>>64476707don't buy one
>>64476707Don't because if you do then I won't be able to buy one
>>64476707cute
>>64476707>Convince me not to buy one. Okay, sure.Don't buy one.Buy two.
300 BLK or 556 for this gun? Can someone weigh the pros and cons?
>>64476707Saw one for sale the other day. I would buy it but I dont have the money right now. Get it anon it's cool
>>64476781They are light enough to dual wield. Fuck it get 8 and pirate rig the fuckers
>>64476816Do you want a silencer/min max close distances? Get blacked.Do you want to do some distance shooting? 556
>>64476887Brother it's not even 8" of barrel. You're not getting any range either way. The real question is do you want a fun fireball maker or something remotely useful?
>>64476904I didn't know you were religiously tied to this exact model, I thought we were talking about small/pistol ARs in general. I'm not sure 8" exactly is optimal for blackout but you're obviously going to have a better time. If you want to Cast: Fireball you need to stop fucking around with either of those babysquibs and get something like pic related.
>>64476887What would be better in terms of reliability and longevity of the gun?
>>64476940.300 blackout will cause a very significant amount less wear and tear than 556.
>>64476707Eugene Stoner would look down on you from heaven if you don't own at least 1 proper AR-15 with a 20" barrel. If you already own a 20" AR, then disregard this message and buy what's in your pic.
>>64476707I want one, but I'm also impulsive and retarded. Theoretically the 300 BLK version would be better because the caliber is far better optimized for ultra short barrels than 5.56mm is
>>64476707What's the appeal of that shitstickTruly don't see the appeal or nicheAlso retro ARs are cringe, it's the same platform as current issue. You're just being weird to be different, it's not a meaningfully different experience to current guns. Stop enjoying this hobby incorrectly
>>64478294It is an AR but smol. That makes it very handy to store and maneuver in tight spaces, depending where you live you can also CC it if you really want to because it is legally a handgun whereas a regular AR isn't.The retro carry handle gives it a throwback feel, but besides that the sights are simple and plenty usable. DPMS also doesn't charge an outrageous price for them, it's not like a "retro" rifle with a bunch of incorrect features for $1500 because they are cashing in on the fad.Ballistics are going to be dogshit in 5.56mm, no way around that other than to get a .300 BLK which is more expensive to shoot.
>>64478142And it better not have a forward assist. And it better be a KAC. You don't want to anger the ghost of Eugene do you?
>>64476707a recession is coming and you'll be better off just having the money in savings
>>64479154>a recession is comingI've been hearing that for the last 8 years I'm sure it'll be fine
>>64479154>you'll be better off just having the money in savings>fiat>loses buying power due to constant inflation
>under 700 bonesi'm buying one today, i don't care what you do
>>64476707get one anon
>>64476707why not, if you can affors id and you and one why not, jest get one, get it out the way and see if it will bring you ehat you seek or not. You can always sell and its better to have loved and lost than to have never loved. Life is too short to not get things dear to your heart close to you to see what they do. Take care
>>64476707>slightly different xm177 buttstock is somehow a pisto brace>rifle is now considered a pistolExplain yourselves Americans
>>64485016ADA stipulates that devices which make it easier for people with disabilities such as a missing limb or degenerative diseases to exercise their rights (such as a pistol brace to aid 1 handed shooting) are protected by law. People figured out that slapping an extremely small stock on a SBR and claiming it's a brace to go against the bicep is covered by this. The ATF tried to be niggers about it, realized they'd get their ass handed to them in court, and just gave up on it. Don't shoulder it and your not violating any federal laws.>but how would they prove if you didExactly.
>>64485053But why bother with a "legally distinct XM177 stock" if the one in OP is basically the same size? Is it really just to say "nuh uh, it's totally a pistol brace despite being essentially the same thing"?
>>64476816>>64476887>>64476904I have one. It's fun on a bun! I recommend it!I went 556, specifically because I wanted to use a cmmg 22lr adapter in it 90% of the time, but also have the ability to run 77gr now and then to make my eyes water.Don't regret that choice necessarily, but also do now want to roll one up in 300.It's fucking loud as hell. Louder than a 10.3" 556 for sure.
>>64476707Buy one, now.>>64476904>The real question is do you want a fun fireball maker or something remotely useful?Useful to shoot at the range, home defence and to shoot from a car.
>>64485120Necause the legally distinct stock was designed as a stock, where as the "brace" was designed as a brace. You actually can shoulder them as well because due to the way the law is written and interpreted what matters is the purpose of the device, not how the end user uses it. Granted you can only take that interpretation so far before you might get called on your bullshit which is why brace designs tend to have features that could theoretically make a cheek weld impractical, but the end user can add whatever they want because bracing off the cheek is just as valid as the bicep or forearm (actually a defense I used to get back a pistol and avoid prosecution when it was seized by PD and turned over to the ATF, getting guns back from the state is a hige headache btw, much easier to just buy a new one).
>>64485120Because with the court striking down the concept of Chevron the exact wording of the law matters in a regulatory setting. It is the job of the regulatory agency (in this case the ATF) to enforce the law. It is not the job of the ATF to interpret what the law might mean, or decide that their interpretations are the law on an arbitrary basis. A stock is a device designed to be braced against the shoulder so that a rifle (defined as being fired from the shoulder) will have a stock. A pistol can't have a stock (with a very few pre-NFA exemptions), so putting a stock on a pistol makes it a SBR. But if it's designated as a brace by the OEM and specifically not designed to be fired from the shoulder (see >>64485281 ) it's not an SBR. Is it technical legal fuckery? Yes. Is it making unregistered SBRs that violate the NFA? No, because of said technical legal fuckery. Would the ATF happily go after everyone with a brace as if it were an unregistered SBR? Yes, because they're feds and faggots, and they already played that card and lost.
