The Firearms Forum banner

The SBR: Why?

8K views 53 replies 17 participants last post by  458ready 
#1 ·
I'm a new guy here, and new guys can be suspect.

So let me frame it like this:

I believe that a citizen should own whatever he or she wants. If you are a citizen and not a felon and wish to own a full auto AK with a 2 inch barrel and an infinite ammo drum, good on you. I support that.

My question is from a technical standpoint.

I'll assume an SBR carries a tax stamp because it might be concealed. Never mind that an AR pistol is concealed a little more easily, and can be done so legally, without a tax stamp.

I'm making an educated guess that an SBR AR sacrifices a degree of power. It certainly has to sacrifice some range.

From a Joe Citizen standpoint, I see it as less than optimal for home defense. A shotgun is probably better, certainly cheaper.

For me, the SBR has limited practical applications. I've asked around, nobody can offer anything beyond "It looks cool", "This is what SEALs use", or "Because Liberals don't want you to have it".

All I can come up with is brush gun, and I think there are better choices for that.

So why the SBR?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Only reason, really, is BECAUSE.

The original SBRs were 10 or 12" lever guns, known as TRAPPERS, 'cause they were short and light, and were convenient for a trapper to carry on his line.

Nowadays, you get a 12" 223 and you got the power of a Hornet, with the noise of a stick of TNT.

Sure looks cool, though, don't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jim brady
#3 ·
i'm no expert and i didn't stay at a holiday in express last night.. but here is my opinion.

Home defense has a few issues.

If i'm hold up in my bedroom waiting for the bad guy to leave or barge in.. then a full length shotgun may be an ok gun. ( probably still would not go with rifle for penetration issues.. etc.. but that's another post ). anyway. long gun only if i have room . If i am doing a room by room search or moving in hallways, i sure do not want a long gun. at MOST a tactical shotgun or an sbr / ar pistol. those can even get too long in a corner. I'd prefer a pistol for room clearing..e tc. but.... for all the obvious stated reasons.. an sbr or ar pistol. with te reduced range and accuracy possibility. then room clearing and hallway work would be the reason i'd put out if someone asket. It's more punch power than a regualr handgun, gives you more ammo capacity, and probably better accuracy and time back to target than say a 44 wheel gun or 45acp. it sacrafices maneuverability vs the handgun.. but the ammo capacity, mass to reduce recoil, and shot power could offset that. plus, it may make the crook think twice seeing a larger class ( read more power ) weapon.
 
#4 ·
Dr. Your assumption that a SBR carrys a tax stamp because it can be concealed is wrong. A SBR carrys a tax stamp for the simple reason of having a barrel less than 16 inches long.

Yes, to a degree a SBR suffers long range accuracy but I wouldn't say it suffers power.

I would agree that a SBR is less than optimal for a home defense weapon.

You believe that citizens should own whatever they want so long as they're not a felon. Do you believe in the true Second Amendment? Or, the Second Amendment that politicans have repeadedly raped?

And the simple answer to your last question. So why the SBR?

Because I can.......
 
#5 ·
I'm not a fan of SBR's but I do like the AR pistol. Why spend $200 on a tax stamp and be limited to your uses of (notify the ATF if you are crossing state lines etc) when you can have the same thing for less money and no hassles, in an AR pistol? As for home defense. AR has a lot going for it. I have 14 rounds in my Glock 41, I have a light on my G41. I have 60 rounds on my 300 BLK, I have a light on my 300 BLK, I have an infrared laser on my 300 BLK, I have a can on my 300 BLK, I have an Eotech on my 300 BLK which is very fast to acquire a target. Before you ask, yes the laser requires the use of NODs, but that makes clearing things at night SO much easier. Shooting sub-sonic ammo the 300 BLK hits about as hard as a .45, shooting super-sonic it hits about as hard as an AK 47. That said, I still have a cycling problem shooting sub's and until that gets cleared up, the go to gun is a .45.
 
#7 ·
Actally, Firefighter, he is perfectly correct. The entire purpose of NFA was to outlaw guns that were "easily concealable".

Pistols were originaly on the
list, and were only removed when the very real possibility of the THIRD American Revolution happening.

And then they realized the Constitution would not allow them to OUTLAW these guns, so they taxed them out of reach.
 
#8 ·
Add me to the "I'm not a fan of SBR" list. For reasons already cited (over-penetration of walls, etc), a rifle caliber, reguardless of barrel length is not the perfect solution for folks who live in a city. If you're going to carry a rifle for a survival situation, I still would have an SBR very low on my list. If you think you might need a rifle - carry a rifle. If that is too long, carry a long barrel pistol.

If you live in a poplualed area, my vote for home defense would be a shotgun with birdshot. A couple of sheets of drywall will absorb most of the shot that misses the bad guy. And as far as a shotgun goes, I'd vote for a good pump action. The sound of a shell being racked into the chamber would certainly deter ME. Birdshot at close range is pretty nasty.

I differ on Dr. Fell's notion of a citizen being able to own 'anything' they want. That is a technicality on my part. I don't think that ordinary citizens should be allowed to own explosive devices like mortars, RPGs or modern artillery explosive rounds, hand grenades, etc. Machineguns and sub-machineguns are allowed, but you have to jump thru hoops to own them. If you want one, I'm all for it, but I'll pass. I used to operate a machinegun for a living, but given my present circumstances, I prefer a good semi-auto rifle like an M1A or an M4 semi auto AR. Not expecting to fend off any human wave attacks in the near future.

By the way, welcome aboard, Dr. Fell!
 
#9 ·
One of the original intents of the NFA was to regulate ALL concealable firearms including "pistols". During debates they broke up "pistols" into two catagories - "pistols"(integral chamber handguns) and revolving pistols(aka, revolvers). They did this because the likelihood of a blanket ban on all "pistols" would cause the NFA to fail for vote due to the fact that LOTS of people had revolvers and they didn't want to criminalize countless thousands of people. ...especially during a time of economic depression.

Eventually all handguns were worked off the bill leaving the other concealable weapons like SBR's, SBS's, and AOW's.

So, as a history lesson - when a person uses the word "pistol" to define only a handgun with an integral chamber, they are using an anti-gun term much similar to using "Assault Weapon".
 
#49 ·
Correct. It was coined in the 1300's or so and meant a firearm designed to be held and fired with a single hand.

My point was the definition was bastardized for anti-gun purposes to narrow the definition to only firearms with integral chambers - specifically semi-automatic handguns so that they could try to ban them in the NFA. Typically only the United States uses the modern bastardized term, and denoting "revolvers" as not being a "pistol".

Revolvers were called pistols looooooong before semi-autos were even thought of.
 
#11 ·
Perfect for clearing a room, in my opinion! But then, I live out in the sticks!
Gun Firearm Rifle Air gun Trigger
 
#12 ·
Since NFA '34 is an infringement of our Constitutional rights, it should be negated - period. Are explosives "arms" ? I think you could make the argument that they are not and thus regulate them. Therefor no RPG's, mortar shells, HE rounds of any type.
 
#13 ·
You can also make the argument that the Second only applies to "arms" available then - in fact, many do.

Being able to "Make the argument" does not make you correct, though.

Explosives ARE arms, and if not for privately own supplies of gunppwder (an eplosive) and cannon, we might now be speaking English. :p
 
#14 ·
I agree with Alpo! There is no way to overthrow a government that is armed to the teeth, unless the citizens have access to the same armament.
 
#15 ·
Agreed.

I tried to phrase my original post as carefully as possible to avoid the inevitable quasi-political discussion that I knew would ensue.

In my mind, nobody needs grenades, but if a guy owns his property, and enjoys blowing stuff up on his property, and isn't hurting anyone else, who am I to decide exactly what his limits should be?

No way to do it without jumping on the slippery slope of what should and shouldn't be allowed, and free men can't decide that for other free men.

Where did we land on a shorter barrel sacrificing a degree of power? If the same round is in a barrel for a shorter distance, is it losing pressure?

Forget the SBR for a moment, does a .22 coming out of a 20" barrel have less power than the same round coming out of a 21" barrel?
 
#16 ·
Actually, it probably has more.

22LR is designed to burn all of its powder in 16 to 20 inches of barrel. After that there is no "push", and longer barrels are slowing the bullet from friction.

So a 22 from an eighteen inch barrel is certainly faster than the same round from a twenty-four incher, and from a twenty should, just slightly, be faster than from a tenty-one.
 
#20 ·
Thank you. Now we're getting to the meat.

Now let's change it up a bit...

If I just had to have an SBR chambered in 5.56, and customized twist, barrel length, all the bells and whistles, is the round now faster, or is it optimal in a standard barrel length?

For that matter, AR and AK pistols, how much are they gaining or losing in projectile performance?
 
#19 ·
Never have, but am prepared if need be. I practice in my own home with unloaded guns. I know about slicing the pie, and would not hesitate to go to the source of any thing in my home.
 
#23 ·
Dr., when you first asked, you said ".22". For me, and probably 99% of the rrst of us, that means "22LR".

Now you are asking about an AR.

223 Remington/5.56 NATO was designed for a 20" barrel. For the powder to still be burning when the bullet reached the muzzle, so the bullet is still accelerating.

Chopping six inches off, as the Feds have done with the M4, has probably lowered the muzzle velocity three or four hundred fps. With that small bullet you need speed, so, to me, going below twenty inches is foolish.

If I planned to make an SBR, I'd start with a large heavy bullet, that did NOT rely on speed to get the job done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Fell
#25 · (Edited by Moderator)
you are foolish for having a noisy gun (ie, no suppressor) regardless of barrel length. The 14.5 " barrel of the M4, with 6.5 additional inches for the suppressor, is still a handy length, but the 11.5" barrel is better. I'll take the 11.5" AR in 223, with a scope, .22lr conversion unit, free float tube, bipod, match ammo suppressor , Nosler Partition softpoints, trigger job, luminous sight inserts and NVD goggle, over a box stock 20", (of any caliber) noisy gun, using ball ammo in that 20" barrel, ANY day,and at any range.

I just wont bother to fire at more than 1/4 mile, cause I won't NEED to do so. Nobody can hit a dodging, cover-using, head on prone man at more than 200m, with any rifle or load, except by accident (ie, with more than have of his shots). If the guy aint aware of you, he's not much, if any threat and if he IS aware of you, then he wont be the stationary, frontal, erect target that you dream about "sniping". here in the US ,everybody isn't some ignorant goatherd or rice farmer

with a decent "can" mounted on it, the shorty 223 is no louder than a regular .22 rifle. TRY getting swift hits on multiple targets, with no ear protection (ie, like in a fight) with your 20", unsuppressed rifle sometime. :) With the suppressor, performance without ear protection is the same as with that protection. It's just not that loud, using full charge ammo. I can get 60 grs to 2600 fps in my 11.5" barrel. 900 ft lbs, the same as a 6" .44 mag with factory loads. When that 223 Partition softpoint uses that much power inside of the human body, the "hittee" is a lot more messed up than a man hit with that .44 jhp, too. :)
 
#30 ·
Short-barreled AR with a conversion kit and a can. Where have I seen that before? :confused:

Got a wheelbarrow?
 
#36 ·
I couldn't prove my statement without having a labratory for testing, but it seems to me that a given round of ammunition, fired from the same barrel, will loose pressure as the barrel is shortend. The propellant powder is still burning even after the bullet seperates from the cartridge case within the chamber. Shorten the barrel enough and you will have un-burnt powder being ejected from the muzzel. You would need a special barrel made, with sensors spaced evenly to record pressure as the bullet travels down that barrel to determine a 'true' minimum barrel length. The same would hold for going the other way - a longer barrel. Then the question would be 'how long of a barrel is too long?' when you reach the point where all of the propellant is ignited and the barrel becomes just a source of friction.

As to the question of a .22 long rifle fired from a 20" barrel vs one fired from a 21" barrel - I doubt if that is enough to even test. A simple way to compare the question would be to look at the velocity of like ammo fired from pistol length barrels to those fired from rifle barrels. Rifles will have higher velocity than a pistol of the same caliber and the same ammuniton because the longer barrel is more efficient in allowing the full ignition of the powder.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top