Wasn’t sure whether this belongs in the rifle or pistol section as I suppose it applies to both, so I put it here (mods please move if needed).

I was reading an article about Ruger’s new AR pistol. I believe it said it comes with a 10.5” barrel. My question is, how does this not run afoul of the barrel length restrictions for rifles? I know it’s sold as a “pistol” but to me I can’t tell the difference between it and a SBR.

I’m sure I’m missing something obvious but what?

You are missing the pistol brace. If it had a shoulder stock, it would be an SBR.

Bruce

An SBR has a shoulder stock, requires an ATF approval and paperwork. A SBR can also mount a front vertical grip.

A "pistol" AR is listed as a "pistol", has an arm brace that can double as a shoulder stock (according to current ATF rules). It does not require ATF approval or paperwork and is treated as a pistol. It cannot have a front vertical grip but it can have a hand stop or Magpul AFG. Most of the current "arm braces" look like stocks. It is well worth it just not having to go through the ATF SBR approval process and then having paperwork with the gun every time you take it out.

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
You are missing the pistol brace. If it had a shoulder stock, it would be an SBR.

Makes sense, but the article I was reading the pistol has a stock. In fact the author added a folding adapter to it so the total length was around 24”. it looks like the pistol comes with a stock.

Here’s the article I read:

Pew pew tactical

that's not a stock
that's a brace.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
You are missing the pistol brace. If it had a shoulder stock, it would be an SBR.

Makes sense, but the article I was reading the pistol has a stock. In fact the author added a folding adapter to it so the total length was around 24”. it looks like the pistol comes with a stock.

Here’s the article I read:

Pew pew tactical

Those are arm braces. Look at the velcro strap on them. A lot of the newer braces look and function quite well as shoulder stocks.

Taking the strap off or any other type of modification done to the arm brace, means you modified the pistol and it is now an unapproved SBR.

Ah. Gotcha. Thanks.

Guess I’d have to hold one to see how functional that “brace” is.

So if someone put a regular stock on it then it’d be considered a SBR and subject to the restrictions (ATF permit, etc)?

A pistol is a firearm that is designed to be fired with a single hand.

quote:

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11

The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:

a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);

and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

as opposed to:

quote:

26 U.S.C., § 5485(a)

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the following definitions are used to define and verify the different types of firearms:

§ 5845(c) — The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

This is why pistols cannot also have VFGs, because a pistol with a VFG would be interpreted as being intended to be fired with a two hands.

It's also why a pistol can have a brace, but not a traditional stock: because the brace ostensibly aids the user in firing the weapon with one hand, whereas the stock is intended for the purpose of being fired from the shoulder.

The fact that you can fire a pistol with two hands, and the fact that most people do in fact shoot their pistols with a two-handed grip doesn't really factor into the definition, probably because there is no practical way to make a gun so that it could only be fired with one hand.

The more astute of you may note that the definitions are not mutually exclusive in that, if a rifle is light enough, you can fire it one-handed while using the stock to brace the rifle against your shoulder. I've done it from time to time myself, with my registered SBR AR with .22LR upper. This doesn't make the one-hand-able rifle a pistol, because no matter how light the rifle is, it still has a stock so it was intended to be fired from the shoulder, even if you can get away with only doing so with one hand.

As usual, LDD provided a better explanation.

I have, however, seen no explanation of why an angled foregrip is okay on a pistol, and not a VFG. The AFG is clearly intended to be used with a second hand on the gun.

Explained....



Legal Brief YouTube video


AR pistols
https://youtu.be/0eJO77J8k3I

SIG Brace
https://youtu.be/tK6YJ3BD2-8

SBRs
https://youtu.be/grvXS8lJ_R4



.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:
Ah. Gotcha. Thanks.

Guess I’d have to hold one to see how functional that “brace” is.

So if someone put a regular stock on it then it’d be considered a SBR and subject to the restrictions (ATF permit, etc)?

Putting a stock on it without the ATF approval and stamp would mean lots and lots prison time. I have one approved SBR.....I hardly shoot it anymore. I have two MP5 clones with arm braces and a Sig MPX Copperhead (love that little beast).



I shoot and travel with the arm brace pistols a lot. I have a B&T Apc 223 "pistol" with an arm brace that I shoot and travel with a lot.

quote:

Once the brace started being used as a shoulder stock, some shooters felt it was necessary to raise the question with the ATF. Initially the answer was that it wasn’t designed as a stock, and how it was used made no difference. Then they said, no, you can’t do that. Then they said, yes, you can. That’s where it stands now. Until the next decision.

Those goalposts have been moved too many times to make me feel completely comfortable with such a pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Once the brace started being used as a shoulder stock, some shooters felt it was necessary to raise the question with the ATF. Initially the answer was that it wasn’t designed as a stock, and how it was used made no difference. Then they said, no, you can’t do that. Then they said, yes, you can. That’s where it stands now. Until the next decision.

Those goalposts have been moved too many times to make me feel completely comfortable with such a pistol. How hard is it to drop the pretense and go ahead with making it a SBR?

Well over a year wait time now. Also there are no more Trusts allowed (it was a way to get around having the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your area sign off). Other than the wait times, I have not kept up on current ATF requirements. I am happy without the hassles.

So please forgive this stooooopid question...are the firearms described in the Sig Sauer MPX thread subject to ATF application and approval??

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Once the brace started being used as a shoulder stock, some shooters felt it was necessary to raise the question with the ATF. Initially the answer was that it wasn’t designed as a stock, and how it was used made no difference. Then they said, no, you can’t do that. Then they said, yes, you can. That’s where it stands now. Until the next decision.

Those goalposts have been moved too many times to make me feel completely comfortable with such a pistol.

That back and forth actually makes more more comfortable about it! The silly letters and more letters contradicting the previous letters i hilarious. It merely highlights the absurdity of the NFA and the ATF's interpretation of it.

Besides, even if you get caught shouldering a "pistol" during a time when a (not having the force of law) "letter" days you can't...can you imagine the prosecutor's arguments in light of all the contradictory letters? It would be quite entertaining.

That's why Jerry says you have to be caught with it while on a pallet of cocaine.

Hey ATF, I have an AR pistol and I touched the brace to my shoulder once, just to see, (just the tip.)

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
So please forgive this stooooopid question...are the firearms described in the Sig Sauer MPX thread subject to ATF application and approval??

Depends if it's a pistol w/ or w/o a brace, or a rifle with a stock (and therefor an SBR).

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
As usual, LDD provided a better explanation.

Thanks sigfeund!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I have, however, seen no explanation of why an angled foregrip is okay on a pistol, and not a VFG. The AFG is clearly intended to be used with a second hand on the gun.

I've never heard a satisfying explanation for this apparent discrepancy.

I'm not saying my personal explanation is very satisfying either, but in the absence of an answer from BATFE's Firearms Technology Branch, it's the best I can come up with:

Magpul Dyanmics debuted in about 2008. This is when a number of new products came to the market, as pushed by Travis Haley and Chris Costa. Among these products were the Bolt Assist Device (BAD) and Angled Foregrip (AFG).

Who was president in 2008? George W. Bush.

I'm guessing, at the time, there wasn't a lot of political juice being poured into classifying a rather obscure and uncommon piece of plastic as a determining factor in AOW-dom.

Also, in 2008, AR pistols were more of a curiosity and relatively uncommon, compared with today. This lack of popular appeal can be traced to one factor: the pistol brace hadn't been invented yet. It wasn't until 2013 that SIG debuted the SIG Brace (really SB-tacticals SB-15, rebranded, but if it wasn't for SIG's display SHOT SHOW 2013, the SB-15 probably would have gone unnoticed for at least another year or more). I know, because I covered it and had the legality debate with Jeff Cramer right on SIG's cushy carpet.

Had the AFG debuted at the same time the SB-15 and other devices like it came out, we might be looking at a very different story with regard to AFGs on pistols.

As it is, this may be a case of "If you want to make it illegal, just keep asking about it."

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
Also there are no more Trusts allowed (it was a way to get around having the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your area sign off.

Trusts are still allowed, it’s just that it doesn’t circumvent the CLEO piece. But that also changed, now you just have to notify them once it’s approved, they can’t deny you anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Once the brace started being used as a shoulder stock, some shooters felt it was necessary to raise the question with the ATF. Initially the answer was that it wasn’t designed as a stock, and how it was used made no difference. Then they said, no, you can’t do that. Then they said, yes, you can. That’s where it stands now. Until the next decision.

Those goalposts have been moved too many times to make me feel completely comfortable with such a pistol. How hard is it to drop the pretense and go ahead with making it a SBR?

Well over a year wait time now. Also there are no more Trusts allowed (it was a way to get around having the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your area sign off). Other than the wait times, I have not kept up on current ATF requirements. I am happy without the hassles.

FYI:

My most recent Eform 1 came back in under a month. Two paper Form 1s filed before than in 4 months.

CLEO approval is not required any longer.

Those were filed as individuals. I see little use to a trust nowadays, at least as regards acquiring an NFA item.