New Ar suggestion?

[Jev]

Picked up a sionics lower, trying to decide what to build. I have 3 BCM rifles 2 16” one 556 the other blackout and a 11.5” pistol. Was thinking about a 300 shorty but ammo prices are terrible and I have a good amount of 556. Would like a 13.7” SOLGW upper but do not want it pinned and welded unless I can have it with a Rugged break for a can that’s hopefully out of jail soon. Any other thoughts? Or just get a stamp and SBR it? Love the info this forum provides.

[okie]

I see very little utility for any barrel over about 10" for civilians, save for hunting or competition. I'm not saying I would pass up an 11.5, but I don't get 12-13" barrels at all unless you're doing a pin and weld to avoid paying the tax. Just my two cents.

It's hard to give any specific advice though without having a clear idea of exactly what you're hoping to achieve. It sounds like you're already pretty well set, so I'm not sure what gap you're trying to fill. You sound kind of opposed to SBRs, but if you live in a permissive state, and have no plans of moving to Cali or NJ in the near future, you would have to be a little bit nutty not to register at least several SBRs. It's the golden age of SBRs. Due to inflation, the tax is pretty much meaningless at this point, and the wait times are down to 3 weeks. It's easier to get a tax stamp than to renew your license considering you can do it all from the privacy of your own home in just a few minutes.

[omegajb]

Have you considered longer? An 18-20" barrel with a scope makes a fun DMR, with regular 5.56 it's not bad, with 77gr you can push the limits on how far you can get hits with 5.56.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[Jev]

Sounds like SBR might be the way to go. I didn’t think that the form for a SBR was that quick, assumed it was longer. With that thought process 300 blackout is back in play as an option.

[GH41]

In this political climate I wouldn't want to be on the list a stamp would put me on.

[okie]

In this political climate I wouldn't want to be on the list a stamp would put me on.

You're already on the list. But let's just say for argument's sake that you have gone to extreme measures to avoid being on any lists (i.e. you bought an 80% lower at a gunshow, along with all the other parts, you've never done any gun related searches, you've never been in the NRA, etc.). Would you really keep an illegal weapon if they were outlawed? If you're not hiding illegal weapons now, what makes you think you would start after a ban, considering the penalties for doing so will be probably be even more severe than they are now?

What we desperately need is for more people to get on the list. The more people on the list, the harder it will be for them to trample us. The feelings of the many can trample the rights of the few, but the feelings of the few can never trample the rights of the many. The list also lends credibility to that particular owner base, because we're officially certified by the federal government as sane and law abiding enough to own weapons that most people in the world think are too dangerous for the average civilian. The list is beyond reproach. Wouldn't you like to be able to say that the federal government has a list of hundreds of millions of officially certified responsible gun owners?

Is the list ideal? No. Is it constitutional? No. But if we don't start exercising our right to be on the list, they will undoubtedly raise the tax, increase wait times, install punitive internal policies that serve only to stonewall applicants, or even close the registry. And they'll get away with it, because it won't affect very many people.

Case in point, go back to 1934. Very few people owned machineguns, despite being able to. Imagine if half the adult population owned them. Or even 10%. Or go back to 1986. Once again, they were able to close the registry because very few people owned MGs, and very few people cared or even knew about it.

So get on the list. Get your friends on the list. Flaunt your cool NFA toys at the range and let people shoot them. Spread the gospel of NFA registration before it's too late.

ETA: I want to add this is very similar to concealed carry. Back in the 90s when CCW started, everyone was like, It's gonna be the wild west. And now that we're in the tens of millions, and have been shown to be statistically safer and more law abiding than cops even, we have the proof to shut them up before they even open their mouths. The NFA can be the same thing if the list gets long enough. And if we can argue that people on the list are safe to own SBRs and silencers, then we will have a good argument to reopen the registry to MGs. Never gonna happen? That's what people said about constitutional carry, and it's quickly becoming the norm. Just like CCW got our carry rights back, so too can the NFA get our other rights back.

[MikhailBarracuda91]

You're already on the list. But let's just say for argument's sake that you have gone to extreme measures to avoid being on any lists (i.e. you bought an 80% lower at a gunshow, along with all the other parts, you've never done any gun related searches, you've never been in the NRA, etc.). Would you really keep an illegal weapon if they were outlawed? If you're not hiding illegal weapons now, what makes you think you would start after a ban, considering the penalties for doing so will be probably be even more severe than they are now?

What we desperately need is for more people to get on the list. The more people on the list, the harder it will be for them to trample us. The feelings of the many can trample the rights of the few, but the feelings of the few can never trample the rights of the many. The list also lends credibility to that particular owner base, because we're officially certified by the federal government as sane and law abiding enough to own weapons that most people in the world think are too dangerous for the average civilian. The list is beyond reproach. Wouldn't you like to be able to say that the federal government has a list of hundreds of millions of officially certified responsible gun owners?

Is the list ideal? No. Is it constitutional? No. But if we don't start exercising our right to be on the list, they will undoubtedly raise the tax, increase wait times, install punitive internal policies that serve only to stonewall applicants, or even close the registry. And they'll get away with it, because it won't affect very many people.

Case in point, go back to 1934. Very few people owned machineguns, despite being able to. Imagine if half the adult population owned them. Or even 10%. Or go back to 1986. Once again, they were able to close the registry because very few people owned MGs, and very few people cared or even knew about it.

So get on the list. Get your friends on the list. Flaunt your cool NFA toys at the range and let people shoot them. Spread the gospel of NFA registration before it's too late.

ETA: I want to add this is very similar to concealed carry. Back in the 90s when CCW started, everyone was like, It's gonna be the wild west. And now that we're in the tens of millions, and have been shown to be statistically safer and more law abiding than cops even, we have the proof to shut them up before they even open their mouths. The NFA can be the same thing if the list gets long enough. And if we can argue that people on the list are safe to own SBRs and silencers, then we will have a good argument to reopen the registry to MGs. Never gonna happen? That's what people said about constitutional carry, and it's quickly becoming the norm. Just like CCW got our carry rights back, so too can the NFA get our other rights back.

I appreciate that you articulated your point. I will seriously consider it now. Thank you

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[okie]

I appreciate that you articulated your point. I will seriously consider it now. Thank you

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Awesome! Always happy to bring another one into the flock.

[RHINOWSO]

Case in point, go back to 1934. Very few people owned machineguns, despite being able to. Imagine if half the adult population owned them. Or even 10%. Or go back to 1986. Once again, they were able to close the registry because very few people owned MGs, and very few people cared or even knew about it.

Funny thing is most older Class 3s tell me they are of the opinion that only 10-15% of MGs were registered.

FWIW.

[okie]

Funny thing is most older Class 3s tell me they are of the opinion that only 10-15% of MGs were registered.

FWIW.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. The MG ban went largely unenforced for decades. One of the early pioneers in suppressors says in the 1950s that MGs were ubiquitous at every gun show, and that hardly anyone, law enforcement included, even knew they were regulated. And no one went to jail over it either. He said on the very rare occasion that someone got caught they would just confiscate the guns, as the owners weren't going to pay 200 dollars to register something that probably cost them 20 or less. For the most part, nobody really knew the NFA existed.