Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
Question about SBR rules
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Duck L&#039;Orange" data-source="post: 2807470" data-attributes="member: 7814"><p>So, I understand that an SBR is basically a rifle with a barrel length of 16", and overall length of less than (idk some number). However, I see a lot of rifle-caliber guns (AR's, CZ Scorpion clones, lever actions, etc) labeled, marketed, and regulated as "pistols". Hell, some of them even have stocks on them.</p><p></p><p>My question is, how do manufacturers and owners get away with not registering these as NFA firearms and not paying tax on them? It seems to me like these "pistols" walk and quack like a duck (er, rifle). They're rifle calibers, have stocks ("intended to be fired from the shoulder"), have barrels of around 10" or so, and yet are legally bought and sold as "pistols". What gives?</p><p></p><p>Also, as a part 2 to my question, what the hell makes an sbr/sbs so "dangerous" that it needs additional regulation? Of course, I'd like "their" reasoning, not necessarily your personal opinion. I just feel like it's ridiculous that an essentially less-lethal weapon than its full sized counterparts is considered more dangerous.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Duck L'Orange, post: 2807470, member: 7814"] So, I understand that an SBR is basically a rifle with a barrel length of 16", and overall length of less than (idk some number). However, I see a lot of rifle-caliber guns (AR's, CZ Scorpion clones, lever actions, etc) labeled, marketed, and regulated as "pistols". Hell, some of them even have stocks on them. My question is, how do manufacturers and owners get away with not registering these as NFA firearms and not paying tax on them? It seems to me like these "pistols" walk and quack like a duck (er, rifle). They're rifle calibers, have stocks ("intended to be fired from the shoulder"), have barrels of around 10" or so, and yet are legally bought and sold as "pistols". What gives? Also, as a part 2 to my question, what the hell makes an sbr/sbs so "dangerous" that it needs additional regulation? Of course, I'd like "their" reasoning, not necessarily your personal opinion. I just feel like it's ridiculous that an essentially less-lethal weapon than its full sized counterparts is considered more dangerous. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
Question about SBR rules
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom