Cheekweld Pistols

[Totem Polar]

So are the shorter buffer tubes just for getting the dimensions down for more a discrete package?

Mine—which CF turned me on to—was *entirely* about the new ATF decision. It’s a slick tube with a flat spring/buffer set up that will allegedly handle both subs and supers. Seemed like the best solution to the new problem on my end.

FWIW.

[HeavyDuty]

Mine—which CF turned me on to—was *entirely* about the new ATF decision. It’s a slick tube with a flat spring/buffer set up that will allegedly handle both subs and supers. Seemed like the best solution to the new problem on my end.

FWIW.

That sounds like the same one I used for my dedicated-never-had-a-brace-immaculate-conception pistol. CF is a bad influence.

[Totem Polar]

CF is a bad influence.

I can vouch, regardless of cheekweld pistol.

[Paul Blackburn]

Mine—which CF turned me on to—was *entirely* about the new ATF decision. It’s a slick tube with a flat spring/buffer set up that will allegedly handle both subs and supers. Seemed like the best solution to the new problem on my end.

FWIW.

I'm not tracking. What and how did the new ATF decision affect standard pistol buffer tubes?

[BillSWPA]

I'm not tracking. What and how did the new ATF decision affect standard pistol buffer tubes?

If the buffer tube is longer than necessary for the function of the gun, then under the new rule it could potentially be found to be a shoulder stick. The point at which the line is crossed is as clear as mud, although a standard length pistol buffer tube with no indexing points or other means to attach a stock, brace, or anything else which could assist with shouldering the gun is okay in the absence of other factors described in the new rule. A tube with a shorter than standard length is extra insurance of compliance. A sling attached by a swivel at the end of the tube, where it would interfere with shouldering, could also potentially provide extra insurance of compliance.

[Clusterfrack]

7.5” 300BLK upper in SBR and pistol configurations.

[awp_101]

7.5” 300BLK upper in SBR and pistol configurations.

I know you addressed running both earlier in this thread but what are you primarily running now, supers or subs?

[Clusterfrack]

I know you addressed running both earlier in this thread but what are you primarily running now, supers or subs?

Primarily supers. The only reason I'm using 300BLK is because it's got good performance a very short PDW-ish gun.

Unsuppressed subs are an interesting option for home defense because they are less blasty.

Suppressed subs seem like an excellent varmint control option, but here within city limits that's not going to fly.

The SBR lower requires a H3 for supers, and a C for subs (suppressed and especially unsuppressed).

The Strike-short-buffer pistol lower works with all loads, which is awesome.

[awp_101]

Thanks @Clusterfrack! I don't want/need a new caliber and I don't really want/need to go down the AR pistol path again but the benefit and usefulness are hard to argue with.

[Clusterfrack]

While this setup has been 100% reliable with 300BLK supers and suppressed subs, it was short stroking unsuppressed with my 220gr Bluebullets load (9.4gr H110). So, using the SBR lower (see below) I tried a Wolff reduced power buffer spring and a C buffer, but the problem persisted. Cutting 3 coils solved it, and I now have solid 3:15 ejection. Interestingly, that setup works with supers as well.

Once again, I've solved an AR problem without mucking around with gas. In fact, every single issue I've encountered with my guns has been solved by changing buffer weight and springs.

7.5” 300BLK upper in SBR and pistol configurations.