Franklin Armory Does It Again!

[Walkalong]

According to the NFA an SBR is any firearm with a buttstock that has a rifled barrel of less than sixteen inches, or an overall length of less than twenty six inches. The total length is measured in the extended position.

So, is this over 26" extended? Is that the trick? But it says "or" and it definitely has a barrel under 16", and if it is a smooth bore it's useless, or did they come up with some sort of internal configuration besides rifling to stabilize the bullet?

Can't wait for the answer.

 

[EWilliams]

Couldn't you design a telescopic buffer tube that makes the OAL over 26"? That seems pretty straightforward to me - it would be 11.5" barrel, inch muzzle device, 7 or 8 inch receiver (guessing) and the balance in buffer tube/stock? That's only 6 or so inches. did I miss something?

 

[MistWolf]

An 11.5" upper on a lower with a carbine RE (bare muzzle, no butstock) has an OAL of about about 26 1/16"

 

[Elkins45]

What I find interesting is their mention of pending patents. To me this implies some sort of technological workaround to the rules, not just a clever reinterpretation.

I’m looking forward to finding out what they’re come up with.

 

[lysanderxiii]

We find out next week, I suppose....

(BTW, manufacturing processes can be patented, too.)

 

[MistWolf]

What I find interesting is their mention of pending patents. To me this implies some sort of technological workaround to the rules, not just a clever reinterpretation.

I’m looking forward to finding out what they’re come up with.

The way the teaser is worded, it says nothing about the "workaround" being due to something they are patenting. What it says is-

As part of the new Reformation line of patent pending NRS firearms, the first SKUs in the Reformation line feature a non-NFA configuration with an 11.5″ barrel and a conventional stock...

What they said is that there is a line of patent pending firearms. Which means they have patents pending and will be using those patents in this new line of firearms, not that the "workaround" is patented.

Like you, I too am looking forward to seeing what Franklin Armory has cookin'.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Smooth bore barrel, but designed to fire a single projectile, thus neither a shotgun or rifle.

Attach a rifled muzzle device to spin the bullet. Similar to a rifled choke tube in a shotgun. I'm sure it's not a precision solution, but a 11.5" barreled AR never was made for long range precision anyways.

A rifled muzzle device is patent-able, so you get the pending patent.

 

[Jim Watson]

I doubt it. We will soon be reading how an 11.5" barrel is all you need for a thousand yards.
Probably the same sort of parsing of the legal language that got the Shockwave through.
It's not a short barreled rifle because it was never a regular rifle. Silly. Anybody gets around to rewriting the CFR with a Quacks like a Duck definition, and they are done for.

 

[Elkins45]

I doubt it. We will soon be reading how an 11.5" barrel is all you need for a thousand yards.
Probably the same sort of parsing of the legal language that got the Shockwave through.
It's not a short barreled rifle because it was never a regular rifle. Silly. Anybody gets around to rewriting the CFR with a Quacks like a Duck definition, and they are done for.

It’s something more sophisticated than the Shockwave because of the buttstock. Put a regular buttstock on the Shockwave and you’ve committed a felony. It would be the same if this started life as an AR pistol.

It’s the same with all the speculation about it being a smoothbore. All that does is make it an SBS instead of an SBR. It’s the presence of the buttstock that needs explaining.

 

[Stormie]

They still use it. So does Walther and Glock.

and Kahr uses it also as well as my two old baby Browning's. Referring back to the comment on polygonal barrels.

 

[Stormie]

We already have non NFA, non SBR's... They are called pistol with a brace. There is no functional difference between a good modern brace and a stock, in actual use.

I hate pistol braces. You may as well cut up an old pair of scuba fins and duct tape them to your buffer tube.

 

[Stormie]

I think it will be as simple as a rifle either has at least a 16 inch barrel "OR" has an oal of 26 in. It will be a new rifle definition.

 

[Jackal]

I hate pistol braces. You may as well cut up an old pair of scuba fins and duct tape them to your buffer tube.

Depends on the brace. The new ones coming out are very rigid, especially compared to the Gumby original.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, if you have to maintain the 26" then I am not terribly thrilled by the new product. I would rather go that route with a longer barrel and a shorter stock.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Well, if you have to maintain the 26" then I am not terribly thrilled by the new product. I would rather go that route with a longer barrel and a shorter stock.

Plenty of guns with 16" barrels and OAL just over 26" already. As always, firearm length for the Federal Government is measured with the stock fully extended. I suspect the OAL > 26" is to avoid being classified as an AOW. The whole point is to toe the line of the NFA and make something that looks like it should be an NFA item, but isn't.

 

[giggitygiggity]

According to The Gun Collective’s YouTube video, it has a rifled barrel which is perplexing how it is not an NFA item.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Looks like a good home defender.

 

[Glockula]

Would polygonal rifling like a CZ82 be considered a smooth bore and a possible work around?

 

[Jackal]

99% sure its just a fire on release trigger.

 

[Gtscotty]

99% sure its just a fire on release trigger.

Perhaps, the pull vs release distinction seems like a pretty narrow ledge to stand on though.....

 

[Jackal]

Perhaps, the pull vs release distinction seems like a pretty narrow ledge to stand on though.....

Everything approved by the ATF stands on a narrow ledge...

 

[lysanderxiii]

99% sure its just a fire on release trigger.

Unfortunately, to "release" a trigger, one must first "pull" it,

From the definition (legal) of a rifle: "...and fire on one pull of the trigger..."

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Unfortunately, to "release" a trigger, one must first "pull" it,

From the definition (legal) of a rifle: "...and fire on one pull of the trigger..."

You are correct that a release does first require a pull. However, the legal definition only mentions a pull and never mentions a release. If one takes a zip tie and ties the trigger back in the "pulled" position, the firearm would have not fired a round and thus not meet the definition of a rifle.

It's probably splitting more technical hairs than legal ones, but however they have accomplished this, I look forward to it and congratulate them on their achievement!

 

[Jackal]

You are correct that a release does first require a pull. However, the legal definition only mentions a pull and never mentions a release. If one takes a zip tie and ties the trigger back in the "pulled" position, the firearm would have not fired a round and thus not meet the definition of a rifle.

It's probably splitting more technical hairs than legal ones, but however they have accomplished this, I look forward to it and congratulate them on their achievement!

Exactly, words mean something. Its all in the wording.

 

[kozak6]

Alright, how about a push trigger then?