Roll of a rifle and a new cast member

[nermol]

If you're using a brace - It's a pistol, not a rifle. :/

Good call, my 11.5 is most certainly a pistol with a brace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nermol]

You pretty much nailed the combo with what you listed, maybe put the razor in a qd mount and have either irons or one of the red dots in another qd mount to bounce back and forth, if you don't always want the extra weight

I have everything on some type of QD Mount including the razor. I’ve test the zero shift and it is good enough for what I need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nermol]

If it's legal to do so in your state, I would just SBR it. For the price of a decent brace you can pretty much buy a stamp.

As far as optic, what range are you shooting at? There's nothing stopping an SBR from going 300 yards or more, but the question is whether you would actually use it at that range or not. Do you even have access to a place where you can shoot that far?

The standard optic for the Mk18 has become the Elcan 1-4, so SOCOM and its troops obviously all see the advantages of magnified optics on short guns. Like I said, it just depends on whether you would actually use it at those ranges or not. If you're doing some kind of competition shooting, it would almost certainly be an advantage. If you're just shooting inside 100-200 yards then the additional weight and expense probably isn't worth it. Just throw an Aimpoint on it and be done with it.

Another option is to get an Aimpoint T2, which will leave you the option of putting a magnifier on it down the road. What gets said most often about variable scopes is that people seldom use the magnification settings in the middle, so you wouldn't be losing anything going that route.

I will SBR the pistol when required, most likely add a suppressor at the same time as one stamp is the same as 10 at that point to me.

I have access to a 600 yard range close by, and beyond that with a bit of a drive but I’d bring a different tool for that.
In my mind the rifle with the LPVO is for the 300 yard + needs which seems to support having the 16” government profile barrel be its companion.

I have a T2 already and could certainly run a 3x behind it if needed. Having had a red dot with 3x setup for a while I found the 3x lives in a bag/pack most of the time. I found it didn’t really help with getting on target at the 300+ ranges as the hold overs and lack of sub-tensions to reference with made it only good at target ID. BTW This is the main reason I picked up the LPVO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nermol]

Thank you to everyone who shared there thoughts, it is appreciated.

At this point my plan is to:

-remove the FSB from the 16” and run it so try the LPVO
-Run the comp m3 with the option to QD attach the 3x is needed
-T2 on my 11.5 Pistol

I may end up replacing the M3 with another T2 at some point. I just need to do some CQB runs to make sure I like the smaller window on the T2. I certainly appreciate the 7oz weight reduction on the T2.

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[okie]

I will SBR the pistol when required, most likely add a suppressor at the same time as one stamp is the same as 10 at that point to me.

I have access to a 600 yard range close by, and beyond that with a bit of a drive but I’d bring a different tool for that.
In my mind the rifle with the LPVO is for the 300 yard + needs which seems to support having the 16” government profile barrel be its companion.

I have a T2 already and could certainly run a 3x behind it if needed. Having had a red dot with 3x setup for a while I found the 3x lives in a bag/pack most of the time. I found it didn’t really help with getting on target at the 300+ ranges as the hold overs and lack of sub-tensions to reference with made it only good at target ID. BTW This is the main reason I picked up the LPVO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what you mean by when required. More like do it now while you still can.

[nermol]

Not sure what you mean by when required. More like do it now while you still can.

Not to turn this into a gun control thread but, my thoughts are the most likely changes that can be pushed through is to make all “scary black rifles” NFA items.
If this happens I’ll likely go to town and get a couple different caliber cans and SBR’s as once I have to have NFA stamps to keep what’s already mine adding additional NFA items doesn’t bother me.

One thing I’m not sure on in my assumption is the raising of the cost of the tax stamp. That could get ugly quick.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViniVidivici]

Really? You don't think "having to" get NFA tax stamps for things you ALREADY own is ugly enough?

Do not comply. Ever.

In the topic of your thread, the technical aspects of your optic choices are sound. I would tell you having an FSB on a gun with an LPVO isn't too big of an annoyance, depending on mount height, you "tune it out" at 1x, and when you dial up it can in fact disappear.

Getting rid of the FSB and having a rail go over it though has it's merits. We did that to one of our guns a while back, it was beneficial.

And no, we'll never "have to" get tax stamps for any of them. Ever.

[okie]

Not to turn this into a gun control thread but, my thoughts are the most likely changes that can be pushed through is to make all “scary black rifles” NFA items.
If this happens I’ll likely go to town and get a couple different caliber cans and SBR’s as once I have to have NFA stamps to keep what’s already mine adding additional NFA items doesn’t bother me.

One thing I’m not sure on in my assumption is the raising of the cost of the tax stamp. That could get ugly quick.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Food for thought:

Let's say they do eventually make good on their threat to put currently title 1 "assault weapons" on the NFA. They could easily close the registry to SBRs at the same time, just like they did with MGs back in the 80s.

There's usually some give and take with these guys, too, and the NRA would love to trade SBRs for maybe nationwide reciprocity or something like that. Which the federal government would love, because then they could start dictating to states how to issue the licenses, how people have to be trained, what guns are legal, etc. Just like they do with driver licensing if states want to get highway funding. Not saying that's going to happen by any means, just saying there a million and one ways they can Hughes us right in the arse again. Certainly worked like a charm the first time.

I would also argue that we in free states all have a duty to register as many NFA weapons as we can, because the larger the registry gets the harder it will be for them to ever take them away. I know it sounds backwards to pay for a right to get it back, but that's exactly what happened with concealed carry. We had to do the song and dance for several decades, but the result was that in the end they had zero arguments left against constitutional carry.

As of right now the registry is small enough that they can say it's a select few people who are especially responsible, and therefore not only is the registry working but gun control in general. You know, prior to the 1990s, that was their argument for concealed carry. The licenses were hard to get and so few people had them that they could argue it was an example of gun control working. But then when the licenses were opened up to the masses and things didn't go all wild west, they had no more argument against constitutional carry.

It can be the same with NFA weapons. If they become ubiquitous and gangs armed with registered SBRs don't start robbing banks, they will have no more argument that they should be regulated. And then repealing the entire NFA is on the table at that point.

[nermol]

Food for thought:

Let's say they do eventually make good on their threat to put currently title 1 "assault weapons" on the NFA. They could easily close the registry to SBRs at the same time, just like they did with MGs back in the 80s.

There's usually some give and take with these guys, too, and the NRA would love to trade SBRs for maybe nationwide reciprocity or something like that. Which the federal government would love, because then they could start dictating to states how to issue the licenses, how people have to be trained, what guns are legal, etc. Just like they do with driver licensing if states want to get highway funding. Not saying that's going to happen by any means, just saying there a million and one ways they can Hughes us right in the arse again. Certainly worked like a charm the first time.

I would also argue that we in free states all have a duty to register as many NFA weapons as we can, because the larger the registry gets the harder it will be for them to ever take them away. I know it sounds backwards to pay for a right to get it back, but that's exactly what happened with concealed carry. We had to do the song and dance for several decades, but the result was that in the end they had zero arguments left against constitutional carry.

As of right now the registry is small enough that they can say it's a select few people who are especially responsible, and therefore not only is the registry working but gun control in general. You know, prior to the 1990s, that was their argument for concealed carry. The licenses were hard to get and so few people had them that they could argue it was an example of gun control working. But then when the licenses were opened up to the masses and things didn't go all wild west, they had no more argument against constitutional carry.

It can be the same with NFA weapons. If they become ubiquitous and gangs armed with registered SBRs don't start robbing banks, they will have no more argument that they should be regulated. And then repealing the entire NFA is on the table at that point.

Certainly an interesting thought. There is unfortunately some truth in how big the group is weighing in on if the government can remove their rights.

My objection for years to getting on the NFA bandwagon has been the registration. IMO lists are made to follow up on later. My understanding has been the ATF would have the right to follow up and verify NFA items registered to you. If they have the right to search my safe to verify they then IMO have the duty to verify the source of everything else they come across.
While a lot of what I have was purchased through dealers with a 4473 somethings were not as my state used to allow private sales. It just feels like a program I don’t want to get involved in if I don’t have to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[okie]

Certainly an interesting thought. There is unfortunately some truth in how big the group is weighing in on if the government can remove their rights.

My objection for years to getting on the NFA bandwagon has been the registration. IMO lists are made to follow up on later. My understanding has been the ATF would have the right to follow up and verify NFA items registered to you. If they have the right to search my safe to verify they then IMO have the duty to verify the source of everything else they come across.
While a lot of what I have was purchased through dealers with a 4473 somethings were not as my state used to allow private sales. It just feels like a program I don’t want to get involved in if I don’t have to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's largely misinformation. Basically it was just bitter grapes being spread by fuds who were envious of people who had cool toys they didn't because they were either too poor or too lazy to go through the process, or they were closet liberals who didn't think civilians had any business owning that kind of stuff. They used to lurk behind every gun counter in the 90s and 2000s telling anyone who would listen that the ATF would raid their house if they registered an SBR or silencer.

The truth is that they can't just come knocking without a search warrant. An ATF agent can ask to see your stamp, but that's about it. You're not even required to carry it with you, it's just a good idea.