Beckerhead firearms

[1066vik]

An SBR in the right caliber can be damn useful-7.62x39 works pretty well out of a 12". Even 5.56 in a shorty still punches armor better than pistol/subsonic rifle...and everything is loud indoors
All that being said, I haven't dropped the time/$$$ on an sbr either, because when it comes down to it a 14-1/2" with a welded flash hider really is short enough for me

even in armor, I wouldn't want to be punched by you!

 

[daizee]

even in armor, I wouldn't want to be punched by you!

Haha, right?
I think JWB's definition of 'useful' doesn't exactly apply to all of us.
Seriously, the SBR makes more sense to me than such a thing as a pistol. I get the carbine concept, especially with a high-powered pistol round, or something on the fence like 7.62x39mm.

 

[spikebot587]

The only real difference between an SBR and an ar pistol is one youre legally allowed to put on your shoulder and one you're not

 

[Noswad0208]

I want a giant eagle from Lord of the Rings with a 50 cal machine gun strapped to its back.

Edited to cover my own booty as per bladeetay's advice.

 

[daizee]

The only real difference between an SBR and an ar pistol is one youre legally allowed to put on your shoulder and one you're not

There are substantial ergonomic differences, and practical accuracy would be seriously affected by free-handing an awkward pistol vs. a SBR or carbine. See, I'm after the *why* that's related to the pistol or your use of it, not just its legal positioning. If there's something in the legality that appeals to you, then explain so I can understand. For instance: "I'm not supposed to have X, and that makes me want to have X.y because it's thumbing my nose at a silly law." Ok!

I'm not trying to be a jerk, truly. I optimize for utility (in my context) or precision in my shooting/firearm choices. It's where I started - smallbore competition, and later NRA bullseye pistol before moving to IDPA and hunting. So I'm curious to understand why people make different choices that seem strange to me. I know my priorities and context are not the only ones (see JWB), and everybody has their own for their own reasons.

Here, I'm being pesky without offering up my own version of this. Let me remedy that:
My version of 'impractical' is a Ruger Blackhawk Flattop .357. Too big for a concealed carry pistol, useless for most competitions (better choices for CAS, which I don't do anyway), poor choice for SD handgun if possible to choose otherwise. But I LOOOOVE it. I love the aesthetic, I love the operation, I love the little western fantasy that comes with it. My goal for that pistol is to be able to reliably take a deer at 50yd. Will I ever? Not in any planned fashion, my .54 Hawken, .30-30, and 20ga are all better choices, and I don't live in a pistol hunting state. It's the pistol I would WANT to have on my hip walking into the woods for a month... Will I ever do that? No. Is it really the best choice for that? Meh. But ballistically it makes a lot of sense: 4-5/8" barrel on a .357, and I prefer to run 180gr XTP's at 1000fps. So it's subsonic with the muzzle energy of a .40S&W, but with better downrange trajectory and penetration - all at lower pressures, so much more friendly recoil. So it's fun to shoot at the range, and pretty darn accurate as a range toy. I don't mind shooting slow because I prefer precision (see above), and because ammo is expensive either in cash or in my reloading time.

 

[spikebot587]

i think i see where you're coming from. for me, more than anything, its because i like shorter guns. I've always preferred carbines to rifles, and shorter police/riot barrels to full length shotguns. there just something about them that feels right to me. As far as practicality goes, there's nothing that the pistol will do that my M&P can't. It's mostly about the fact that its different. but the fact that it's smaller and therefor more compact means its going to be alot easier to throw in the truck or on the ATV when i'm out on our land. i always like to have something when i'm out filling feeders or checking stands in case i run into a coyote or something similar.
and as far as ergonomics go, it said its illegal to put on my shoulder, not "i cant put it on my shoulder"

 

[daizee]

i think i see where you're coming from. for me, more than anything, its because i like shorter guns. I've always preferred carbines to rifles, and shorter police/riot barrels to full length shotguns. there just something about them that feels right to me. As far as practicality goes, there's nothing that the pistol will do that my M&P can't. It's mostly about the fact that its different. but the fact that it's smaller and therefor more compact means its going to be alot easier to throw in the truck or on the ATV when i'm out on our land. i always like to have something when i'm out filling feeders or checking stands in case i run into a coyote or something similar.
and as far as ergonomics go, it said its illegal to put on my shoulder, not "i cant put it on my shoulder"

Bingo. Thanks!

How about a .22WMR?
(NOW I'm just trollin' ya)

 

[bigghoss]

 

[Silverthorn]

Odds of me ever needing a pistol sized SBR, probably somewhere in the very low 20ish percent range at most.
Odds of me wanting a tricked out SBR, something like 120 pct..lol I would probably want a Tavor or an RFB sbr though. I really like how short you can get a good modern bullpup without compromising pressure and velocity.

On a different gun front. Someone many moons ago made a revolver that seated the cylinder so there wasnt a space between the cylinder and barrel. Why isnt that the standard for revolvers now ? I would think that makes a revolver a better gun across the board. No loss of punch at the gap, no flash there either. It would make things like the Rossi .410 revolver carbine a decent saddle gun or even things that go bump in the night gun. Anyone know why its not a thing ?

 

[daizee]

Odds of me ever needing a pistol sized SBR, probably somewhere in the very low 20ish percent range at most.
Odds of me wanting a tricked out SBR, something like 120 pct..lol I would probably want a Tavor or an RFB sbr though. I really like how short you can get a good modern bullpup without compromising pressure and velocity.

20% 'need'? In what context? That's like one in every 5 times you have use for a gun, you need that one.
Agreed on bullpup vs. SBR. I think the bullpup solves most problems better. Though the muzzle ends up way too close to my face for my own taste.

On a different gun front. Someone many moons ago made a revolver that seated the cylinder so there wasnt a space between the cylinder and barrel. Why isnt that the standard for revolvers now ? I would think that makes a revolver a better gun across the board. No loss of punch at the gap, no flash there either. It would make things like the Rossi .410 revolver carbine a decent saddle gun or even things that go bump in the night gun. Anyone know why its not a thing ?

My theory is complexity. Moving that heavy cylinder around inside the action is awkward. The B/C gap loses you 50-75FPS, but if you count the chamber PLUS barrel length like you do with an auto, it balances out pretty well. So I don't think there's a lot to be gained and the great cost in complexity and tooling. Maybe they'd sell, anyway, though, like an SBR.

 

[Silverthorn]

Well Daizee, 1 in 5 times I have need of a gun would probably be about right because I rarely have NEED of a gun. Want to shoot is much different than need to shoot. So of the times I would ever anticipate needing to shoot, maybe 20 percent of those times at most can I ever see needing an SBR. Really Need to shoot, would be in my home or personal defense out in the world, and in the home an SBR wouldn't be a bad call, out in the world pistol makes way more sense. I hope that explanation makes sense typed out. it made sense in my head ..lol

On the revolver that makes sense. More tooling more manufacturing cost, for not a huge return on performance. I would think though that people Like Rossi making a revolver carbine would do it though, and guns like the Taurus Judge, and S&W Governor would probably benefit at least when shooting shot as opposed to slug.

 

[bigghoss]

You're thinking of the Nagant revolver and it also used special ammo to get that seal. Double action trigger on them is almost unusable.

 

[Silverthorn]

Yes and Oh..lol I wonder if it could be done better. Reading up on it the mechanism wasnt actually complicated but yeah I am reading the trigger and hammer action was very stiff as a result, and the performance wasn't a big enough jump to be worth it.
Would it have more effect on something like the Judge or Governor that runs a shot shell or no ?

 

[daizee]

Well Daizee, 1 in 5 times I have need of a gun would probably be about right because I rarely have NEED of a gun. Want to shoot is much different than need to shoot. So of the times I would ever anticipate needing to shoot, maybe 20 percent of those times at most can I ever see needing an SBR. Really Need to shoot, would be in my home or personal defense out in the world, and in the home an SBR wouldn't be a bad call, out in the world pistol makes way more sense. I hope that explanation makes sense typed out. it made sense in my head ..lol

On the revolver that makes sense. More tooling more manufacturing cost, for not a huge return on performance. I would think though that people Like Rossi making a revolver carbine would do it though, and guns like the Taurus Judge, and S&W Governor would probably benefit at least when shooting shot as opposed to slug.

I was wondering how you'd define 'need'.

My choice for HD is a 4" DAO .38spl with FBI-loads. It keeps a hand free for a light, phone, or opening doors. And since there's an IDPA category for it, I can get lots of under-pressure trigger time with it. There's a lot of debate out there as to what ballistics are best for HD, and preventing over-penetration beyond the household. Clearly a shotgun is a winner here, but you have to get pretty specialized to make it compact enough to be manageable.

The Judge series is weird, IMO, though I've never shot one. If the shot cup is spun by the rifling, the payload spreads out in a hurry. It means you don't get the same impact as from a smoothbore AND you end up with a lot of pellets missing the target. Not such a big deal in bird hunting in the woods, but in the context where a Judge would be used, it would worry me - probably not the trade-off I'd prefer. Might as well go for a quality .45Colt or ACP revolver with light, soft bullets instead. I feel like that thing is a solution in search of a problem. Now... the ooold traditional revolver carbines? Love. But they really only make sense as a niche in their time. If you like such things because they are fun and weird, I won't hassle you for a better reason.

 

[Silverthorn]

I like them because they are old and weird..lol and I like the Idea of the Rossi style of Judge in a smooth bore mainly because it would be easy for my missus to handle and easy to teach my kiddo on as well, but I hear they are horrible to shoot shouldered.

for home defense, I am really liking the new short Mossy that they just dropped at Shot Show, with some lower recoil SD shot. I think that might be a pretty sexy HD gun, or maybe an "AK pistol" Molot Veper in 12 gauge maybe with a choke and some kinda recoil reducer and arm brace.

 

[GSO1962]

i think i see where you're coming from. for me, more than anything, its because i like shorter guns. I've always preferred carbines to rifles, and shorter police/riot barrels to full length shotguns. there just something about them that feels right to me. As far as practicality goes, there's nothing that the pistol will do that my M&P can't. It's mostly about the fact that its different. but the fact that it's smaller and therefor more compact means its going to be alot easier to throw in the truck or on the ATV when i'm out on our land. i always like to have something when i'm out filling feeders or checking stands in case i run into a coyote or something similar.
and as far as ergonomics go, it said its illegal to put on my shoulder, not "i cant put it on my shoulder"

As far as shouldering a pistol brace... I have no desire to be the test case but, when first announced, I felt that there was no way the BATF&E/Justice Dept. could win a case where "misuse" was construed to be a "redesign" as described in the letter declaring shouldering verboten. Seems that they are also a bit dubious themselves based on the recently leaked white paper.

"ATF has not made another NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon."

They are considering dropping the language from the determination letter, but the statement that that there have been no other determinations like this leads me to believe that any competent lawyer would argue this in defense. Given the low chance of successful prosecution, I'd like to think that it's unlikely for the Justice Dept to even try to make this case. That said, I still don't plan on being the test case...

Full text of the white paper is here:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...d-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations.pdf

It's a good read. Shows that there are those in Government employ that practice common sense...at least in my opinion.

Edit: And all of this said, I bit the bullet (haha) and ponied up $200X5 for some SBR stamps on Form 1's. 300BLK pistol with a brace is fine with subsonic ammo, but not particularly pleasant with supers. So 300BLK SBR was needed for pig hunting. Also, the ladies complained about shooting the 9mm AR pistol with the brace, so a Glock version and Colt SMG magazine version were required. A real stock does work so much better for me, but YMMV.

 

[bigghoss]

Yes and Oh..lol I wonder if it could be done better. Reading up on it the mechanism wasnt actually complicated but yeah I am reading the trigger and hammer action was very stiff as a result, and the performance wasn't a big enough jump to be worth it.
Would it have more effect on something like the Judge or Governor that runs a shot shell or no ?

I suspect the low pressure of the shells would make the seal even less important, but that's just a guess. Though the shell crimp might work to form the gas seal. I'm sure it could be done better than the Nagant, but I doubt it can be done well enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[Silverthorn]

Bummer. I like weird gun stuff and always wonder if some of the old "Innovations" could or would apply today, especially with new manufacture tech, and with higher pressure ammos and such like we have now.

 

[daizee]

High pressure ammo mostly gets you the same performance in a shorter package at the expense of much sharper recoil and reduced margin for handloading error and versatility.

A goofy thing i once fantasized about was an M1 Carbine in .357.

 

[J W Bensinger]

As far as rifle caliber "pistols" go-I think in whatever caliber the AR platform is the way to go.
It's quite possible to get a nose-on-the-charging-handle cheekweld with an AR pistol without shouldering it-just get that nose snugged up on the charging handle. It's not on your shoulder and you can hit farther out than a 5.56 is really good for out of a 10".