Mega Rad Gun Thread

[WhoBusTank69]

I apologize if this has been asked in some here a million times, but why exactly are suppressors seemingly making more legal progress than short-barreled rifles/shotguns in the US?

There's no clear reasoning.
My best guess is hunters, they were a previously untapped consoomerbase and as of late most of the high-spenders have multiple cans for their multiple rifles and acquire new ones by the week.

 

[Ass to Ass]

I apologize if this has been asked in some here a million times, but why exactly are suppressors seemingly making more legal progress than short-barreled rifles/shotguns in the US? While the effects of suppressors are usually exaggerated (compared to media depictions of them), I'd argue that they could somewhat help in a crime, especially with a .22 shooting subsonic ammo or anything like that.
To be clear: I think the whole tax stamp bullshit is ridiculous for both, but to me it's just insane how they're still not budging with these 1930s-era laws imposed on barrel length/overall length.

It is incredibly more difficult to amend federal law to make something no longer a crime, than it is to amend it to make something a crime. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was intended to outlaw firearms that were commonly used by criminals and were seen as having no sporting use. Back then, self-defense was considered legally unacceptable in many instances/jurisdictions and we didn't defend constitutional rights as strongly as we do now.

ETA: suppressors are not making more legal headway than SBRs/SBSs right now. They were taken out of the OBBBA.

and wouldn't a shorter barrel technically make a weapon less deadly, since the projectile(s) would be coming out at a slower velocity? not enough to make a difference, but still.

Yes. KE = (1/2)mv 2 so if you lower the velocity of a given projectile, it has less kinetic energy. The practical aspects are somewhat more complicated (think of hydrostatic shock above 2200fps for example), but those of us ITT likely already know that shot placement is king.

 

[NeonFlux]

I'm with @biglurker, 60% of men in the US are single and only 25% of Gen-Z can afford a home. I can see officals like Thune getting shitcanned in the future as the republicans start to cater to more of their extremist bases as the democrats have increasingly done. I refuse to become blackpilled.

 

[Fount of BadSpeak]

I apologize if this has been asked in some here a million times, but why exactly are suppressors seemingly making more legal progress than short-barreled rifles/shotguns in the US? While the effects of suppressors are usually exaggerated (compared to media depictions of them), I'd argue that they could somewhat help in a crime, especially with a .22 shooting subsonic ammo or anything like that.
To be clear: I think the whole tax stamp bullshit is ridiculous for both, but to me it's just insane how they're still not budging with these 1930s-era laws imposed on barrel length/overall length.
and wouldn't a shorter barrel technically make a weapon less deadly, since the projectile(s) would be coming out at a slower velocity? not enough to make a difference, but still.

I think it's two-fold, personally:

-Suppressors are becoming more and more popular amongst gun owners, and have thus began losing a lot of the stigma that they used to have. This is also being aided by the military trying to make suppressors standard for infantry, which further legitimizes them for hearing protection purposes.
-There's a bunch of legal workarounds for SBR/SBS, as well as a wide variety of handguns, so a lot of people don't care as much to fight against that compared to other things. Also, frankly, SBR/SBS don't have as much direct utility as suppressors.

There might be more specific reasons, but as the broad strokes, that's how I see it.

 

[Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa]

I apologize if this has been asked in some here a million times, but why exactly are suppressors seemingly making more legal progress than short-barreled rifles/shotguns in the US? While the effects of suppressors are usually exaggerated (compared to media depictions of them), I'd argue that they could somewhat help in a crime, especially with a .22 shooting subsonic ammo or anything like that.
To be clear: I think the whole tax stamp bullshit is ridiculous for both, but to me it's just insane how they're still not budging with these 1930s-era laws imposed on barrel length/overall length.
and wouldn't a shorter barrel technically make a weapon less deadly, since the projectile(s) would be coming out at a slower velocity? not enough to make a difference, but still.

I think that there are a few reasons. You can get something close to an SBR by using a pistol brace, so a lot of people don't bother with the hassle of the NFA process for them. Suppressors don't have a non-NFA equivalent, so you need to follow the NFA process or get rid of the NFA restrictions on them.

Suppressors also have at least one dedicated advocacy group, the ASA, while I'm not aware of any SBR-dedicated groups. Companies making SBRs can just make longer versions or pistol versions, so there's less incentive for them to spend time trying to deregulate SBRs.

There's also the practical aspect of suppressors for hearing protection and sound reduction. Even in a blue state, it's relatively easy to pitch suppressor liberalization because of the safety aspect and perhaps because it makes hunters less annoying.

 

[Seafarer]

I think it's two-fold, personally:

-Suppressors are becoming more and more popular amongst gun owners, and have thus began losing a lot of the stigma that they used to have. This is also being aided by the military trying to make suppressors standard for infantry, which further legitimizes them for hearing protection purposes.
-There's a bunch of legal workarounds for SBR/SBS, as well as a wide variety of handguns, so a lot of people don't care as much to fight against that compared to other things. Also, frankly, SBR/SBS don't have as much direct utility as suppressors.

There might be more specific reasons, but as the broad strokes, that's how I see it.

Also, bans on suppressors and sawed offs don’t even make a lot of sense from a gun control perspective considering many countries with much stricter gun laws than the U.S. still allow silencers and some even allow SBRs/SBSs. Not that it will ultimately deter the gun control lobby considering the ultimate goal is to ban all firearms and they will consider any ban of any type of firearm or firearm accessory as a win in furtherance of that ultimate goal.

 

[Polock]

and wouldn't a shorter barrel technically make a weapon less deadly, since the projectile(s) would be coming out at a slower velocity? not enough to make a difference, but still.

Your mistake is that you are applying logic to US gun laws, which are fucking retarded (and yet still superior to anything else out there).

 

[Falcos_Commisar]

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in that it was a legitimate effort to get Americans a win as most everything the current administration has done has been a net positive.
The current Parliamentary is being a bitch and rather than hoping she will get fired they want to get something in, however small, just to say they did and earn their asspats. I can't say I blame them because, to them, giving up looks worse than subpar results.

Currently J.D. Vance is drawing the most negative attention with regards to the princess of the Byrd and maybe something will be done but I hope they get the original HPA and SHORT attached before the BBB goes through in any case.

Let's see.....

 

[Internet-Based Lobotomy]

Also, bans on suppressors and sawed offs don’t even make a lot of sense from a gun control perspective considering many countries with much stricter gun laws than the U.S. still allow silencers and some even allow SBRs/SBSs.

It's somewhat funny the things strict countries have that the US lacks. I guess the trade off is to get a gun you have to do way more shit but man I envy people that come home to find a gun they ordered sitting on their front step.

Your mistake is that you are applying logic to US gun laws

My favorite is the braces personally. Take a stock, cut a hole in the middle and put a strap around it and you have a pistol with a brace. Swap that out with a normal stock and you have committed a felony. SBRs are banned because they're easily concealed... Yet in a lot of states it's preferred that you conceal carry your "pistol". Building the law on top of some shaky foundation for sure.

 

[WhoBusTank69]

My favorite is the braces personally. Take a stock, cut a hole in the middle and put a strap around it and you have a pistol with a brace. Swap that out with a normal stock and you have committed a felony. SBRs are banned because they're easily concealed... Yet in a lot of states it's preferred that you conceal carry your "pistol". Building the law on top of some shaky foundation for sure.

The brace discussion is great because everything around it is retarded. You can attach a brace intending to use it as a brace, but it can coincidentally touch your shoulder. If you attach it intending to use it as a stock, it's illegal.
The SBR/Shotgun thing stems from the cops and feds being unable to bust criminals the old fashioned way -- by legal means and through proper channels -- and instead decided to tax everything. They wanted pistols taxed, too, but since everyone and their grandma had a handgun in arms reach they couldn't get away with it. SBRs having a shorter limit than shotguns is because many rifles had barrels shorter than the proposed 18".

It's outdated and annoying because gun charges almost never stand in court anymore unless they're desperate.

 

[sodomy lifestyle]

That stock looks familiar, but I can't place it. A SCARP-90?

Tobias Obermeit is making some progress on his .22 belt feed system

I can't find any information about this, is that printed plastic? Looked almost tar-like on first glance.

 

[Ass to Ass]

The brace discussion is great because everything around it is retarded. You can attach a brace intending to use it as a brace, but it can coincidentally touch your shoulder. If you attach it intending to use it as a stock, it's illegal.

Intention hasn't been legally relevant for about a decade now.

and feds being unable to bust criminals the old fashioned way -- by legal means and through proper channels -- and instead decided to tax everything. They wanted pistols taxed, too, but since everyone and their grandma had a handgun in arms reach they couldn't get away with it.

The reason handguns got cut from the National Firearms Act of 1934 is because the vast majority of police departments couldn't afford to issue handguns to their officers, so it was natural for officers to purchase their own handguns in a time where modern tax schemes hadn't been developed.

SBRs having a shorter limit than shotguns is because many rifles had barrels shorter than the proposed 18".

The reason rifles have a shorter barrel length requirement than shotguns is because the Department of Defense decided to sell a bunch of M1 carbines in 1963, the issue being that the M1 has a barrel length of 17.75 inches. The limit at the time was 18 inches, just like shotguns. The Gun Control Act of 1968 revised this limit to 16 inches to fix the issue.

It's outdated and annoying because gun charges almost never stand in court anymore unless they're desperate.

Doesn't matter if you get Duncan Lemp'd. It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.

 

[TerminalTryHard]

If that is true, who the hell is paying him to drag his feet on the matter of the Parliamentarian? This is such an easy win to just toe the line and either ignore/remove the sitting Parliamentarian

It's not about money, he just doesn't care. He has his own priorities and goals and this doesn't apply, he isn't going to delay getting the rest of the OBBB passed fighting about guns.

 

[WhoBusTank69]

Intention hasn't been legally relevant for about a decade now.

Constructive intent is typically an additive charge if you're already being arrested, in the case of braces they're currently considering the intent of using it as a stock as a violation.

 

[biglurker]

It's not about money, he just doesn't care. He has his own priorities and goals and this doesn't apply, he isn't going to delay getting the rest of the OBBB passed fighting about guns.

He could get that done AND please the firearms community by replacing the Parliamentarian.

 

[AGPinochet]

That stock looks familiar, but I can't place it. A SCARP-90?



I can't find any information about this, is that printed plastic? Looked almost tar-like on first glance.

BRN-180 (either a gen 1 or 2)

can't find any information about this, is that printed plastic? Looked almost tar-like on first glance.

Ex Keltec Engineer who is now doing his own thing, has been playing with quad stack .30 Super Carry mags, mag fed .22 gatling rifles and now a .22 belt fed system. And yes the links are printed.

 

[WhoBusTank69]

So I've got no confirmation on this, but it may be that nobody actually resubmitted the HPA or SHORT Act into the Big Beautiful Bill before it was passed by the Senate tonight despite the revisions.

 

[74164978231]

Training for anti-drone shotgunners:
View attachment 7567449

I would think a 40mm grenades round specifically for drones would work well. Especially the machine gun cartridge, slap it on a small autonomous vehicle and boom mobile ciws for drones.

So I've got no confirmation on this, but it may be that nobody actually resubmitted the HPA or SHORT Act into the Big Beautiful Bill before it was passed by the Senate tonight despite the revisions.

Last I heard they put in language to change the tax to $0. Still NFA but no cost.

The true retardation is the woman removed it because it was a "policy" change. Even though the Supreme Court very clearly ruled the NFA is a tax back in 1937.

 

[WhoBusTank69]

Last I heard they put in language to change the tax to $0. Still NFA but no cost.

It had to be removed to be amended, and it wasn't confirmed as resubmitted.
If the $0 tax was added we're more fucked than before because someone down the line will adjust the tax for inflation.

 

[sodomy lifestyle]

I would think a 40mm grenades round specifically for drones would work well. Especially the machine gun cartridge, slap it on a small autonomous vehicle and boom mobile ciws for drones.

What sort of grenades are you thinking? My vision of mobile drone defense is two-tiered: the outer perimeter system finds drones large enough to have a radar signature and attacks them with proximity fuzed grenades. I read about this Northrop Grumman solution a while ago.

The inner perimeter is trickier - it would have to cover small drones not picked up by radar. And without a radar signature, proximity fuzed rounds do not work. I suppose an optical rangefinding system could be coupled with time fuzed rounds? Other than that, a shotgun-like multiple pellet projectile is likely the best option.