SBR silliness question

[Steve973]

From the title, you can guess how I feel about SBR regulations. It's possible that there's something that I'm missing, though. I would love to own a H&K MP5, but I do *not* want to go through the hassle and the wait. If I can obtain a 9mm pistol, which is so much more concealable and fires the identical round, and if it only takes 7 days (which is also ridiculous, but beside the point) then why is there so much more hassle for an SBR which seems to simply add a stock to a pistol?

I can think of a few differences that the SBR provides. It's a bit more stable because you have the stock. The barrel is a bit longer, so you get a bit more accuracy at longer distances. You typically use a higher-capacity magazine. But I am really at a loss for why there is so much hassle with an MP5 SBR vs an MP5 pistol, for example.

 

[mikec]

The SBR and other NFA items are controlled because back before the National Firearms Act you could walk into any store and buy a machine gun or other "evil" item and some fools, like Capone, used them to rob and kill.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Oh thats an easy one. Federal regulation... thats why its such a pain!

You have to remember why the law was made. It was aimed at the sawed off BARs and Tommy guns. That why we have the SBRs along with the MGs. Back in the day, there were a lot less in-between type guns. You had basically pistols and rifles and that submachine gun/assault rifle gap had only been filled with the Tommy gun (in the US).

I think there is an easy answer to it. Buy the pistol and then put in for the paperwork. Enjoy shooting the pistol while the paperwork is in (about 4 months). You can fill the paperwork yourself on a form 1. Then when it comes back, add the stock. Its not as much of a pain or a long wait as you think.

IHMO, these pistol sub guns are kind of worthless as you just can not shoot them well. To much for a handgun and you can't shoot it as a rifle. I had a Skorpion which is as small as you get and even it was to much for me to enjoy shooting without a stock. I did not like it enough to SBR it so I sold it! However I also find semi Sub guns boring. Not enough kick or something, so I sold my semi Tommy gun (Had other issues too). BUT thats just me. For abotu 1.5X the money of that SBR MP5, you could get a FA Mac and have 100X the fun!

 

[Indiana Jones]

Oh thats an easy one. Federal regulation... thats why its such a pain!

You have to remember why the law was made. It was aimed at the sawed off BARs and Tommy guns. That why we have the SBRs along with the MGs. Back in the day, there were a lot less in-between type guns. You had basically pistols and rifles and that submachine gun/assault rifle gap had only been filled with the Tommy gun (in the US).

I think there is an easy answer to it. Buy the pistol and then put in for the paperwork. Enjoy shooting the pistol while the paperwork is in (about 4 months). You can fill the paperwork yourself on a form 1. Then when it comes back, add the stock. Its not as much of a pain or a long wait as you think.

IHMO, these pistol sub guns are kind of worthless as you just can not shoot them well. To much for a handgun and you can't shoot it as a rifle. I had a Skorpion which is as small as you get and even it was to much for me to enjoy shooting without a stock. I did not like it enough to SBR it so I sold it! However I also find semi Sub guns boring. Not enough kick or something, so I sold my semi Tommy gun (Had other issues too). BUT thats just me. For abotu 1.5X the money of that SBR MP5, you could get a FA Mac and have 100X the fun!

I really like your idea. I wanted to do a similar thing with a Draco pistol with a stock and pinned FH so it turned into a rifle. Do a form 1 and then take it back to Scott's and have the FH chopped off. Closest I can get to an AKS74U without going broke.

 

[Steve973]

Though I do not agree with the Constitutional compliance of these federal regulations, I can somehow understand the intent a bit more with fully automatic weapons. But I cannot fathom why the same semi-automatic weapon that is made less-concealable (in the example of an MP5 pistol vs an SBR MP5) would require more regulation. Am I still missing something?

 

[kalister1]

Though I do not agree with the Constitutional compliance of these federal regulations, I can somehow understand the intent a bit more with fully automatic weapons. But I cannot fathom why the same semi-automatic weapon that is made less-concealable (in the example of an MP5 pistol vs an SBR MP5) would require more regulation. Am I still missing something?

STOP using logic, it will only confuse things!

 

[Steve973]

Here's another question that might inject a small amount of sense into the equation. If somebody goes through the hassle for a semi-auto SBR, does that eliminate or reduce the hassle to go full-auto, or suppressor, or anything else hassle-laden?

 

[clandestine]

Though I do not agree with the Constitutional compliance of these federal regulations, I can somehow understand the intent a bit more with fully automatic weapons. But I cannot fathom why the same semi-automatic weapon that is made less-concealable (in the example of an MP5 pistol vs an SBR MP5) would require more regulation. Am I still missing something?

The effectiveness between the 2 is drastic. I can rapidly make controlled double taps to a human sized target a a very long range with a pistol calibered SBR (Stock in the Shoulder, and using better sights, and a longer barrel).

Doing the same is WAY more difficult with a handgun, while it can be done, the pistol requires MUCH more skill to perform hits at equal ranges.

You are correct, both will kill but the SBR will make hits more consistently and its still concealable.

While I dont agree with the difficulty one has to go through to get NFA an SBR is a more effective killing machine over a handgun.

 

[clandestine]

Here's another question that might inject a small amount of sense into the equation. If somebody goes through the hassle for a semi-auto SBR, does that eliminate or reduce the hassle to go full-auto, or suppressor, or anything else hassle-laden?

nope.

 

[Kingjamez]

If you do a trust there is less hassle on your next application since your trust will be good to go. Otherwise, it takes the same amount of time to approve whether you have NFA items or not.

-Jim

 

[HT4]

You are correct, both will kill but the SBR will make hits more consistently and its still concealable.

True.

Logical conclusion: The government hates innocent bystanders.

 

[clandestine]

True.

Logical conclusion: The government hates innocent bystanders.

So much truth.

 

[NateTheShake]

It's just the way the law is written. An SBR is any firearm with a barrel under 16" and a stock. Pretty cut and dry and covers everything. There is a "what's the point" factor with some platforms more than others though. For example the ultimate WTF SBR:

YES! The Glock stock. For only the cost of the stock, $200, and a several week (at minimum) wait you can have a stock on your Glock that wobbles and you will eventually throw in the trash.

There are, however, worthwhile SBR platforms. Of course the most popular being the AR15 since it has proven to be such a do-all rifle. By just swapping uppers you can create a multitude of different SBR combinations including pistol-caliber SBR's.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Though I do not agree with the Constitutional compliance of these federal regulations, I can somehow understand the intent a bit more with fully automatic weapons. But I cannot fathom why the same semi-automatic weapon that is made less-concealable (in the example of an MP5 pistol vs an SBR MP5) would require more regulation. Am I still missing something?

I don't think many gun owners would think it is constitutional. Actually the intent is almost worse with FA. Since the constitution is also to protect us against the government, limiting FA is much more unconstitutional. It would be like limiting only political speech. SBRs probably got thrown in because of the SBSs... since they both got hit at the same time. That and to keep the Tommy gun from being produced in semi only as there were some out there like that too.

Here's another question that might inject a small amount of sense into the equation. If somebody goes through the hassle for a semi-auto SBR, does that eliminate or reduce the hassle to go full-auto, or suppressor, or anything else hassle-laden?

Nope, as covered.

Look, this makes much more sense than the AWB where they would not let you have flash hiders or bayonet lugs on an Assault rifle! Like either of those two parts are going to hurt anyone!

 

[ericoak]

Wikipedia isn't always correct but it says that pistols and revolvers were originally going to be covered in the original draft so they included cut down rifles/shotguns, but that language was removed before passage. No citation for that claim though.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act