-UPDATES-
10/4/14 ATF Letter came in the mail.
RESPONSE HERE.

7/29/14: Still haven't received response from Tech Branch.
5/8/14: Sent out letter to Tech Branch.

I have a problem I face with my AR pistols which I am sure depending on the legality of it, others may too. I do not like the current available solutions to mount a QD sling to my ar pistol. Normally a stock may come with a QD mount  built in to the stock. However, on an ar pistol we cannot have a stock. This got me thinking of ways to mount a QD mount in the most useful way to allow the quick attachment and detachment of a sling while on the range to facilitate carrying the AR pistol with shorter slings. I have come up with the following idea which might change the way we mount slings to AR pistols.

***Testing was done on AR rifle for safety.***

We start with a Thordsen buffer tube cover and Cheek saddle which ATF says is OK. Letter from ATF


Then add a picatinny rail adapter to allow users to mount a QD mount.


Now we add the QD mount


Sling attached to QD mount.


QD sling detached.


Thoughts?

Why not just get a QD end plate

Why not just use the qd points built into the buffer tube cover? That's why I got the one with qd points over the regular one.

Ah...

Don't look at it as a QD attachment point.

Think SIG pistol brace setting next to it!

I prefer the mounting point the QD mount provides when mounted in this location.

Here is another picture for size comparison, so you can get a better idea of the minimal size it adds.

I like where this is going.

You know, it is always nice to have a secondary primary attachment point.

ETA: I can't see the ATF being thrilled about this, though.

I think we're gonna let you be the test case for this one.  Let us know how it works out.

I think that is the only logical way to mount a sling to a pistol


Now to get the Tec branch to sing off on it

Of course you would.

 

I think it'd be a good idea to have a rifle upper that matches that handguard just in case.

http://i.imgur.com/aLNMYnLl.jpg

I don't think there is room for an end plate QD point with the Thordsen buffer tube.

Like it :) i'll stick with my sb15 for now though :)

This wasn't the premise of the OP.  He just wanted a QD point...

 

QD end plate.  Mine's a Daniel Defense but lots of people make them. It's a $20 mod.

I like this set up you got.  Could you show us some pic how the picatinny rail adapter was mounted to the tube?  I also got the Thordsen tube on my pistol.

Adding this to the subscriptions list...very curious what BATFE will have to say about it.  It's certainly a grey area that should be clarified.  OP, keep us posted if you do contact them and get a response.

this... personally I'd be a whole lot more comfortable with the sig brace

Looks good to me...though I wouldn't myself.

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe if I had a little experience with the cheek saddle it would make more sense. Is the rail just held in place by the tension from the saddle being tightened?

KAK gen 2 tube with whatever QD plate you like. KAK tube has a QD on end also.

I'll post a pic when I get on my computer. The adapter is held into place by the two slots that are part of the CAA saddle. I made it from a picatiny rail adapter designed to mount onto a strap, cut it down to size until it fit perfect. It's real solid once it's tightened by both ends.

More pics of the rail adapter. Held in place by the the two slots from the CAA saddle. It is held in place very solid by keeping the tolerances tight.









Made from this:

If you mean the tube for the SB15, no it doesn't. It's just a hole.

- OS

Seems to be stepping quite far over the pistol buffer tube and into a stock to me.
Whole lot of intent displayed here.

My response was in response to your response further up in the thread and I quote you "Why not just get a QD end plate"  

Cause it won't likely work/fit  with the Thordsen...just look at the picture closely the Thordsen partially covers the end plate potential QD hole.

His premise was to add a QD point for a sling, then he went into adding the Thordson and adding modifications in order to do so.  My question was simply, why buy all that shit just to add a QD point for a sling...

 

Sure seems like the "premise" was to use accepted bits and pieces to create a stock.

LINE: Important information: LINE....ta da!    

That would be like saying SIG wanted to create a stock with the SB15, but we all know they just want to help shooters brace their pistols. In a similar manner, another veteran would like to help shooters attach a qd mount at the furthest point possible. Why should an owner of an AR pistol be limited to the current qd mounting solutions available?

Some slings work better with the mount in the rear



Additionally, It is not unusual to see pistols with retention lanyards when used with holsters. Say you wanted to holster an AR pistol, one mounting location for a qd retention lanyard would be as far back as possible to prevent your hand from getting tangled when trying to grasp the pistol grip.



Time to write to the tech branch.

It would be interesting to read their response, especially in light of the "shouldering-the-sig-brace-is-ok" letter.  I'm happy with my CAA saddle and QD end plate myself, but I can see why some people would prefer a sling mount on the very end of the buffer tube.

I think its a good idea, and I am interested to know what the tech branch says also, so keep us updated.

All ears on this one!

In for video of high speed BATFE operaters shootin' dag, kickin' in OP's door.

It is a logical development following BATFE's approval of the pistol brace.  Sometimes Tech Branch comes across as downright friendly...

Why push things, OP?  Don't get me wrong, I love what you've created, and your ingenuity, but realistically, we're going to get a tech branch determination that we don't like if we keep pushing it.

Not trying to start any pissing match with you Senoj, just stating my opinion.    

On a more serious note, I want to see the BATF response either way.

pardon the interruption... but who makes that stock on that rifle on the left??

ACE

I would like to see this pistol tube setup done with a rifle length buffer extension. You could have a spacer placed inside to accept a carbine length spring and buffer.

I like it, though I personally like to keep my extension tubes relatively uncluttered. There's a furniture tip on one and a rubber cover on the other.

The Thordsen cover does this, adds about an inch or so to the end.

Why go to the trouble of using a spacer?   Rifle springs and buffers are cheap and reliable.

It is a potential option if the std rifle spring and  rifle buffer proves to be finicky, though it will likely run just fine.

That may be valid but two steps forward and one step back by the communists is what has brought us here.

We should maybe be using the same tactic.

Whoever in Tech Branch pushed that SIG brace to approval is our friend.  I bet he or she knew exactly what they were doing & the can of worms it would open up.  "But its for the disabled veterans..."  "If it helps one disabled veteran..."  So OP has a worm, lets feed it to Tech Branch.

I agree here.  It looks like it has no other purpose to me BUT to act as a stock

Yep,........they knew EXACTLY what they were creating, how it would be classified and how it would/could be used.
Only common sense,.........

 

Seems like the set up is intentionally constructing a stock out parts. I hate the asinine laws dealing with SBR's as much as anybody else but that doesnt change the intent of the set-up the O.P posted.... which I like alot.. looks like a Mini- MFT Minimalist stock with storage

Sorry, couldn't get everything else snipped out.  I understand the concerns based on what this "looks" like, however, if this were intended to be shouldered then I would argue that the sling swivel is in an awkward and uncomfortable position.  I know when I shoot my carbine length AR it is the bottom of the butt making contact with my shoulder, placing this setup's sling mount pressing into the shoulder, causing a pressure point.  Tech Branch's opinion may mimic these thoughts, but there is only one way to find out.

I think the Tech Branch response would be along the same lines of the most recent letter regarding the sig brace and the legality of improper use. A QD connector is not a stock. When installed in such a position, yes, you might at first glance think the pistol has a "stock" in place, but you'll realize it's not. It's simply a cheek weld and a QD connector. Likewise, the profile of the Sig Brace might look like a "stock" but it's not a stock, plain and simple. Laws are most effective when they are black and white. And when there is any grey area, or confusion, it's official advisory opinions, or formal judicial decisions that clarify the grey back into black and white.

Furthermore, because of the orientation of the QD socket, towards the rear, you'll realize that when a QD sling is attached, that it interferes with the area on the rear of the socket and buffer tube that someone might argue could be used as a "stock". Well, it's obviously not useful as a stock with a sling attached, and that is the obvious purpose of the attachment point. Should you remove the sling from the QD socket and happen to use it in a fashion other than intended, it really doesn't change the fact that no "stock" is installed on the device.

Another way to look at this:  What if you installed a QD socket on the front rail at 9 oclock, and chose to misuse it in a fashion like a vertical foregrip. Does the QD socket become a vertical grip? No, it's just a QD attachment point being misused. This would not make the firearm subject to NFA control.

One last thing:  Please stop pestering the Tech Branch with letters upon letters upon letters. These people probably have plenty other things to do, and we don't need to ask them if painting a sig brace purple would alter it's classification just because you're butt hurt over an internet post.

Example of stupidity and what not to do:  "Duh, Mr. NFA-Guy what if I hand carved a shoulder STOCK out of balsa wood and superglued it to the back of my Sig Brace with the sole INTENT to only ever SHOULDER FIRE this newly constructed SHORT BARREL RIFLE that I will fire always with TWO HANDS, never one, would this still be a legal pistol or did I just have sexual relations with your mother?"

The Tech Branch is not Dear Abby, and they have more important things to deal with than breaking up an argument at your basement Call of Duty marathon Lan-party.

This innovation would seem to warrant a single letter to Tech Branch by the OP.  If he will indulge us, we will help him write it.