the idea of unregulated machine guns.

Of course, if we only get our barrel lengths liberated, Mrs. SoccerMom will still faint in terror at the thought of a select-fire conversion kit being delivered to her neighbor's door. Not much progress IMHO.
...MGs seem to be more of a "living up to the true intent of the 2A" kind of thing...
This.

FruitCake
October 14, 2010, 03:14 PM
Shotgun of course.

FruitCake
October 14, 2010, 03:35 PM
Shotgun of course.

45ACPGUY
October 16, 2010, 02:25 PM
My SMG is short barrel so I'd want it all! really!! Because I own SBR also!

JTW Jr.
October 16, 2010, 08:14 PM
I'm assuming a lot of the votes on the MG side are just coming from people whose thought process goes no further than "omg a masheengun would b so kool," on the same logical plane as people who lust over Ferraris.

know what happens when you assume. :)

I would say lift all , no just on OR the other. :)

More might not be replying since after all , it is just a fantasy poll.

Sig88
October 17, 2010, 10:37 AM
If I could afford the ammo costs for an auto, I'd say auto. But since money is probably always going to be an issue I'd say SBRs. I wouldn't mind getting a short barreled shotgun and rifle. I'd be able to use them alot more.

If you enjoyed reading about "SBS/SBS or Automatic" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!