First suppressed SBR.. 556 or 300blk? - Page 3 - SIG Talk
SIG Talk Gun Forum

First suppressed SBR.. 556 or 300blk?

This is a discussion on First suppressed SBR.. 556 or 300blk? within the SIG Sauer Rifles forums, part of the SIG Sauer Forum category; Originally Posted by PCHS4 Why not consider the 6.8 SPC as well? Isnt that a little more obscure and harder to find than 300BLK?...


Go Back   SIG Talk > SIG Sauer Forum > SIG Sauer Rifles


SIG Sauer Rifles SIG Sauer Rifle Forum: SIG Sauer Rifles - SIG50, SIG516, SIG522, SIG551, SIG556, SIG716, M400, Blaser, SSG 3000, MCX, MPX

Like Tree67Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2016, 10:53 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
MCX300BLKSBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Florida
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCHS4 View Post
Why not consider the 6.8 SPC as well?

Isnt that a little more obscure and harder to find than 300BLK?
7.62Kolectr likes this.

Last edited by MCX300BLKSBR; 04-29-2016 at 11:07 AM.
MCX300BLKSBR is offline  
Register

Welcome to the SIG Talk Forum dedicated to SIG Sauer Pistols and SIG Sauer Rifles.

We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the SIG Talk Forum!

Old 04-29-2016, 11:11 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
7.62Kolectr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: on guard......
Posts: 2,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUOE Mike View Post
I hope you had a competent trust attorney draft your trust, this would be a clear violation of Pennsylvanians Uniform Trust Code. You cannot be named the sole trustor/trustee with no one named as a successor/beneficiary in the state of PA, I cannot speak on CO or any other state. You may not be a successor/beneficiary to your own trust either.

Not trying to be a dick just don't want anyone to get jammed up.
Correct. Almost all trusts must have a trustor and successor/beneficiary.
What he may have been referring to was he had everyone who was also listed as a trustee removed. Anyone with the ability to control or modify the trust ie it's trustees will have to conform and submit pics and prints. A successor or beneficiary has no power to modify or administer the trust hence there is no need to provide their pics and prints.
So I took my wife off as trustee and simply made her a beneficiary/guardian of my collection till my son comes of age. He's 9 now. But the way I have mine structured is the wife can only guard them till he's of age and cannot sell or dispose of any of them.
7.62Kolectr is online now  
Old 04-29-2016, 11:40 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
kansascity45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUOE Mike View Post
Beneficiaries are not required to submit any documentation once 41p goes into effect. If you are the sole trustor/trustee then all you need to submit is your photo, fingerprints, etc. The ATF does not need the finger prints of your 3 year old because 50 years from now he may take possession of all your NFA assets..

https://nfalawyers.com/final-ruling-atf-41p/
One of many sources on who will need to submit finger prints, photos for 41p. Contact the lawyer that drafted your trust for confirmation. My trust lists a successor and beneficiaries, none of these people currently have any power over my trust so they are exempt from the documentation requirements of 41p.
Appreciate your concern of the competency of our gun trust attorney. I think we're OK there.

I'll review your 41P reference, as that's not a rule we're familiar with.

We do have some information on ATF's 41F. FYI, a link to our attorney's 41F review is below.

One significant element of 41F is it introduces the definition of a “responsible person.” A responsible person is defined as any person who under the terms of the trust has “the power to receive, possess ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm(s) for, or on behalf of the trust.” People named in a separate trust, will or other document that a Gun Trust permits to have possession of its firearms will also be defined as a “responsible person.”

Applications submitted by a Gun Trust will require each person the rule classifies as a “responsible person” be subject to a background check under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Each responsible person will also be required to complete a form 5320.23, submit fingerprints, and provide photo identification.

Our attorney said that after weeks of going back & forth with ATF's lawyers, it isn't clear if copies of wills & other trust documents referenced in a gun trust are required with NFA applications.

Also, while successor trustees are now clearly responsible persons, it's not for certain that beneficiaries aren't. His advise was to assume that beneficiaries may be included as responsible persons - either by July, or sometime soon there after.

Here's our attorney's ATF rule 41F review:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/saomqj5431...etter.pdf?dl=0

Cheers
kansascity45 is offline  
 
Old 04-29-2016, 11:51 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
PCHS4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCX300BLKSBR View Post
Isnt that a little more obscure and harder to find than 300BLK?

Wouldn't say it's hard to find and becoming more popular with time. Better ballistics especially with increased range. If only interested in 100 yds or less 300BLK is a good choice.
PCHS4 is online now  
Old 04-29-2016, 11:56 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
kansascity45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUOE Mike View Post
OK, after reviewing your 41P reference, I see that this was your attorney's comments of the ATF's 'Proposed' rule back in early January. The 'P' in your 41P rule is the proposed version. The final rule is 41F .. (Wonder how long it took them to come up with their rule coding scheem!)

Anyway, you're attorney does have an April 11, 2016 update here

https://nfalawyers.com/atf-41p-update/

But, his update doesn't address these documentation & responsible persons issues mentioned above. We can probably assume that's because the ATF hasn't made those specifics clear - and they may not...

Cheers
kansascity45 is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 12:07 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
7.62Kolectr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: on guard......
Posts: 2,605
Just change it to where there's only one Trustor or responsible person.
My 9 year old son is listed as a beneficiary. I'm not submitting pics and prints of him now or ever.
7.62Kolectr is online now  
Old 04-29-2016, 12:55 PM   #37
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
IUOE Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bangor, PA
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kansascity45 View Post
OK, after reviewing your 41P reference, I see that this was your attorney's comments of the ATF's 'Proposed' rule back in early January. The 'P' in your 41P rule is the proposed version. The final rule is 41F .. (Wonder how long it took them to come up with their rule coding scheem!)

Anyway, you're attorney does have an April 11, 2016 update here

https://nfalawyers.com/atf-41p-update/

But, his update doesn't address these documentation & responsible persons issues mentioned above. We can probably assume that's because the ATF hasn't made those specifics clear - and they may not...

Cheers
That's not from my attorney just one of many examples. My attorney said my successor and beneficiaries are not currently "responsible persons" as they have no authority over the trust. He said to just file with my documents when the time comes and let him know if any issues arise.
IUOE Mike is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 01:28 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Obie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCHS4 View Post
Why not consider the 6.8 SPC as well?
Yea right and then he will have to contend with the rabid 6.5 Grendel pack hounds too.

For a quiet (subsonic) suppressed SBR, 300blk makes a lot more sense then 6.8SPC and more importantly the Grendel guys will leave him alone.
Obie is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 01:36 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Obie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCX300BLKSBR View Post
Interesting about the vendors selling before the 41f. Never thought of that.
Also keep in mind that if you buy out of state it has to go on a dealer to dealer Form 3 first. It could take a month or two for your local dealer to file the form 4. SS is actually pretty good about filing the Form 4 before the Form 3 transfer completes if you use their system but it still adds time. In other words don't wait until July if you are using an out of state dealer and want to get in under the old rules.
kansascity45 likes this.
Obie is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 01:41 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
kansascity45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUOE Mike View Post
That's not from my attorney just one of many examples. My attorney said my successor and beneficiaries are not currently "responsible persons" as they have no authority over the trust. He said to just file with my documents when the time comes and let him know if any issues arise.
LOL - Ok, understand - he's taking one day at a time...

Cheers
kansascity45 is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 01:42 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
7.62Kolectr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: on guard......
Posts: 2,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCHS4 View Post
Why not consider the 6.8 SPC as well?
Different mags, different BCG. The .300blk can be changed with a simple upper swap and use same mags as you have for your 5.56.
6.8 SPC does have some ballistic advantages but not enough to give it a win over .300blk. JMO
7.62Kolectr is online now  
Old 04-29-2016, 02:54 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
PCHS4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanca Busa View Post
Different mags, different BCG. The .300blk can be changed with a simple upper swap and use same mags as you have for your 5.56.

6.8 SPC does have some ballistic advantages but not enough to give it a win over .300blk. JMO

I bought one of each of the 3 in January to cover all my bases and given the July deadline plus the most likely next President. Decided it was a better than putting the money in an IRA. I don't have any tactical need for mag compatibility at this time. On paper the 6.8 SPC seems to have many pluses, although suppression is probably more difficult.
PCHS4 is online now  
Old 05-03-2016, 05:59 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
COBE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 178
Hey Kansas, Always appreciate your help. I noticed you have submitted Form 1 for the 9" 300BLK while you wait for the kit delivery. I am thinking I should do the same while I continue to hunt for a pistol to SBR. How do you recommend I identify the barrel and full length dimensions in the application. I have read earlier comments (I believe) stated their forms were rejected because the info was not a precise match to ATF's database.
COBE is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 06:56 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
kansascity45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by COBE View Post
Hey Kansas, Always appreciate your help. I noticed you have submitted Form 1 for the 9" 300BLK while you wait for the kit delivery. I am thinking I should do the same while I continue to hunt for a pistol to SBR. How do you recommend I identify the barrel and full length dimensions in the application. I have read earlier comments (I believe) stated their forms were rejected because the info was not a precise match to ATF's database.
If you have the lower receiver, then sure - you can submit a Form 1 for its SBR approval. The lower's serial number is the weapon that's identified in ATF's approval.

Those Forms kicked back were related to a mis-match of that weapon's SN not matching an OEM database of valid SN's and rifle models. Just use 'MCX' as your model and you'll be fine there.

While that match does have to pass specifically, I don't think the SBR's length input has a similar precision. I did call SIG and simply asked the overall length of a 9" MCX 300blk. They said 28.75". If my tele/folding stocked SBR can be longer &/or shorter, I don't expect to get busted on that...

Good luck with that BATF submittal. It's best if you can then forget about that Form - it's gonna seem like a very long wait...

Cheers
Steve40th likes this.

Last edited by kansascity45; 05-03-2016 at 06:59 PM.
kansascity45 is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 05:31 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
COBE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 178
Thanks Kansas, I will get the hang of this yet. Appreciate the help!
kansascity45 likes this.
COBE is offline  
Reply

  SIG Talk > SIG Sauer Forum > SIG Sauer Rifles


Search tags for this page
300blk
,
41f a successor a responsible person?
,
556 v 300 sbr
,

7in sbr 300 or 556

,
atf requirements sig mcx 5.56 11.5 sbr
,
is a suppressed sbr 556 worth it
,
is the threadeds for 300 and 556
,
saker 762
,

sig 300 black out sbr

,

sig sauer m400 300 blackout pistol

,

sig sauer sbr 300 blackout

,
sig saurer mcx 556 with 300blk barrle
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar SIG Talk Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MCX 300blk with Meprolight Mepro 21 and sighting super/sub gundrted SIG Sauer Rifles 2 05-18-2016 08:15 AM
For Sale: Caliber Exchange for Sig Sauer MCX - 16" 300BLK; Skeletonized Folding Stock 300 Classifieds 0 03-11-2016 09:57 AM
MCX 300blk Sub & Super Sighting Help gundrted SIG Sauer Rifles 9 02-29-2016 09:39 AM
MCX 223 / 300blk issue. Advice needed Cnetter SIG Sauer Rifles 1 07-30-2015 06:00 AM
SIG 516 and 300BLK, anyone, thoughts? Steve40th SIG Sauer Rifles 7 05-12-2015 07:13 PM


Top Gun Sites Top Sites List

Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2010 - 2017 SIG Talk. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.SIG Talk is a SIG Sauer Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent SIG Sauer, Inc. of Exeter, NH.