Non NFA 11.5" AR

[Oh Shoot]

10 hours ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

Just throwing out ideas, not saying it is fact. We shall see, perhaps it is the crack in the NFA dam that will lead to its collapse.

Well, I don't think they were able to use the 84 year old definition of a Short Barreled Rifle somehow tp make their short barreled rifle an exception. Or same for Short Barreled Shotgun.

Whichever factor or combination of factors in the ruling they got almost certainly has to do with separating their heater from the definition of rifle or shotgun altogether in the first place. Which of course is what they are already claiming.

Is that big obnoxious orange field around the trigger a clue? Wish I could find a pic where you could read the three markings on it. Maybe as others have suggested it is indeed as simple as the fact that you can't "pull" it to fire, but only "push" it. Hell, maybe the trigger only "cocks" and you fire it from somewhere else on the thing, who knows!

 

- OS

Edited January 14, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[GlockSpock]

What if it doesn’t fire on the pull of the trigger but rather on the release of? Some sort of wording technicality based on their binary trigger and this is simple a modification thereof?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TNMTBik3r]

The trigger appears to be their basic binary trigger. Safe, Semi, Binary.

 

Additionally, the firearm in the press release is identical to their SBR, which means we are all guessing without seeing a photo (potentially).

Link to their SBR: https://www.franklinarmory.com/collections/short-barreled-rifles/products/bfsiii-franklin-armory-11-5-libertas-sbr-nfa

 

Right now everything is speculation. I hope it is a loophole that could otherwise be exploited, look at some of the other loopholes found recently by other companies, but not holding my breath.

 

[TNMTBik3r]

On Arfcom, no one has found a legal description of a rifled barrel. I don't expect the trigger to be involved in this, but go ahead and surprise me.

Not a rifle, not a shotgun implies something Barrel related to me. So the barrel itself is twisted, or muzzle device is rifled, something to beat the rifle description with a rifled barrel.

[GlockSpock]

Maybe it’s a smooth bore with thousands of tiny nanobots that all work together in creating bullet spin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whisper]

Some other websites have a lot of interesting discussion of this product, but no one seems to have come up with any ideas beyond what has been developed here.

I'm certainly interested, especially if this company has identified a loophole that can be exploited by others.

Cheers,

Whisper

[Oh Shoot]

8 hours ago, jonathon1289 said:

On Arfcom, no one has found a legal description of a rifled barrel. I don't expect the trigger to be involved in this, but go ahead and surprise me.

Not a rifle, not a shotgun implies something Barrel related to me. So the barrel itself is twisted, or muzzle device is rifled, something to beat the rifle description with a rifled barrel.

 "Rifled bore" and "single pull of trigger" is in both USC and both CFR sections. But like you, I'm still betting that barrel tech is gonna be the real kicker, the trigger function just seems too fine a line to moi.

I still opine that a non-shot shell through a non-rifled barrel wouldn't fit the defs of "rifle" or "shotgun".  If this is indeed the basis, the real mystery is still how a bullet gets stabilized enough to be effective, and I still wouldn't rule out some kind of proprietary ammo, like the equivalent of a rifled shotshell slug in a rifle caliber cartridge.

- OS

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[TNMTBik3r]

Something new and proprietary ammo wise could easily skirt the law, as easily as using a non-metallic cartridge.

But that would require other manufacturer's involvement as I don't see FA starting an ammo company. And it would be unlikely IMO to ever sell very well, unless it is 'intended' for a specific ammo but could easily fire a common caliber as has been referenced.

We should know soon enough though. 

[Oh Shoot]

56 minutes ago, jonathon1289 said:

Something new and proprietary ammo wise could easily skirt the law, as easily as using a non-metallic cartridge.

Yeah, I don't know how this stuff plays out legally. Meaning that the "non-metallic cartridge" doesn't appear in the original USC statutes and only in one of the two CFRs that correspond to them. On the other hand, the same type of extra term happens with "pistol" definition too, with "originally made" mysteriously appearing in one CFR, and that has been upheld at least indirectly by SCOTUS even.

Quote

But that would require other manufacturer's involvement as I don't see FA starting an ammo company. And it would be unlikely IMO to ever sell very well, unless it is 'intended' for a specific ammo but could easily fire a common caliber as has been referenced.

Yep, I'll give you that. Though it might only take a proprietary bullet (like with rifled slug type vanes and hollow base or whatever), not a change in caliber or anything else but that. Whatever it is, I'm sure they're counting on the allure of actually owning an "SBR" without a tax stamp as being enough to sell. But then again, that's really all a pistol with a brace is in reality. Hell, some of them are more comfy against the shoulder than an actual stock.

Quote

We should know soon enough though. 

Yep.

- OS

Edited January 14, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[bowtieguy]

My 2 cents is that it's the trigger function. Safe and binary only with no semi only. This allows for more than one shot per pull of the trigger but not a machine gun. Its either that or something really useless like only firing on the release, so two functions for one shot. Either way, their whole thing is trigger systems. I'd look there for any innovations. A non rifled barrel would be useless. Alternate ammo has already been explored. I don't think they are reinventing the wheel but just finding loopholes with something they were already close to. Its usually how things progress anyhow.

[KahrMan]

I am betting it does not have anything to do with the trigger.  It would be to easy for the BATFE to define a "pull" as all movement of the trigger until it is ready to be pulled again.  Then if the rifle fired on the release of the trigger it would need a tax stamp.

[nightrunner]

10 minutes ago, KahrMan said:

I am betting it does not have anything to do with the trigger.  It would be to easy for the BATFE to define a "pull" as all movement of the trigger until it is ready to be pulled again.  Then if the rifle fired on the release of the trigger it would need a tax stamp.

This is already for sale and has been for awhile. It’s called their binary trigger. Search for it on YouTube, it’s all over there. But it’s in 16” carbines or pistols. Actually a couple of different manufacturers that do the same thing. One requires a proprietary BCG.

Search Military Arms Channel NFA Nut kicker.

[Smith]

I am betting it does not have anything to do with the trigger.  It would be to easy for the BATFE to define a "pull" as all movement of the trigger until it is ready to be pulled again.  Then if the rifle fired on the release of the trigger it would need a tax stamp.

Saw elsewhere that it's was confirmed to be the trigger.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Wonder when someone develops a “machine gun” that only fires when the trigger is released or pushed? After all the definition specifically mentions a single PULL of the trigger. 

 

[MP5_Rizzo]

16 minutes ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

Wonder when someone develops a “machine gun” that only fires when the trigger is released or pushed? After all the definition specifically mentions a single PULL of the trigger. 

 

So all this time Browning 50 cals. have been mislabeled. By ATF definition they are not a machine gun!

[Dolomite_supafly]

I misquoted the definition, it is a single “function” of the trigger. 

[TNMTBik3r]

10 hours ago, Smith said:

On 1/17/2018 at 9:29 AM, KahrMan said:

I am betting it does not have anything to do with the trigger.  It would be to easy for the BATFE to define a "pull" as all movement of the trigger until it is ready to be pulled again.  Then if the rifle fired on the release of the trigger it would need a tax stamp.

Saw elsewhere that it's was confirmed to be the trigger.

 

Hopefully we know for sure on Monday. 

On the national forum, they dug up some stuff showing that the length of pull has to be over 13.5" to qualify as a rifle. So a buffer tube that is missing the last couple of holes, or is pinned very easily could bypass. I sure as hell hope so, because I want something that can be retro-fitted to existing firearms and don't want some expensive funky trigger.

 

ETA - the length is more about intention to shoulder. Rifle definition includes shoulders fired.... As nice as it would be, I don't really believe the ATF would let it fly although they have shocked people with some other decisions. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by jonathon1289

[Oh Shoot]

20 hours ago, jonathon1289 said:

On the national forum, they dug up some stuff showing that the length of pull has to be over 13.5" to qualify as a rifle....

That was one letter regarding a certain pistol brace, and it "suggested that it might" make the device into an SBR; I'd say that's far from any kind of blanket ruling by the ATF in general.

Seems rather absurd to consider that if you think about it as it would make maybe half or more the existing rifles in existence "not rifles". Heck, standard max LOP for an AR with milspec adjustable stock is right around that, AK Warsaw config about 12.5, etc.

Saw another vid yesterday where a guy swears it's gonna have "straight grooving" or somesuch, like cuts that run straight down the length of the barrel, which wouldn't really be "rifling" in the sense of the definition. So it would basically throw a more "controlled knuckleball" with reasonable accuracy to 50 yards or so. Wacky as that sounds I wonder if it might not be right,  sort of a enhancement of the purely smoothbore idea I've been leaning toward.

- OS

Edited January 21, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[JohnC]

The binary triggers have been out for a good while now. They fire one time (not continuously) on the pull and the release. By definition of the law, it is totally legal and the BATFE has approved it before it ever went up for sale. 

It must be a typo. They list that rifle on their NFA page:

https://www.franklinarmory.com/collections/short-barreled-rifles/products/bfsiii-franklin-armory-11-5-libertas-sbr-nfa

Maybe they meant to sell it with a pistol stabilizing brace because a butt-stock with an 11.5 inch barrel makes that an SBR.

Edited January 21, 2018 by JohnC

[TNMTBik3r]

Per Outdoor Hub from today's media day, it is a rifled barrel and the standard binary trigger.....

Franklin Armory is supposed to release full details tomorrow publicly but if today's report is accurate then this has to be an overall length or length of pull matter.

[nightrunner]

From what I’ve read, it’s either a straight land and groove barrel good for 50 yards max, or a binary trigger where the semi function fires only on release and not pull of the trigger.

[eRay]

Maybe it's a polygonal barrel rather than traditional lands and grooves. Works in a Glock.

[TNMTBik3r]

https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2018/01/22/quick-look-franklin-armory-reformation-hands-shot-show-2018/

From the link

What we know so far: 

• The “firearm” has a rifled barrel so we can put that rumor to rest. 
• The trigger is the standard binary trigger from Franklin. It shoots once when you pull the trigger, and once when you release it.  
• The “firearm” is 26″ long and comes with a stock and no need for a tax stamp or ATF paper work. 
• It shoot’s really well and feels just like an SBR

Edited January 22, 2018 by jonathon1289

[n0rlf]

Is it going to be funny when they reveal it and it is nothing! They laugh and point and said look, we got everyone talking about nothing.

Speculation is rampant on this one and as usual we will not really know until they tell us. I have seen a lot of heated arguments over this. Some get their nose out of joint when another disgrees with their spec on what makes it legal.

I have stayed out of this one even though I have my own opinion. It has raised some interesting technical discussions though. I really like how some have decreed that this is the begining of the end of NFA rules. (I do personally hope so though)

How about we do a poll. Those that get it wrong have to buy a beer for those that got it right.

Friendly of course!

 

[bowtieguy]