This thought has been bugging me lately, and so I need some help resolving it:
Optics and other accessories being equal (Let’s assume Aimpoint T1 for the optic), would you ever prefer a full-size carbine to an SBR if there were no NFA?
I realize that there is an NFA, and for some folks in some states it’s worse than just the $200 and paperwork. However, for most of us in the US, it’s just $200 and some paperwork. So, that being said, in terms of usefulness and function, why would you ever want an AR with a 16" barrel or 14.5/pinned over an SBR (say 12.5 and under). To me it seems that if you can get something like a MK18, why would you want the longer barrel (again, maintaining the T1 as the optic, as obviously with a magnified optic you would realize the velocity/terminal performance gains of the longer barrel)
If I could have an SBR, my GP carbine would be a 12.5" with an SPR/M4 on the front of it. Since I can’t, 16" rifle without the can, waiting for the state to get their SBR legislation through.
I would love to have an SBR if there were no NFA. Like others said, most of the shooting that is done is relatively short range (50-100yrds) so having a more compact rifle is appealing despite a small performance loss. Some day I keep telling myself…
The short barrel is just a better option for me because of the realistic possibility of me shooting over 150+ yards with anything else than the above said bolt gun is only on the range.
Ease of handling especially with suppressor attached is an even greater factor.
If only allowed one gun it would likely be in the 11.5"-12.5" range. beyond that I would specialize, with slight overlap, several carbines for a variety of wants/perceived needs.
Variety is the spice of life, so I would always want various configurations. However, an SBR would almost always be my default weapon.
As for the range issue. We already know that an SBR in is able to reach out well beyond the normal range where a civilian can justify it’s use so I wouldn’t that much thought.
SBR for sure. 16" or greater is fine for a “target/precision” rifle, but not very handy. Heck my 5" 1911 can get decent hits at 100yds on man sized targets.
They need to make the process simpler and paperwork easier, and for gods sake speed it up. I’d gladly pay an extra $100 in fees if they could setup Form1’s the same way as standard background checks. Fill it out… call it in… approved. Heck, let the gunshops get the extra $100 for calling in Form1’s.
I’d probably have an 11.5 in 5.56 or 10.5 in 300blk. Unfortunately Washington State has no current provision for short barreled rifles so I’m stuck with 16". It’s really not that bad though.
Be careful what you wish for. If it really costs $200 to run an individual Form 1, then something is broken in today’s automated world. After all, the prohibitions regarding NFA guns are the same for any other firearm. So, why can my LGS run my background check in two minutes for less than $10? It should be a paperwork/data entry issue. As for the rest of you doing Trusts that maybe require a legal review, you folks should be put into a different stream than the rest of us.
I understand they’re backed up. I think they’ve deliberately slowed down the process through lack of staffing at the very least. I’m writing my congressman and my senators when my form comes in.