Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/13/2012 4:07:46 PM EDT
Just something cool. A hillbilly I work with bought a slidefire sock for his AR. We ran shot timers on both the Colt and it. SlideFire ran a consistant 0.18 seconds b/t shots. Colt was b/t 0.17 and 0.21. Selling the Colt and buying 50 SlideFires.....
|
|
Quoted:
That is fine until the ATF reverses their ruling and rules the Slidefire a "machine gun" and asks for the contact info for all purchasers so they can contact you to confiscate it. Stranger things have happened. Ya, but the same could happen with all nfa firearms. They make the rules we have to follow. |
|
Quoted:
Just something cool. A hillbilly I work with bought a slidefire sock for his AR. We ran shot timers on both the Colt and it. SlideFire ran a consistant 0.18 seconds b/t shots. Colt was b/t 0.17 and 0.21. Selling the Colt and buying 50 SlideFires..... Sorry but what kind of shot timer are you running?  oh wait the hillbilly kind??
0.18 = 333.3 RPM 0.17 = 352.9 RPM 0.21 = 285.7 RPM Sorry, but the Math proves that the the SFS is not as fast as my M16 with a 22LR upper on it that shoots about 1000-1100 RPM or with .223/5.56 rounds it is about 600-650 RPM. A lot of people can just pull the trigger fast and get close to 250 RPM, with out having to pay $300-$400 for a stock to help them bump fire. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Just something cool. A hillbilly I work with bought a slidefire sock for his AR. We ran shot timers on both the Colt and it. SlideFire ran a consistant 0.18 seconds b/t shots. Colt was b/t 0.17 and 0.21. Selling the Colt and buying 50 SlideFires..... Sorry but what kind of shot timer are you running? oh wait the hillbilly kind??0.18 = 333.3 RPM 0.17 = 352.9 RPM 0.21 = 285.7 RPM Sorry, but the Math proves that the the SFS is not as fast as my M16 with a 22LR upper on it that shoots about 1000-1100 RPM or with .223/5.56 rounds it is about 600-650 RPM. A lot of people can just pull the trigger fast and get close to 250 RPM, with out having to pay $300-$400 for a stock to help them bump fire. They fire at over 600 RPM there are timed videos on youtube of beta dumps, some get close to 700 rpm. |
|
The 6933 is semi, so I'm guessing that was as fast as you could pull the trigger in semi, or bumpfiring.
Why not just put a SlideFire on the 6933?
FWIW, at our last shoot I shot my Colt M16A1 up against a 6933/SlideFire combo, with the same ammo, same buffer, and identical Colt M4A3 uppers. The '16 was, at most, 25 to 50 rpm faster than the SlideFire/6933. |
|
Ya, but the same could happen with all nfa firearms. They make the rules we have to follow. That is wrong. Congress makes the laws on NFA and they are the only ones who could do away with NFA. ATF implements those laws and as part of that determines what items fall within NFA regulation. If they found the slidefire was a "machinegun" they would be considered post samples and there would be no way for anyone other than dealers and LE to own them because they would be post '86 machine guns. Buying it at a gun show doesn't make it any less a machine gun. If they ruled it a machine gun and you had one, you would be in possession of an illegal machine gun, no matter where you bought it. At least if someone had your info they might give you heads up so you could forfeit it. Don't think it can happen....research the Akins Accelerator. |
| I am not overly impressed with the slide fire stock for 5.56 applications. I may end up getting a RR or RDIAS eventually, but consider the SFS stock a novelty. I did see a video for the SFS on a M&P 15/22, and I fell in love. When I find one that I can pay cash for, I will probably pick one up for this application. While it is still a novelty in my opinion, I mainly use my 15/22 for just fun blasting anyway, so the whole gun is sort of a novelty to me anyway. |
|
Quoted:
Ya, but the same could happen with all nfa firearms. They make the rules we have to follow. That is wrong. Congress makes the laws on NFA and they are the only ones who could do away with NFA. ATF implements those laws and as part of that determines what items fall within NFA regulation. If they found the slidefire was a "machinegun" they would be considered post samples and there would be no way for anyone other than dealers and LE to own them because they would be post '86 machine guns. Buying it at a gun show doesn't make it any less a machine gun. If they ruled it a machine gun and you had one, you would be in possession of an illegal machine gun, no matter where you bought it. At least if someone had your info they might give you heads up so you could forfeit it. Don't think it can happen....research the Akins Accelerator. Oh. Thats what I thought. Congress could change the way they feel about nfa or any particular firearm and ban manf. or ownership of them. Just like the 86 machine gun ban of manufacture. I know I didnt vote for it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ya, but the same could happen with all nfa firearms. They make the rules we have to follow. That is wrong. Congress makes the laws on NFA and they are the only ones who could do away with NFA. ATF implements those laws and as part of that determines what items fall within NFA regulation. If they found the slidefire was a "machinegun" they would be considered post samples and there would be no way for anyone other than dealers and LE to own them because they would be post '86 machine guns. Buying it at a gun show doesn't make it any less a machine gun. If they ruled it a machine gun and you had one, you would be in possession of an illegal machine gun, no matter where you bought it. At least if someone had your info they might give you heads up so you could forfeit it. Don't think it can happen....research the Akins Accelerator. Oh. Thats what I thought. Congress could change the way they feel about nfa or any particular firearm and ban manf. or ownership of them. Just like the 86 machine gun ban of manufacture. I know I didnt vote for it. Actually, the early drafts of the Hughes Amendment did not ban machine guns –– instead, it banned manufacture of new suppressors.
The possibility of bans on new NFA in other categories is why I always cringe when I see ugly engraving on an SBR: Just like the MGs prior to the ban, SBRs could some day be worth $10k each, and crappy engraving on something that valuable .... Either way, while additional bans of NFA items might happen in the future, I do not believe Congress will ever ban actual ownership of a category. That would amount to a "taking" of property and, under the 4th Amendment, the government would be required to appraise each and every NFA item affected, and compensate each and every NFA owner. It would be a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, and even Congress is smart enough to avoid that mess. Besides, look how well 922(o) worked, from their point of view. While not banned, the existing pre-1986 MGs went up so much in value that only a rich man can afford them today ... and Congress does not fear rich people who own machine guns. Heck,those are the same folks who pay to get them elected! 
YMMV. |
|
Quoted:
Just something cool. A hillbilly I work with bought a slidefire sock for his AR. We ran shot timers on both the Colt and it. SlideFire ran a consistant 0.18 seconds b/t shots. Colt was b/t 0.17 and 0.21. Selling the Colt and buying 50 SlideFires..... Colt 6933 ~$1600 Slidefire Stock ~$350 x 50= ~$17,500 That math doesn't work for me |
|
Quoted:
Actually, the early drafts of the Hughes Amendment did not ban machine guns –– instead, it banned manufacture of new suppressors.
The possibility of bans on new NFA in other categories is why I always cringe when I see ugly engraving on an SBR: Just like the MGs prior to the ban, SBRs could some day be worth $10k each, and crappy engraving on something that valuable .... Either way, while additional bans of NFA items might happen in the future, I do not believe Congress will ever ban actual ownership of a category. That would amount to a "taking" of property and, under the 4th Amendment, the government would be required to appraise each and every NFA item affected, and compensate each and every NFA owner. It would be a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, and even Congress is smart enough to avoid that mess. Besides, look how well 922(o) worked, from their point of view. While not banned, the existing pre-1986 MGs went up so much in value that only a rich man can afford them today ... and Congress does not fear rich people who own machine guns. Heck,those are the same folks who pay to get them elected!
YMMV. Never heard that before. Why was this changed? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, the early drafts of the Hughes Amendment did not ban machine guns –– instead, it banned manufacture of new suppressors. (snip)Never heard that before. Why was this changed? The bill that became the Hughes Amendment was first written in response to the Cocaine Cowboy shootings, primarily in Miami (where I happened to live at the time) ... IIRC, it was big-city police chiefs who first started pushing the issue, as usual figuring that disarming law-abiding Americans would somehow keep "scary" items out of the hands of international criminals.
The first target was "silencers" ... but in Congressional hearings on the issue in the early '80s, machine guns were seen as equally evil, so they got added in. The legislation did not go anywhere as stand-alone legislation, however, and there was good reason to believe Reagan would veto it as a separate bill. So the proposal sat on a shelf, while antigunners awaited a ripe opportunity. That came when FOPA –– the Firearm Owners Protection Act –– began winding its way through Congress, and the antigunners realized they did not have the votes to stop it from becoming law. It was a very, very, very pro-gun bill, and that droze the antigunners (read: Most Democrats) crazy. They needed a "poison pill" to turn Republicans against the bill, and literally at the last minute, someone remembered the suppressor/MG proposal that was gathering dust on a shelf somewhere in the halls of Congress. So they grabbed a copy and, right before a late-night vote, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) offered it up as an amendment, though for some reason (who knows?) the wording only included machine guns. A clearly incorrect voice vote added the amendment, and Republicans on the floor went crazy. The NRA lobbyists who were stationed in the hall conferred briefly, then signaled to the GOP to go ahead and approve FOPA. Their reasoning –– shared by Reagan, when he signed FOPA into law –– was that a flat-out ban of a class of firearms was clearly unconstitutional, and that part (the poison-pill MG ban) would immediately be challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. We all know how well that has worked out.  Though D.C. vs. Heller does lay the groundwork for a repeal of 922(o), as long as SCOTUS does not get shifted more the liberal side in future Justice appointments.
Edited to add: Those anti-NFA Congressional hearings in the early 1980s were why most HK sears, and Uzis, etc., were registered in multiple calibers, even though doing so has no practical effect, then or now. The 07/02 manufacturers were sure that some sort of new NFA restrictions were on the way from Congress, and one rumor was that MGs would be limited to the caliber they were registered in. That rumor, of course, never came true. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, the early drafts of the Hughes Amendment did not ban machine guns –– instead, it banned manufacture of new suppressors. (snip)Never heard that before. Why was this changed? The bill that became the Hughes Amendment was first written in response to the Cocaine Cowboy shootings, primarily in Miami (where I happened to live at the time) ... IIRC, it was big-city police chiefs who first started pushing the issue, as usual figuring that disarming law-abiding Americans would somehow keep "scary" items out of the hands of international criminals.
The first target was "silencers" ... but in Congressional hearings on the issue in the early '80s, machine guns were seen as equally evil, so they got added in. The legislation did not go anywhere as stand-alone legislation, however, and there was good reason to believe Reagan would veto it as a separate bill. So the proposal sat on a shelf, while antigunners awaited a ripe opportunity. That came when FOPA –– the Firearm Owners Protection Act –– began winding its way through Congress, and the antigunners realized they did not have the votes to stop it from becoming law. It was a very, very, very pro-gun bill, and that droze the antigunners (read: Most Democrats) crazy. They needed a "poison pill" to turn Republicans against the bill, and literally at the last minute, someone remembered the suppressor/MG proposal that was gathering dust on a shelf somewhere in the halls of Congress. So they grabbed a copy and, right before a late-night vote, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) offered it up as an amendment, though for some reason (who knows?) the wording only included machine guns. A clearly incorrect voice vote added the amendment, and Republicans on the floor went crazy. The NRA lobbyists who were stationed in the hall conferred briefly, then signaled to the GOP to go ahead and approve FOPA. Their reasoning –– shared by Reagan, when he signed FOPA into law –– was that a flat-out ban of a class of firearms was clearly unconstitutional, and that part (the poison-pill MG ban) would immediately be challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. We all know how well that has worked out. Though D.C. vs. Heller does lay the groundwork for a repeal of 922(o), as long as SCOTUS does not get shifted more the liberal side in future Justice appointments.
Edited to add: Those anti-NFA Congressional hearings in the early 1980s were why most HK sears, and Uzis, etc., were registered in multiple calibers, even though doing so has no practical effect, then or now. The 07/02 manufacturers were sure that some sort of new NFA restrictions were on the way from Congress, and one rumor was that MGs would be limited to the caliber they were registered in. That rumor, of course, never came true. You and jbintex should write a book. 
|
|
Quoted:
You and jbintex should write a book.
Thank you. 
But it's too much work –– I'm retired! –– and there's no money in it. However, I know of several folks here who tell me they save and archive all of my posts ... maybe someday one of them will compile them all, and make them available. They are certainly welcome to do so. Ask them after I'm gone, LOL. 
|
|
Either way, while additional bans of NFA items might happen in the future, I do not believe Congress will ever ban actual ownership of a category. That would amount to a "taking" of property and, under the 4th Amendment, the government would be required to appraise each and every NFA item affected, and compensate each and every NFA owner. It would be a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, and even Congress is smart enough to avoid that mess. My fear would not be a "ban" but instead a stop on all future transfers. |
|
Quoted:
Either way, while additional bans of NFA items might happen in the future, I do not believe Congress will ever ban actual ownership of a category. That would amount to a "taking" of property and, under the 4th Amendment, the government would be required to appraise each and every NFA item affected, and compensate each and every NFA owner. It would be a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, and even Congress is smart enough to avoid that mess. My fear would not be a "ban" but instead a stop on all future transfers. That's why all my NFA is in a Corp. I could always sell/transfer the Corp to someone else. |
|
Quoted: I'm with these guys. LLC or Incorporation tctlrld? You do not have to answer that if you don't want to.Quoted: Either way, while additional bans of NFA items might happen in the future, I do not believe Congress will ever ban actual ownership of a category. That would amount to a "taking" of property and, under the 4th Amendment, the government would be required to appraise each and every NFA item affected, and compensate each and every NFA owner. It would be a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, and even Congress is smart enough to avoid that mess. My fear would not be a "ban" but instead a stop on all future transfers. That's why all my NFA is in a Corp. I could always sell/transfer the Corp to someone else. Mine (well, one at the moment) are in an LLC. Jeremy ETA: I forgot the whole reason I was going to post in this thread. *cough* Ehm...The machine gun ban of 1986, not only made the cost of Machine gun ownership rise significantly, but also increased the number of "contraband" due to inconsistencies in record keeping. Well, that and people trying to change things to something else after the ban...anyway. It also created a grey area for those looking to buy a machine gun after the ban. Is the item you are looking at legitimate? or has it been floating about remarked and just hasn't been caught yet. Sure, some of it is obvious to the experienced person, but maybe not to the new guy just starting out their collection. We all know how the ATF can be. Anything resembling a potential machine gun, that is new production, will always be a very grey area to me. Sure, nothing may ever come of the slidefire, and I am glad that someone is willing to take the risk creating a new product. I love the concept and I wish the creator and that company nothing but the best. Until 922(o) gets repealed by congress, I will only stick with what I know. This is of course my opinion on the subject, and as always you are free to disagree. Something else that I noticed, with the early stocks that were put out into the market, they contained a copy of the ATF ruling stating that this item was not a machine gun. On our most recent shipment of them, there was no copy of such paper. Merely a logo sticker and some bubble wrap. The instructions are on the inside cardboard flap. Stay thirsty my friends...   Jeremy |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slidefire stocks are for sucks that can't manage their money properly. Heck, I have a Colt M16-A1 and ordered an SSAK-47 to try on my Saiga-12. Select-fire for hillbillies ......................
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk64/drfcolt/misc/redneck-vi.jpg Better you than me. A slidefire stock is comparable to fucking a really hot first cousin...it might be fun and feel really good at the time, but fundamentally it's just wrong.
|
Armory Sponsor