<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Taurus Collaborates With Strike Industries on the New GX4 Strike Bravo PDW	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://staging.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-news/taurus-collaborates-with-strike-industries-on-the-new-gx4-strike-bravo-pdw/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://staging.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-news/taurus-collaborates-with-strike-industries-on-the-new-gx4-strike-bravo-pdw/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:06:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: uncommon_sense		</title>
		<link>https://staging.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-news/taurus-collaborates-with-strike-industries-on-the-new-gx4-strike-bravo-pdw/comment-page-1/#comment-95514</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[uncommon_sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:06:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/?p=29294#comment-95514</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[How is that not fall within the (arbitrary) legal definition of a &quot;short barreled rifle&quot; since it has a shoulder stock?  Or are they claiming that the rearward extension is just a stabilizing brace for your arm that users are not supposed to press into their shoulder?

Aside from that arbitrary legal definition (and the associated unconstitutional red-tape), that would be a neat home defense handgun with a suppressor.  It would be exceptionally compact for such close quarters and yet provide greater accuracy and control.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is that not fall within the (arbitrary) legal definition of a &#8220;short barreled rifle&#8221; since it has a shoulder stock?  Or are they claiming that the rearward extension is just a stabilizing brace for your arm that users are not supposed to press into their shoulder?</p>
<p>Aside from that arbitrary legal definition (and the associated unconstitutional red-tape), that would be a neat home defense handgun with a suppressor.  It would be exceptionally compact for such close quarters and yet provide greater accuracy and control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
