Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 10,202
- Reactions
- 17,560
I'm not going to jump on the short barrel is less accurate bandwagon. The bullet comes out slower to be sure . I can't get over 2500 FPS with my 10.5 running 62 grain Nosslers and 2400 running the 69's. If theres a better powder for short barrels than 4198 I'm certainly not aware of it. Doesnt cost any more to reload than anything else. Speed is not accuracy though. The bullet stabilizes just fine out of a 10.5" 1:7 barrel though and I can handily pick up under 1 inch groups at 100 yards. With a marginally good scope (not a red dot with little or no magnification) if you do your part you can shoot every bit as good as a long barrel just not as long of a range. I keep a 4-12X scope on mine and it shoots every bit as good as I can shoot.
FWIW the ATF never reversed its position on the SIG brace. The ATF said it could be used as designed if that design actually meant it was an arm brace . It never said it could be shouldered. That would be a buttstock. Their "clarification" letter was to force home the fact that the sig brace was not a buttstock and to use it as such would be to using it as an SBR which of course makes total sense legally. I like SIG products and I appreciate what they are trying to do by thumbing their corporate noses at the ATF but that thing was never really designed to be an arm brace. Its just a means of skirting the law.
FWIW the ATF never reversed its position on the SIG brace. The ATF said it could be used as designed if that design actually meant it was an arm brace . It never said it could be shouldered. That would be a buttstock. Their "clarification" letter was to force home the fact that the sig brace was not a buttstock and to use it as such would be to using it as an SBR which of course makes total sense legally. I like SIG products and I appreciate what they are trying to do by thumbing their corporate noses at the ATF but that thing was never really designed to be an arm brace. Its just a means of skirting the law.