Well this is interesting!
https://franklinarmory.com/antithesis/





Guess I’ll order one.

I couldn't figure out just how they differ from a run of the mill AR ??? My impression is that they can shoot something that looks like snake shot as well as 223/556. I don't have any facts....just a guess.

That is interesting. I have more looking into it to do but you might have cost me some money.

It's odd that the ATF letter they have states the Antithesis fires .410bore and .45Colt, but the "multiple projectile" projectiles being sold state they are for .223/5.56 cases

I believe they are using the argument that if a firearm fires both shotshells and rifled rounds then it falls under neither category of shotgun or rifle.

The existence of .223 shotshell ammo, by way of them selling loadable "multiple projectile assemblies", is what allows this classification.

Which would mean EVERY .223/5.56 would meet this classification. One company seems to have an agreement with the ATF as such, though the switcheroo pull with .410/45colt vs. this contrived .223 shot projectile would give me more than a little pause if I was seriously considering one.

I applaud Franklin Armory for continuing to push the envelope, regardless of the outcome.

edit: link to the ATF letter
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...rmation-and/download

Have to ask what advantage this has over an AR pistol with a brace. That’s not NFA either.

^^^^^
A stock is more stable than a brace.

Wait, is this just a rebrand/rerelease of their "Reformation" firearm from 2018ish?

That was a short barrel AR, but not a SBR, due to it using straight rifling that imparted no spin.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
^^^^^
A stock is more stable than a brace.

Few people have any stability issues shooting using a brace, especially newer more robust ones like the SBA5. Also there are aluminum braces like the tailhook that are very rigid. A lot more options these days besides the squishy SBA3 and SBT type braces.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Wait, is this just a rebrand/rerelease of their "Reformation" firearm from 2018ish?

That was a short barrel AR, but not a SBR, due to it using straight rifling that imparted no spin.

Apparently both the Reformation and Antithesis were declared non-NFA in the court decision.

The Antithesis has spiral rifling so that .45 Colt can be shot in it, but it was designed to shoot .410 from the get-go. Part of what makes a firearm legally a "rifle", and therefore subject to the NFA, is that it is designed to shoot a single projectile each time it's fired. Since the Antithesis was always meant to be used with .410 shotshells, it doesn't fall under the strict wording of the law even though it's barrel is (spiral) rifled and .45 Colt ammunition can also be fired through it.

They were marketing both before, maybe they'll market both again.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
Few people have any stability issues shooting using a brace, especially newer more robust ones like the SBA5. Also there are aluminum braces like the tailhook that are very rigid. A lot more options these days besides the squishy SBA3 and SBT type braces.

Fact is, a brace is not a stock, even the ones that try hard to mimic one. Do you think the brace will survive and continue to thrive, if the NFA is struck down? Let’s be honest here, the reason braces are so popular be cause folks refuse to subject themselves to the NFA route, not because they really need to usec the brace for its intended purpose.

This is great news! The fact that you can purchase a rifle with a barrel as short as 7.5” without having to jump through ridiculous steps and be registered is fantastic.

These would make great home defense guns or great truck guns

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
^^^^^
A stock is more stable than a brace.

Agreed. Especially if you're tall. I'm 6'5". Braces don't work well for me.

The Antithesis is chambered in 5.56 Nato and has spiral rifling. As far as I can tell, they are playing the semantic game. It is "designed" to fire either shot shells or duplex rounds (multi projectile rounds) and therefore, is not a rifle or shotgun. It is just a firearm. I think the only difference is going to be barrel markings and all of the court paperwork and patents.

Maybe I should have stayed in NY where I couldn't have cans and toys such as this. Nah.

Neat concept, but it feels like Franklin is leaning hard on definitions and loopholes again. Reformation all over. I’ll give them credit for fighting the fight though.

Franklin just wants another patent and "license" from the ATF to sue anyone that makes something even remotely similar. Just like they did with the triggers. Fuck'em.

quote:

Originally posted by Vgex:
Franklin just wants another patent and "license" from the ATF to sue anyone that makes something even remotely similar. Just like they did with the triggers. Fuck'em.

I never paid much attention to the triggers so I don’t know the story. In this case, Franklin put in the money and the time so they probably should get to “own” it. Again, I don’t know the backstory so I could be off base here.

Anything a firearms manufacturer can do to take advantage of what the law permits and especially while poking a finger in the unconstitutional NFA’s eye should be a cause for celebration, not a reason to find something to whine about.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
Have to ask what advantage this has over an AR pistol with a brace. That’s not NFA either.

The more options the better! And simple stocks are cheap.

quote:

Originally posted by RangeWalker:
Neat concept, but it feels like Franklin is leaning hard on definitions and loopholes again. Reformation all over. I’ll give them credit for fighting the fight though.

Why is this a problem? Law makers have made all these stupid rules and regulations.
Get us more options by using their specific wording against them.

quote:

Originally posted by Vgex:
Franklin just wants another patent and "license" from the ATF to sue anyone that makes something even remotely similar. Just like they did with the triggers. Fuck'em.

Yes, because protecting product development and intellectual property is a bad thing??????

Or should every product just be free to copy by anyone at anytime???