" />

" />

" />

" />

That is correct.

Puszczyk has built the first truly ambidextrous ejecting AR!  

Perhaps you should market a line of "Door Stop Recoil Pads" for the AR pistol shooter?  Looks like a good idea.  In before BATFE claims a door stop needs a $200 SBR tax stamp.  

"On review, Tech Branch finds that door stops are not a regulatable firearm part, unlike shoelaces..."

Taggeroo. I dig it.

Been following this thread hoping for an update.  I don't remember seeing who made the qd mount?

Waiting on Tech Branch...

QD Mount is available from different manufacturers, Knights, Gear Sector, or you can get the same style ones off ebay for about $15, work just as good as the more expensive ones.

Any update from the ATF on this?

I love this. If the ATF was a computer, they would need a CTRL+ALT+del and a reboot after trying to figure out if this is legal.

Please let us know what they say. If not, we'll take your silence as a sign things did not go too good

Still waiting on Tech branch...

The response is the one thing I am paying the most attention to in the forum. When did you mail the letter?

5/8 per his post 2 pages back on 5/8

The response to Sgt. Bradley's question about shouldering a Sig braced pistol took about 5 weeks, so hopefully, the Firearms Technology Branch's response to this question will be sent soon.

I am really hoping it will be approved because I see a complete 9mm CMMG lower with the OP's set up in my future if it is.

This might be why the tech branch is taking so long.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/01/93/c4/0193c494a78dd90bf914f37f62eceda2.jpg

Adding to subscription list to hear results/determination from  BATFE.  Looks VERY promising...great idea OP.

Bump for interest

Two months and counting for the reply.

subscribed

ETA: what is the length of that thing from the end plate??

Easier to link you to my post here.

gvazquez, any word? Just checking in.

Interesting choice and a novel idea . Tech branch has the final say so no matter what

No, no, WE have the final say.  The people have the power to repeal the NFA.  Tech Branch is merely our agent, adjudicating the rules we have chosen to enact.

In an ideal world you'd be right.

No, no, none of this ideal world bs.  We as a community have been unable to persuade the people the NFA should be repealed.  We can keep bitching or try harder.

Does the tech branch usually take this long to respond or are people running around freaking out at the atf over this?

In before ATF.

Did I make it?

Who makes the cheek piece?

'backbencher' is right.  Reminds me of Justice Scalia.  True words.

About the QD endplate - I like it and hope it's allowed because this is still not a moveable stock.

Nothing has to be "moveable" to be considered a stock.

- OS

So you're telling me an M16A1 is not an AR pistol?

Freaking brilliant, sir.

Good point OhShoot.  Like the A2 buttstock, etc.  

So the ATF will have a strong case to justify ruling against this QD endplate because it creates a rigid surface like a stock extending down from the buffer tube cover, to mimic a stationary stock.

Different case from the Sig brace ruling, where that accessory aids in using the pistol with one hand (per pistol definition) but just so happens to have other uses too (firing from shoulder).

Attaching an extending QD mound on the Thordsen just doesn't aid in using the gun as a pistol in a similar way by any part of the definition.  Attaching a sling to a pistol just doesn't seem compelling enough.

That's why he wrote to Dear Abby, ...... I mean the Tech Branch, to get an opinion that matters.

If he didn't care about any other opinions apart from the one that 'matters' perhaps he wouldn't have posted the issue in this forum.  

Here's another useless opinion - the OP can go and fill out a Form 1 and pay his $200 tax stamp fee on one of his lower receivers just like me and so many others have done or plan to do.  People just need to stop being lazy and try to skirt the rules.  There, I said it.

OP isn't trying to skirt the rules - he's asking the rule makers what specifically the rules cover & do not cover.  The current rule is ambiguous about this.  There is no loophole in the law - the law is the law, and if you're calling loophole or saying someone's skirting the law, then you're saying what they're doing is legal & you don't like it.  Fine - write to your congressman and demand the NFA be more strict.  Be sure to start a thread in GD about what you wrote your congressman.

Edit: Taken out of context on my part.

People need stop depending on the 'rule makers' to define things for them in small words, and start using common sense like responsible adults.

A rifle can have a stock. A pistol cannot. Anything that performs like a stock doesn't belong on a pistol.

Hey, the Sig brace is legal for the reason I mentioned above, and I like it.  I even bought one for my *pistol* lower.  But if someone wants to add something to the tip of the pistol buffer tube cap to turn it effectively into a stock, just don't come here crying when the 'rule makers' say no.

OP hasn't made the case for how his QD modification, at the most, enhances the use of the gun as a pistol, nor at the least, how hit fails to change the pistol buffer tube cap into a fixed stock.

The SIG Brace changed the rules as we understood them for nearly 80 years.  Now that the rules have changed, people are naturally exploring to find out where the new line is.  Will Tech Branch approve OP's innovation?  Maybe, maybe not.  But we're not going to know unless OP writes Tech Branch (which he has), or chooses the EP Armory school of Federal Firearms Rulemaking Discovery, which is to get arrested and then argue out his innovation in court.  I think OP has chosen the wiser path.

There's another course of thought to this issue, how the f@ck can any federal agency tell it's citizens that adding any accessory to a legal firearm that increases safety yet does not add any advantage to committing a crime, is illegal until we pay $200 and wait a year for permission?  A law that is unconstitutional is not really a law, what we need is a judge to rule this particular aspect of NFA as unconstitutional.  Adding a buttstock to any weapon makes it safer, buttstock especially are meant to allow users to align there sight picture and make it a stable, more accurate and inherently safer to opperate by stabilizing and aligning our sight picture.  Will the day come when we have to pay a stamp tax on putting iron sights on our weapons?  The next step after adding sights is to add a buttstock for the best possible shot.  The atf does want us to hit what we r aiming at right?  If an ar-15 pistol is purchased from a store legally u have already gone through a background check, which probably took no more than a week btw, so most ppl r already on file as the registered owner.  Adding a buttstock makes it safer, not more dangerous, because even though u get a more stable shot, it also harder to conceal, from a criminal Intent standpoint, it's a wash, just like a short barrel, (easier to conceal at the cost of accuracy and velocity, again it's a wash)  from a law abiding standpoint t, adding a stock makes it safer, period.  The BATf is way a a overstepping their rights as a federal agency trying to enforce these ridiculous regulations to the detriment of it citizens it should b protecting, and don't even get me started about fast and furious.  The regulations regarding barrel length and buttstocks should only b used to add time to criminals who r doing g really bad things.  If u want to b 100% legal, pay the taxstamp, totally cool.  However if u r using for home defense or shooting somewhere out In the woods, maybe consider a bit of civil disobedience, this is the very definition of tyrannical, unconstitutional overstepping of righteous logic by the atf.  If a local copper catches u and tries to tell u he's gonna send u up for making your legally owned firearms safer, put them on YouTube, bring up the issue of budget and using tax payers money to prosecute what is otherwise law abiding and rational safe gun owner behaviour, show a legal ar-15 next to an "illegal" one and point out the one with the buttstock is actually safer.  Shame any judge, cop, lawye,r politician, or whoever would waste tax dollars prosecuting someone for making there weapon safer.  Again, an unconstitutional law isn't really a law, and anybody that supports it should be shamed into behaving rationally.  I know they r out there, but what judge, copper, local law enforcement officer wants to be shamed on YouTube for burning taxpayers dollars to prosecute law abiding citizens for making legal firearms safer, or for that matter helping the atf to do all the retarded shit they have been doing for the last 30 y3arz?  Again, u want to pay the tax cool, I'll pay one someday to get a suppresor, assuming I don't get busted for making my ar-15 safer to handle first.  But am I going to wait to put a buttstock on it if it for home defense, and all it does is make me safer, for the atf to dig up my life and collect there $200, sounds like a protection racket to me.  Hell if they confiscate my gun are they going to sell it to some Fucking drug cartel?  Cause I don't sell my guns to drug cartels, I use them for fun and to defend my family, in a way that is legal and logical.

Unfortunately for your argument, the Supreme Court ruled the NFA Constitutional in the 1930's.  

Hey, this is fun for me.  Not bitter at all.

Yes, we won't know 'the answer' unless and until the OP gets a reply.  But he didn't just choose the wiser path, as you say, but he also did it the EP Armory way by assembling this potentially illegal stock with his modification.  Even if to ask a question.  He could have just pictured it adjacently without installing the QD mount.

I know that a similar mockup was done for the Sig brace prototypes during its submission letter, but in that case it was also shown being used as a pistol brace.  The QD attachment is not intrinsic to a pistol in the same way.  In fact, the OP pictured it next to a similar-looking stock! What's the ATF supposed to think?

No, he used a 16" bbl.  So even if it's ruled a stock, OP is still good.

No worries. I read your follow up post and edited my original one. S'all good brotha.

Unclear who's talking about which by now, but here is the composite pic Alex submitted with the actual brace prototype. You can see it is a short barrel, and I never saw where he said exactly what the gun was, but the red tip would suggest it's a paintball or toy gun of some ilk or other.



- OS

I'm talking about the OP in this thread, not the SIG Brace inventor guy.

Does anyone know who makes that cheek piece in the OP, it isnt sold by the manufacturer of the buffer tube cover.

the legal distinction b/t a pistol and a rifle is horses hit and ONLY exists b/c THEY wanted to ban all concealable weapons but they coulnt' get it to pass w/ normal type handguns, so made up all sorts of arbitrary BS distinctions about stocks and what not.

so WTF OP, did you get a respons yet?