Snub-nose AR 15!

[halfded]

I thought it was funny! Got a new upper receiver to swap out my A2 for. Can't get it changed out until this weekend though, so I put my optics and BCG/CH in it and put it on my lower just for fun.

Just had a thought: If I stuck the conversion in the new upper, it seems it would function with the forward most part of the conversion acting as a very short barrel. Accuracy wouldn't be much better than a NAA but it could be fun.

I'd imagine there would be some pretty big legal problems with even putting together such a configuration though.

Think I'll leave it as a good idea in theory.

Anybody with a stamp wanna give it a go?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Accuracy wouldn't be much better than a NAA but it could be fun.

Right up until they lock you away for unregistered SBR. But it seems you're aware of that.

 

[dom1104]

It wouldnt cycle fyi.

It doesnt have enough back pressure for the blowback.

Cool idea tho!

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

Well technically there Is no barrel, so how can it have a short barrel?

 

[dom1104]

you would end up with a very short 5.56 lookign barrel poking out of there. thats what he means.

It would end up having a little barrel pokin out.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Well technically there Is no barrel, so how can it have a short barrel?

Barrel is measured from breechface to muzzle (except revolvers), so even just a chamber is considered a barrel, legally.

 

[Sam1911]

Wow, ironic.

You didn't see this in our NFA picture thread going on right now?

MrM4's 9mm SBR:

 

[eitrheim31]

Well technically there Is no barrel, so how can it have a short barrel?

technically it doesn't have a chamber either so i don't think this could count as a sbr.

 

[halfded]

Got a new upper receiver to swap out my A2 for. Can't get it changed out until this weekend though, so I put my optics and BCG/CH in it and put it on my lower just for fun.

Geez, I post a pic for a little chuckle and we all have to go on rants about legalities and stipulations.

It's not an SBR, I have no intention of making one either. This is an 80%-ish build; the snub nose comment was a (poorly received) attempt at humor.

Guess I should have just waited to post pics of the finished product. But then I'd just hear a bunch of crap about what parts I used and blah blah blah.

Oh well, I tried.

 

[halfded]

BTW, from playing around with my 80% complete, non-SBR, no barrel rifle I can see the logic in building a gun like the one in post #7. Felt really well balanced that way.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

It's a NBR (no barreled rifle)!
I don't think they've ruled on those yet. Single shot with no gas tube for cycling and one heck of a muzzle, er, chamber blast!

 

[halfded]

Wish I'd have thought of the NBR thing. Much more appropriate (and funny) thread title.

 

[Driftertank]

Easy solution: take off the buttstock. It is now an awkward pistol.

ETA: that's assuming you can take the stock off your buffer tube. Not a big AR guy, wouldn't know, myself.

 

[Blakenzy]

Seriously, if you managed to set of a round from that "NBR" (thank you Doubletapdrew), the bullet would probably travel forward 2-3 meters before it hit the ground, assuming the case held together.

 

[Sam1911]

Easy solution: take off the buttstock. It is now an awkward pistol.

From the view of the ATF, regarding Title II of the National Firearms Act of 1934, taking the buttstock off a rifle doesn't change the fact that it is a rifle. If a firearm is configured as a rifle, it IS a rifle, now and forevermore. Adding a barrel under 16" in length -- regardless of the presence of a shoulder stock -- makes this a firearm or less than 26" OAL and/or with a sub 16" barrel, "made from a rifle" subject to Title II registration as a Short Barreled Rifle.

(This is why the Mech Tech kits and T/C Contenders are trouble. Even if you start with a true pistol, once you've converted it into a rifle (which is PERFECTLY legal), it now IS a rifle, and you can't covert it back without first registering it as an SBR.)

A gun that is simply disassembled, as halfded's is, doesn't get into those issues, though.

But, shoulder stock or not, he can't add a <16" barrel and make a legal Title I "pistol" out of it.

 

[Sam1911]

assuming the case held together.

The case would most assuredly NOT hold together. This would be the ultimate in an "out-of-battery" firing "KaBOOM" and you'd be lucky to escape without serious injury.

 

[Driftertank]

C'mon, man, I thought we were all being facetious here....

 

[halfded]

Seriously, if you managed to set of a round from that "NBR" (thank you Doubletapdrew), the bullet would probably travel forward 2-3 meters before it hit the ground, assuming the case held together.

The case would most assuredly NOT hold together. This would be the ultimate in an "out-of-battery" firing "KaBOOM" and you'd be lucky to escape without serious injury.

Are you guys talking about .223 or the .22 conversion? No way it would work with .223, the bolt face is right at the end of the receiver.

I stuck the conversion bolt in the stripped upper and it looks like it would function, although severe battery to the receiver is quite probable. I can see where there would be a lot of feed issues too. No reason why it shouldn't fire at least the first round though, accuracy and velocity aside that is.

 

[Sam1911]

C'mon, man, I thought we were all being facetious here....

Hard to tell on the "errornet," you know?

Hate to leave a joking comment that (even 6 months or two years later) someone comes across and takes for truth. ("Woah, cool, if I pull the stock off my AR-15, it's now a pistol!" etc.)

Funny is fine, but some of these things have consequences that might be worth a note of warning, agreed?

 

[Zerodefect]

Why is your Aimpoint so far back? That's a nice cantilever scope mount.

Move that mount out to the leading edge of your upper reciever. You can pick up the dot sooner as you alighn the rifle with your eye that way.

I also hate it when my barrel falls off.

 

[halfded]

Why is your Aimpoint so far back? That's a nice cantilever scope mount.

Because I've never used one before.

BTW, that's not an aimpoint. It's a clone from Primary Arms, their new multi-reticle offering. Came with the cantilever mount for $118 shipped. I got the cantilever as opposed to the straight mount because he also sells 3x magnifiers! Heard nothing but good things about them over on ar15.com.

So I should move the scope out to the edge of the receiver huh? I had it mounted on the top rail of my handguard on my complete upper (A2). It seemed a little too far away for me there; maybe the front edge is the sweet spot huh?

I'll give it a shot after I finish my cheerios.

 

[RyanM]

Just had a thought: If I stuck the conversion in the new upper, it seems it would function with the forward most part of the conversion acting as a very short barrel. Accuracy wouldn't be much better than a NAA but it could be fun.

Look how thin the "neck" portion of the conversion is, though. I would guess that part would split and blow out. (it would also be smoothbore and thus illegal yet again )

 

[Sam1911]

(it would also be smoothbore and thus illegal yet again )

Actually that wouldn't make it any WORSE. Still be a short-barreled rifle (if that conversion part would actually function as a barrel) because it was "made from a rifle."

The only time smoothbore-vs.-rifled really enters into the question is if you are starting with a (Title I) pistol and putting a smooth-bore barrel on it, thus making a Title II "Any Other Weapon."

Curious, though whether if you started with a rifle and wanted to convert it to a smoothbore short-barreled firearm to shoot shotshells, whether it would be an SBR or an SBS?

 

[RyanM]

Yeah, I meant if it was used on a pistol receiver.

And actually, I've sort of wondered that myself. Let's say you have a T/C Encore, which has rifle, pistol, and shotgun barrels available. If you want to use it as an SBR and an SBS, which one should it be registered as?

 

[Sam1911]

Well, that's a tricky question, but most of the T/C barrels under 18" that will shoot .410 shotshells have a little bit of nearly straight rifling to keep them legal when used with a pistol frame.

I'm thinking that, if you ever use or used the Contender or Encore frame as a rifle, it has to be registered SBR because of the "made from a rifle" clause.

EDIT TO SAY:

I meant if it was used on a pistol receiver.

Which he can't do anyway because it's already a rifle receiver! LOL! NFA stuff gets awfully circular ... When the logic of the law is too circular and vapid, it is a good indication that the law should be discarded, no?