-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 107098)
Message
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 1002 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

PBE Shield Stickers and Deagle Boltface Patches On Sale Now!



File 152124103072.jpg - (99.42KB , 1080x1080 , a0f2f77112e1f244073834fab600af12.jpg )
107098 No. 107098 ID: f0fb5d
Is there a legal reason Mossberg and Remington haven't made Shockwave-esque "firearms" based on their semi-automatic platforms? Is overall length the issue? Are they not willing to commit manufacturing capacity to a loophole type gun? Are semi-automatics so low-margin that they won't commit dedicated manufacturing capacity for a new line? What gives?
Expand all images
>> No. 107099 ID: 22ba7a
File 152124833461.jpg - (309.24KB , 1920x1227 , P4115196cr.jpg )
107099
A lot of semi-autos house the main action spring in the stock. As far as I know, both Mossberg and Remington use this setup for their current production semi-auto shotguns. They would have to put the main action spring around the magazine tube or somewhere else that would allow for a "stockless" design.

It seems to me that the prototyping and redesign over what can be arguably called a "gimmick" or "loophole gun" would make the semi-auto "shockwave" guns somewhat unmarketable.

The Turkish 1919 shotgun pictured here could be a good candidate for this kind of thing. The stock/fake buffer tube can be removed completely without any change in the mechanical function of the firearm, making it a giant shotgun pistol grip only thing. Sadly it's not a very good shotgun to begin with so it would again just be a range toy. Nothing wrong with that though, even if the 1919 isn't really a shotgun that could be trusted with any serious purpose, it doesn't fail to make me smile.

>the shit below is an attempt to explain the limited marketability of "shockwave" setups in my anecdotal opinions
>its mostly conflicted rambling and can be ignored
Although I tend to think stockless shotguns are more of a range silly thing than a good choice for defensive purposes because they are indeed harder to shoot accurately as quickly as a stocked shotgun, I do see their value in a few ways. I would personally take a normal 18.5" PGO setup for a few reasons however.

First is that I hate bird's head grips. I think they are terrible at everything, and a thousand times out of a thousand, I would choose a pistol grip like the one seen on this picture related 1919. This is very personal so this point obviously doesn't apply to many people. I would actually be okay with a pistol grip that has a few inches of "stock" after it (as if you cut off the last half of an AR-15's buffer tube) to comply with the length requirements for the shockwave-style stuff while still having a grip that doesn't make me hate life.

Second, a shorter barrel may look cool and provide a bit more of a compact setup, but if you're going to be using this defensively, you have to consider the noise and blast that accompanies a shorter barrel. I would be willing to trade a few inches of compactness if it means my eardrums do not cave in. Obviously, hearing damage will definitely still occur, but just a few decibels (a logarithmic scale) can make a lot of difference in how fucked you may be after the first shell fired.

Finally, unless all these things start costing less than a regular shotgun + tax stamp, they will always be pretty niche items.
>> No. 107168 ID: 738b31
what model is in OP's pick? the wood furniture one is dead sexy.
>> No. 107182 ID: 22ba7a
>>107168
Pretty sure it's a Remington 1100.
>> No. 107209 ID: 6ef9f1
okay, but consider:
Shockwave style auto 5
>> No. 107237 ID: d8d89a
>>107209
So a whippet gun?

Just find someone making auto 5 clones


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason