Franklin armory introducing Short barrel firearm with stock without stamp

[T.Lex]

My SBR has an extendable stock that makes it > 26". It has to be the binary trigger thing.

 

[Bigtanker]

We'll find out tomorrow!

 

[HoughMade]

My SBR has an extendable stock that makes it > 26". It has to be the binary trigger thing.

How can it have a "semi" setting if its the claim that 1 pull releases 2 bullets, but a single function of the trigger releases 1?

I can see the argument if there is no standard "semi" setting.

The linked article speculates about length....I don't get it.

It's like Christmas Eve....only I know i won't be getting one of these.

 

[dhamby]

A little update. Apparently this does have a rifled bore and their typical bianary trigger.
https://youtu.be/-aKXBNhmtKk

 

[Ballstater98]

Schwing!

[video=youtube_share;R2K97yenDzE]http://youtu.be/R2K97yenDzE[/video]

 

[Vic_Mackey]

Well, my money was on it being a longer fixed stock, but that video debunked that. Definitely interested.

 

[Double T]

My guess it that they challenged the questions I had in my previous post as in "barrel <16" and OAL >26" makes it a firearm.

 

[Ballstater98]

Fwd to 2:37 if you want to go straight to it. He tried, but the lips are still sealed:

[video=youtube_share;9I911Eoj_ls]http://youtu.be/9I911Eoj_ls[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

How can it have a "semi" setting if its the claim that 1 pull releases 2 bullets, but a single function of the trigger releases 1?

The mechanics of the internals could allow for a setting where 1 notch is the traditional semi. A second notch engages the binary.

Now, the problem is, the word for that part is a "sear." That's an NFA word if there ever was one.

The binary trigger would still allow one "pull" (bringing the trigger toward the rear of the firearm) to fire one shot. That a second shot was fired upon the release (moving or allowing the trigger to move forward) is what the key is.

For FA, the "pull" part needs to fire more than one. It doesn't talk about the release part at all.

 

[snorko]

First time I've seen the right side of the receiver. Franklin is saying it is patent pending technology and the forward assist is really weird looking. Thoughts?

 

[T.Lex]

First time I've seen the right side of the receiver. Franklin is saying it is patent pending technology and the forward assist is really weird looking. Thoughts?

Good eye. I supposed they'd need a dedicated upper for the extra FCG hardware.

 

[PolishBulldog]

At least we can all grab one of these while everyone is still worried about bump stocks! What a great game changer!

 

[HoughMade]

The mechanics of the internals could allow for a setting where 1 notch is the traditional semi. A second notch engages the binary.

Now, the problem is, the word for that part is a "sear." That's an NFA word if there ever was one.

The binary trigger would still allow one "pull" (bringing the trigger toward the rear of the firearm) to fire one shot. That a second shot was fired upon the release (moving or allowing the trigger to move forward) is what the key is.

For FA, the "pull" part needs to fire more than one. It doesn't talk about the release part at all.

I understand the FA part. What people were saying is that for it not to be an SBR a single "pull" had to NOT release 1 bullet (it has to release 2) and for it to be non FA a single "function" of the trigger had to not release more than one. They were claiming that the binary trigger only released 2 bullets per "pull", but only 1 per "function". Making non-FA, but also not an SBR.

My interpretation was just what you said and what keeps it from being FA. It does not release more than 1 per pull, it releases 1 on the pull and 1 on the release. I agree that's 2 functions, but it's ls not 2 per pull while being 1 per function, which is where some people were seeing the "loophole". This is especially clear if there is a setting that allows regular semi.

Length?

 

[T.Lex]

Franklin Armory's Reformation Revealed | RECOIL

Whoa. This is really odd.

Well then, what is it?
The innovators at Franklin Armory took a unique approach to solve the problem of a “shortish” rifle that would require no tax stamp in certain areas or to give shooters who cross state lines an easy option to take their rifles with them by adapting straight-cut lands and grooves.

That means that the barrel imparts no spin on the projectile. According to ATF’s tech branch, this means that the Reformation is “not a rifle”. The concept has been around since match lock guns and early shotguns; however they were pushed aside as gun makers continued to innovate and spiraled rifling improved along with bullet construction.

So it isn't smoothbore, because it has lands and grooves, but they are straight? That's odd.

ETA:
This is a hard pass from me. The article says 3-4 MOA with ordinary ammo. Only good at pistol distances. Maybe a proprietary ammo in the future that will impart spin. (Also noticed the muzzle device is cut to maybe impart a little spin.

This really looks like a novelty now. IMHO.

 

[HoughMade]

No Christmas morning has ever been so disappointing. Interesting for places where a real SBR isn't an option, but limiting and not much of a bargain where it is.

 

[T.Lex]

No Christmas morning has ever been so disappointing. Interesting for places where a real SBR isn't an option, but limiting and not much of a bargain where it is.

Yeah.

Credit to them for the marketing gimmick. But this is kinda underwhelming.

The only net positive I see is that it is another of the thousand cuts to the NFA. That regulation grows more and more absurd with the advancement of creative technology.

 

[M67]

Franklin Armory's Reformation Revealed | RECOIL

Whoa. This is really odd.


So it isn't smoothbore, because it has lands and grooves, but they are straight? That's odd.

ETA:
This is a hard pass from me. The article says 3-4 MOA with ordinary ammo. Only good at pistol distances. Maybe a proprietary ammo in the future that will impart spin. (Also noticed the muzzle device is cut to maybe impart a little spin.

This really looks like a novelty now. IMHO.

The original SRM shotguns had straight lands and grooves, I think it was for greater distance and tighter patterns but not sure on that

I was curious what straight lands and grooves would be on a centerfire but didn't think it would be that effective

 

[HoughMade]

I still find the Lancaster barrel a fascinating concept and maybe worthy of a look.

 

[edwea]

Umm, neat I guess. I'll keep my pistol brace and moa though.

 

[T.Lex]

Another thought - this is somewhat more tenuous, in a regulatory sense, than the bumpstocks. It seems to me that a revisit to the centerfire/lands-and-grooves question could make this a "rifle" PDQ.

To me, the lands and grooves are the... wait for it... rifling that make a rifle a rifle. That they are straight just means that it is sucky rifling. Has the actual ATF letter been released yet?