I found this on Twitter and it illustrates beautifully the illogic of the coming ATF rule on pistol braces.
The quote of the day comes from an op-ed in the Washington Times. In it, Mark Houser and Matthew Larosiere discuss the inclusion of short barreled rifles and shotguns in the National Firearms Act of 1934. As originally written, the bill would have effectively banned all small concealable firearms and especially handguns. That was going too far for Congress and the handgun portion was stripped from the eventual bill that passed. However, they never got around to removing the language on minimum lengths for rifles and shotguns.
Having minimum lengths was necessary if you were going to ban handguns to prevent people from just cutting down a rifle or shotgun. However, once handguns were removed from the bill, it really served no purpose.
But even in 1934, exempting handguns from the NFA was necessary to secure sufficient support for its passage. And with the demise of the handgun ban, the minimum size rules now serve about the same function as a cancer-prone vestigial organ: They don’t accomplish anything useful, but they sure can get you into trouble.
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || ;
gtag(‘js’, new Date());
One of the YouTube channels I enjoy watching is from a guy who calls himself Garand Thumb. Despite his resemblance to Travis Haley, he is not his son. Mike Jones (his actual name) is, however, an active duty USAF SERE Specialist. His videos have a lot of equipment testing reviews.
One of his most recent videos examines an old school M16A1 versus a more modern AR-15 SBR with all the bells and whistles. As I’ve accumulated most of the parts to build my own retro M16A1 – though, of course, semi-auto – I was very interested in his impressions. He ran a variety of shooting drills with both rifles. With the exception of having to move around a barrier, they were very comparable. One thing he noted was how well balanced the M16A1 was in comparison to his SBR and to an actual M4 carbine.