Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Michigan SBR Law

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13
    Feedback Score
    0
    I have my eyes set on a KAC SR15. I'm ready to pull the trigger by Monday or Tuesday
    .
    KAC SR15 length is as follows:

    LENGTH w/STOCK RET. 33" / 84 cm
    LENGTH w/STOCK EXT. 36.25" / 92 cm

    This should be Michigan - Legal. I am so excited. I also intend to replace the stock with a Magpul CTR and the flashhider with a KAC Triple Tap Brake. I hope I can still keep the gun within the allowed length after replacing the parts.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    429
    Feedback Score
    0
    It's impossible to have a 'standard' AR15 with 16" barrel be under 30" OAL. You'd have to have a folding stock to get there, or a barrel less then 16" in length.

    Even with just the receiver extension it's a little over the limit.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    287
    Feedback Score
    0
    Many people are enamored with the 14.5" barrel and probably not for the right reasons. The 14.5" barrel length came about after lessons learned by the XM177 issues from the Viet Nam era. Colt had problems with short barrels - 10" and 11.5" - running consistently. Changes in gas port hole size, moderators, etc. were used in an effort to enable proper function. Other ‘remedies’ i.e. H type buffers, springs, modified carriers, etc., were down the road some years away.

    After some testing, the conclusion was the 14.5" barrel offered the best combination of reliability while maintaining some level of efficacy from the M193 round in a 'shorty". So allot of guys get hung up on that length I suppose because it is the length the military has traditionally used for some time now, and/or because of the ‘cool’ factor. It is not like some magic - the 14.5” length.

    If I were considering a SBR, I personally wouldn't do it for a 14.5", but would if I wanted a 10" or 11.5". The 16" is a good intermediate length and the extra 1.5" over the 14.5" won't make a hill of beans difference to the downside in 99.9% of circumstances. I can't really think of a downside.

    11.5" and 16" are my two choices. May look at a 12.5".

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    763
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    While I have similar feelings about the pistol AR, this is one situation where if having a short rifle caliber gun was a necessity I might attempt a pistol build. Otherwise I would have to agree, the concept is lame. Better judgment would say to stick with a 16" barrel and whatever stock and muzzle device will keep you within regs.

    Coleslaw, good info, thanks. I went with the 12.5. It has less noticeable blast than the 11.5 I shot before deciding.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    600
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Joeywhat View Post
    It's impossible to have a 'standard' AR15 with 16" barrel be under 30" OAL. You'd have to have a folding stock to get there, or a barrel less then 16" in length.

    Even with just the receiver extension it's a little over the limit.
    This thread wasn't about the "30 inch rule". Anyway, what I'm getting at is a permanent muzzle device on a sub-16 inch barrel severely limits the adaptive nature of muzzle threads. In other words, the barrel is married to an individual muzzle device, so if something better comes along you are ditching the barrel instead of simply removing the muzzle device and indexing a replacement. Furthermore, I don't think the perception of "gain" in maneuverability in an "end result" 16 inch barrel over a 16 inch barrel plus muzzle device is on solid ground. The inch or so OAL is of no consequence, even for professional door kickers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coleslaw View Post
    Many people are enamored with the 14.5" barrel and probably not for the right reasons. The 14.5" barrel length came about after lessons learned by the XM177 issues from the Viet Nam era. Colt had problems with short barrels - 10" and 11.5" - running consistently. Changes in gas port hole size, moderators, etc. were used in an effort to enable proper function. Other ‘remedies’ i.e. H type buffers, springs, modified carriers, etc., were down the road some years away.

    After some testing, the conclusion was the 14.5" barrel offered the best combination of reliability while maintaining some level of efficacy from the M193 round in a 'shorty". So allot of guys get hung up on that length I suppose because it is the length the military has traditionally used for some time now, and/or because of the ‘cool’ factor. It is not like some magic - the 14.5” length.
    From former military that has seen the coming and going of the Commando and the M4 carbine, it was explained to them (and stated to me) the reason for the 14.5 inch barrel length on the carbine was it was the shortest barrel length that could still facilitate the attachment of the standard issue bayonet. The M4 carbine was to replace the M16 as the MBR, which historical military doctrine says it has to have bayonet mounting capability. I don't know if any of what I've been told is true, but if so, makes it interesting.
    I'm an FFL/gunsmith, not the holster company. We specialize in subsonic ammunition and wholesale rifles.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1
    Feedback Score
    0
    You can always save up and purchase a rDIAS or RR and put any short upper you like on it.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •