December 12, 2017, 09:11 PM
MonkAny pistol braces that fit a carbine buffer tube?
So far I've only found the Thordsen. Any others out there?
December 12, 2017, 09:51 PM
JJexpThat’s not really something pistol braces are designed for. Having a buffer tube capable of mounting a stock on your pistol is a bit of a no-no.
December 12, 2017, 10:00 PM
bionic218I would not recommend that. Constructive intent and all. . . .
December 14, 2017, 09:33 AM
arabiancowboyI don't understand the logic here. On some weapons (EVO for example) you can have the entire horizontal part of the stock attached and only the butt plate is considered the "stock." Ergo, you can attach brace adapters to portions of the stock without it being considered a stock. Same is true of the collapsing APC9 stock with braced end piece.
So why can't I use a carbine buffer tube for an AR? What piece of the AR is the actual "stock?" These rules are all arbitrary and BS.
December 14, 2017, 11:43 AM
kilyungThere are a lot of opinions about this topic but according to the BATFE, you can use any tube you want on a pistol AS LONG you don’t own a stock that can be readily installed on the pistol. Since most of us own rifles with stocks that can be removed and/or swapped around, we fail that exception and have to use a pistol tube which can’t support rifle buttstocks.
December 14, 2017, 11:54 AM
Il CattivoMaybe take a look at Gear Head Works' Tailhook? They have an extension that is adjustable for lenth that (IIRC) the ATF has declared legally OK.
December 14, 2017, 02:34 PM
arabiancowboyThat note is interesting. However, it doesn't say what you said it says. It says "possessing a rifle butt stock that could readily be installed on your pistol could constitute possession of an SBR."
Couple problems:
1. "could constitute possession of an SBR" is meaningless. Does it or doesn't it?
2. What is the definition of readily installed?
3. What is the definition of possession? Physically near you? Something you own?
Like all these rules, they're ill worded and able to mean whatever the enforcers want them to mean. You are assuming you know the implied intent, which I appreciate, but respectfully your interpretation isn't gospel. I practice a philosophy of getting no where near the edges of firearms rules, no matter how dumb, because the consequences are too serious for me to treat lightly. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the OPs question and there is room to argue either way.
December 14, 2017, 08:59 PM
kilyungquote:
Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
That note is interesting. However, it doesn't say what you said it says. It says "possessing a rifle butt stock that could readily be installed on your pistol could constitute possession of an SBR."
Couple problems:
1. "could constitute possession of an SBR" is meaningless. Does it or doesn't it?
2. What is the definition of readily installed?
3. What is the definition of possession? Physically near you? Something you own?
Like all these rules, they're ill worded and able to mean whatever the enforcers want them to mean. You are assuming you know the implied intent, which I appreciate, but respectfully your interpretation isn't gospel. I practice a philosophy of getting no where near the edges of firearms rules, no matter how dumb, because the consequences are too serious for me to treat lightly. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the OPs question and there is room to argue either way.
I’ll let the lawyer respond:
https://johnpierceesq.com/whic...use-on-my-ar-pistol/December 15, 2017, 05:25 AM
arabiancowboyKilyung, from your link: “....it does not matter what buffer tube you use so long as you are not in possession of a buttstock that “could readily be installed” on the resulting pistol.”
This does not address questions 2 or 3 above. I’ve been places where storing loaded magazines separately was required, for example. “Separately” was interpreted by some to mean different rooms and by others to mean having a partition in the same case. No one had any idea what the standard was, as is the case here.
My point is, this wording is unclear and the lawyer you linked merely repeated the unclear claims. And that is unfortunately common with the ATF.
December 15, 2017, 08:48 AM
kilyungquote:
Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Kilyung, from your link: “....it does not matter what buffer tube you use so long as you are not in possession of a buttstock that “could readily be installed” on the resulting pistol.”
This does not address questions 2 or 3 above. I’ve been places where storing loaded magazines separately was required, for example. “Separately” was interpreted by some to mean different rooms and by others to mean having a partition in the same case. No one had any idea what the standard was, as is the case here.
My point is, this wording is unclear and the lawyer you linked merely repeated the unclear claims. And that is unfortunately common with the ATF.
Of course it’s unclear (as are most BATFE opinions). I’m merely pointing out that it’s technically ok (per the letter) to use a carbine buffer tube for a pistol build. The use of the carbine buffer tube isn’t the problem.
We don’t know the OP’s situation. He may not have any AR style rifles with buttstocks in his house and could (according to this opinion letter) use a carbine buffer tube with a brace. However, as is more likely the case, he probably does have an AR rifle and so shouldn’t risk constructive intent by using a carbine buffer tube for a pistol build.
December 15, 2017, 09:05 AM
IndianaBoyquote:
Originally posted by kilyung:
quote:
Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Kilyung, from your link: “....it does not matter what buffer tube you use so long as you are not in possession of a buttstock that “could readily be installed” on the resulting pistol.”
This does not address questions 2 or 3 above. I’ve been places where storing loaded magazines separately was required, for example. “Separately” was interpreted by some to mean different rooms and by others to mean having a partition in the same case. No one had any idea what the standard was, as is the case here.
My point is, this wording is unclear and the lawyer you linked merely repeated the unclear claims. And that is unfortunately common with the ATF.
Of course it’s unclear (as are most BATFE opinions). I’m merely pointing out that it’s technically ok (per the letter) to use a carbine buffer tube for a pistol build. The use of the carbine buffer tube isn’t the problem.
We don’t know the OP’s situation. He may not have any AR style rifles with buttstocks in his house and could (according to this opinion letter) use a carbine buffer tube with a brace. However, as is more likely the case, he probably does have an AR rifle and so shouldn’t risk constructive intent by using a carbine buffer tube for a pistol build.
What if his AR rifle has a completely non-compatible (with the carbine buffer tube) stock on it?
None of my rifles will accept an standard 6 position stock. UBRs, fixed A1, fixed ACE. I don't own a 6 position stock.
I think I would be just fine using a standard carbine tube either by itself or with a brace attached.
As it is, I bought the KAK tube designed for the Shockwave blade.