BlueHeelerFl
Member
What is the purpose of the straight rifling on the Reformation?
Do some guns have rifling, but no twist?
- Thread starter Zaydok Allen
- Start date
- Status
What is the purpose of the straight rifling on the Reformation?
Rifled barrel used to be considered not a shotgun. It's straight because that would make it a rifle. The Reformation was considered a firearm, not a rifle or a shotgun. Then the ATF decided it was a non-SBS SBS.
Not a SBS under the NFA but a SBS under the GCA. Why those two pieces of legislation have different definitions is beyond me.
FYI, the top of the line shotgun insert tubes that Briley Mfg. makes and sells have straight rifling.
Sistema1927
Member
Not correct. "Firearms", like the Shockwave and Tac-14, have smooth bore barrels under 18", and do not require any tax stamp or special treatment.
Yes, there is the exception for the Shockwave type "firearms" that fire shotgun shells. Let's say that any "conventional" firearm with a barrel under 18" must have rifling. The problem is that I don't think I can define either "conventional" firearms or the shockwave type "firearms" to my satisfaction.
Maybe the best way to say it is that any firearm that must have rifling to be legal must have rifling with a twist.
Maybe the best way to say it is that any firearm that must have rifling to be legal must have rifling with a twist.
Obturation
Member
Would a twist rate of 1 in 50 feet still be considered twist though??
mcb
Member
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
"Would a twist rate of 1 in 50 feet still be considered twist though??"
Maaaaybe for a round ball black powder firearm, but it's way out of the so-called "Greenhill Formula" or later editions.
One turn in 50 feet at a representative black powder velocity of 1000 feet per second is (1000 ÷ 50) = 20 turns per second, or 20 X 60 = only 1200 turns per minute... or RPM, of course.
This might afford some stability for a round ball, but not much at all for anything even slightly elongated.
Some black powder arms firing round balls seem to have slow twists, say, e.g., one turn in four or five feet, though. My information is that originally "rifling" had no twist at all, but were just straight grooves to contain some of the powder fouling.
(Do the same calculation for a modern varmint rifle and you will see that some rifle bullets may hit a quarter million RPM.)
Terry, 230RN
Maaaaybe for a round ball black powder firearm, but it's way out of the so-called "Greenhill Formula" or later editions.
One turn in 50 feet at a representative black powder velocity of 1000 feet per second is (1000 ÷ 50) = 20 turns per second, or 20 X 60 = only 1200 turns per minute... or RPM, of course.
This might afford some stability for a round ball, but not much at all for anything even slightly elongated.
Some black powder arms firing round balls seem to have slow twists, say, e.g., one turn in four or five feet, though. My information is that originally "rifling" had no twist at all, but were just straight grooves to contain some of the powder fouling.
(Do the same calculation for a modern varmint rifle and you will see that some rifle bullets may hit a quarter million RPM.)
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
A better question is, "How the hell is it a GCA-SBS if it isn't smoothbore and doesn't fire shotgun shells?" And, "Is it not possible to force this thing into a courtroom or something?"
And as far as I can tell, despite being in the right, Franklin Armory just hasn't found it worthwhile to pursue (possibly for economic reasons?).
FlSwampRat
Member
Had one, thought it was cool. Accuracy was non existent, I've had better triggers on butane gas grill lighters.
Sold, it, don't miss it, don't regret parting with it.
FlSwampRat
Member
If you made a gun with something like a screw in choke that had the rifling, would that be a twist ending?
I have a friend who got the Shockwave a good long while back when it was first introduced. It was actually the first one I handled. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of having a gun that dekes around the laws, too easy for them to "Tsk tsk, let's call that illegal" without grandfathering. <cough cough "bumpstocks" cough cough> Seems like waving a red blanket at a bull.
If you made a gun with something like a screw in choke that had the rifling, would that be a twist ending?
I have a friend who got the Shockwave a good long while back when it was first introduced. It was actually the first one I handled. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of having a gun that dekes around the laws, too easy for them to "Tsk tsk, let's call that illegal" without grandfathering. <cough cough "bumpstocks" cough cough> Seems like waving a red blanket at a bull.
You might as well quit buying ANY guns. There's a large group of people in the US that want citizens completely disarmed.
FlSwampRat
Member
Ain't that the truth.
I don't buy what I don't see myself having an actual use for. The Shockwave and a bumpstock fit into this category. Notice I didn't say things like a bumbstock or a Shockwave have no use, it's just a matter of my personal shooting habits and preferences.
There are all sorts of different aspects of the shooing hobby that people can get involved with and pleasure out of, however not everyone enjoys all aspects. I don't see getting involved in biathalon type shooting as that would involve skiiing. Not much snow in South Fla and the only hills are either overpasses or the Pompano dump. I never got into clays or three gun. Doesn't mean there aren't a heck of a lot of people enjoying those aspects. There's just so much the shooting hobby has to offer
I have a friend who has a Barrett and has offered to take me out to shoot it. He shoots at a range that's roughly 4 hours drive away. That's an 8 hour round trip. Sorry, just not interested. I'm not going to knock him for enjoying it, just not my cup of tea.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
On straight grooves for powder fouling, see my post #35:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ling-but-no-twist.860940/page-2#post-11369331
My personal feeling is that the ATF tests their "rationales" to see how much they can get away with. (All agencies seem to do this.) Now, they got beat down on the shoelace machinegun thing, after getting eighteen jillion letters on it., But they seemed to be successful in bull-bleeping about bump stocks. At least as far as I know nobody's challenging them on it.
Remember, to get something declared as unconstitutional takes a lot of money and hoop-jumping. In addition, it's difficult to establish "standing" for the Court to take the case without getting caught breaking the law in the first place. Nertz to that.
Otherwise, all passed laws (according to what I remember) are presumed to be constitutional by virtue of the fact that they were passed by folks who took oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. <Pause for uproarious laughter to die down.> That's the way I remember it from somewhere, but I welcome challenges and corrections on it.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
- Status
