Just curious on an intellectual level..

So not concerning the issue I have with the too-much cost of this non-NFA rifle, just with the issues on accuracy and straight rifling. According to Franklin Armory, this rifle does have rifling, however it's straight. Obviously, with an 11" barrel and straight rifling, it's going to be crap for accuracy with standard bullets (will tumble) and their solution is a weird finned bullet load.

So the question is this, couldn't one simply have a screw-on type device, that is comprised of an inch or two of twist rifling to impart bullet spin while technically keeping the main barrel NFA straight rifling requirement?

So basically, a barrel screw-on type extension with ramping twist rifling in it to improve the bullet accuracy by spinning the bullet at the end? Yes it would probably wear out much faster since all the bullet spin would be imparted in a length of 1-2 inches, but being replaceable wouldn't be a big deal over time for wear. I'm sure it wouldn't be near as accurate as a fully twisted rifling barrel, but such a short rifle is not exactly a distance shooter anyway, but even imparting spin at just the end of the bullet travel should vastly improve the accuracy and performance of standard style bullets without needing the tail-finned bullet they are planning.

Would that be a legal way of improving accuracy while retaining the non-NFA short barrel legality?

My understanding is it will be more accurate in .300blk.

2-3 inch groups at 50yds is plenty accurate if this is a close in self defense type weapon.

At the price point they're asking, why not just SBR a lower and have multiple uppers?

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
2-3 inch groups at 50yds is plenty accurate if this is a close in self defense type weapon.

Which 99.999999% of the time it won't be.

That's kind of like you buying one of those tiny 3 wheeled Japanese cars in case you ever need to parallel park in Tokyo.


Yes if you live in a state where you can get an SBR, it makes zero sense. If you live in a non NFA state, it... still doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially with full sized AR's being at an all time low price. I'm all for thumbing you nose at the state and doing things "just because" , but there's nothing there that warrants the MSRP.
Plus you have to factor in "risk". It may be legal, but you're still getting arrested should it come to that. And as the saying going, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride. Enter at your own risk.

I still think I’d rather just have a pistol with a brace.
Fairly low cost & I don’t have the hassle of paperwork or having to ask permission to cross state lines with it.

Back to the question:

I doubt such a device would be technically feasible and still provide the requisite spin stabilization. With an 11" bbl, you'd only get 5" of device (at 16" length, you might as well go non-NFA). What that basically means is you'd have 11" of weird throat and 5" of rifling.

Well, there's a reason why 5" 5.56 bbls are not popular. And while you can go shorter with a .300 BLK, 5" is still shorter than any production .300 BLK bbl that I know of.

Then there's the problem of how to attach the spin-imparting device. Threads? You could try to thread it opposite the spin of the bullet, so it wouldn't back of (kind of like the LH threading on some European bbls and suppressors). You wouldn't be able to perm attach it otherwise it would be considered part of the barrel and you'd be back to NFAing or 16'ing it.

While I admire Franklin's commitment to innovation, I've not been an admirer of either their binary trigger or this new straight-rifled not-an-SBR.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
2-3 inch groups at 50yds is plenty accurate if this is a close in self defense type weapon.

Which 99.999999% of the time it won't be.

That's kind of like you buying one of those tiny 3 wheeled Japanese cars in case you ever need to parallel park in Tokyo.

Sure, but you can say that same thing about super long range precision rifles. At the end of the day, they are both plinkers 99.9999% of the time.

I'm not saying this was a great idea in an age of pistol braces, I'm just saying that the Reformation isn't intended to be very accurate.

Right, but they're accurate plinkers. This thing isn't. So you know going in it's going to be bad at what you're going to use it for most of the time. That makes little sense.

No, it's not "intended" to be accurate. It's intended to get people to pay a lot of money for something that shouldn't cost a lot of money.