Anyone know if a AR Rifle buffer tube can be used with an AR pistol adjustable pistol brace?

quote:

Originally posted by Horn:
Anyone know if a AR Rifle buffer tube can be used with an AR pistol adjustable pistol brace?

With a barrel less than 16" I believe it is illegal to use a pistol stock with a rifle tube regardless of the nature of the stock. If it can attach and function, it is an SBR in the eyes of the ATF if the barrel is less than 16".

As far as I know, there is no law against using a pistol brace stock on a rifle (16" or longer) if that is what you're asking.

This would best be relocated to Mason's Rifle Room.

quote:

Originally posted by Horn:
Anyone know if a AR Rifle buffer tube can be used with an AR pistol adjustable pistol brace?

It depends on the brace. Some can use a standard carbine tube, and some use their own tubes.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by Horn:
Anyone know if a AR Rifle buffer tube can be used with an AR pistol adjustable pistol brace?

With a barrel less than 16" I believe it is illegal to use a pistol stock with a rifle tube regardless of the nature of the stock. If it can attach and function, it is an SBR in the eyes of the ATF if the barrel is less than 16".

As far as I know, there is no law against using a pistol brace stock on a rifle (16" or longer) if that is what you're asking.

If that was true than everyone with the SBA3 brace are felons...

Yes, with the SB Tactical SBA3 brace. It uses a milspec tube.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by Horn:
Anyone know if a AR Rifle buffer tube can be used with an AR pistol adjustable pistol brace?

With a barrel less than 16" I believe it is illegal to use a pistol stock with a rifle tube regardless of the nature of the stock. If it can attach and function, it is an SBR in the eyes of the ATF if the barrel is less than 16".

As far as I know, there is no law against using a pistol brace stock on a rifle (16" or longer) if that is what you're asking.

If that was true than everyone with the SBA3 brace are felons...

I was not aware the buffer with the SBA3 used a standard tube- I must have confused the danger that comes with a standard tube and “immediate access” to a standard stock that fits it.

ETA- I think I have it figured out- if the lower has ever been a “rifle”, then you cannot legally make it a pistol. But if you build a pistol lower from a virgin receiver, you can use a standard tube with no stock (or the SBA3 brace) and still be able to lawfully install a 16”+ rifle upper, then add a standard sliding stock. As long as you do it in that order (as silly as it seems) you’re covered. If you add the butt before taking off the pistol upper, you’ve made an SBR for a few seconds.

It’s all ridiculously confusing.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
ETA- I think I have it figured out- if the lower has ever been a “rifle”, then you cannot legally make it a pistol.

BATFE seems to have abandoned that as unenforceable, evermore so since incomplete lowers are now transferred as an "other" firearm on the 4473 and not as either a pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun.

What does still apply is mounting an upper with a barrel <16" on a lower equipped with any form of stock designed to be placed against the shoulder makes an SBR, for which you need a tax-paid stamp on a Form 1 or 4.

The third paragraph is relevant to the OP's question.

That document is 15 years out of date, and there has been an explosion of epic proportions since then of AR style pistols.

Not relevant.

I always hated that "possession of a stock COULD be interpreted as possession of an illegal short barrel rifle." Yeah Skippy? I possess all the tools required to make me a rapist, mass murderer, and cereal killer. Are you going to lock me up and throw away the key for something I "could" do? How un-American.

Please make an effort to post in the correct area.

Moved.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
That document is 15 years out of date, and there has been an explosion of epic proportions since then of AR style pistols.

Not relevant.

I always hated that "possession of a stock COULD be interpreted as possession of an illegal short barrel rifle." Yeah Skippy? I possess all the tools required to make me a rapist, mass murderer, and cereal killer. Are you going to lock me up and throw away the key for something I "could" do? How un-American.

The age of the opinion alone is not dispositive, as to whether it is still applicable, or not. What exactly has come out of ATF, or better yet caselaw, which negates that determination?

While the US Supreme Court might change things later this year, the doctrine known as "Chevron deference," is still used by the courts, when examining interpretations of statutes by government agencies.

So, again what has come out from ATF, or caselaw, which clearly negates that opinion? Absent something that negates that opinion, wise people will consider that opinion when making decisions about what they choose to possess.