Quoted:

Skeletonized..?

Quoted:
UPDATE: The ATF/Firearms Technology Industries Service Branch just responded to my inquiry. They are requesting that I submit a physical sample in order to receive/obtain a classification.  We should have their decision/classification within the next few weeks.

Quoted: ...Any new info on this yet?

Quoted:
As far as pistols are concerned, you could use a milspec adjustable M4 tube. The reason "pistol" diameter tubes sell is for guys like me who can then prevent someone from just shoving a stock on it to create an issue.

As for the thin blade hanging down, as far as it being a shoulder rest  the thinner you make it the more uncomfortable. So, why not just shoot nose to the charging handle and brace forward to keep the minor recoil from bothering you?

I've seen dozens of braces/cheek rests/whatever in this forum for years now, but rarely if ever a sling set up to keep recoil at a minimum bracing the weapon forward. I've read dozens of posts arguing VFG's and how much vertical slant and projection will trip the ATF's radar, but almost zilch on how to attach the sling to the front of the handguard and use IT for a forward stop. (And yeah I do recognize some would immediately think vertical forward grip. Well take it up with the ATF and write them a letter. )

We are still thinking of the ATF as the enemy when the real enemy is a lack of imagination to address the problem of stabilizing the sight picture with no stock held to the shoulder. Since the invention of the Brace it's been one copycat after another and most aren't successful in getting approval. And that is because the obvious intent is to circumvent their ruling and hold it up to your shoulder.

Why even bother? You have to cramp your head down to the sight line and there's no significant recoil anyway. It's not a .308 that can give you a case of scope eye, it's 5.56 and you can shoot it with the butt held to your chin. Seen it, done it. No big deal. They even marketed a jaw rest at one time.

BTW - building up the tube for a cheek rest? After about 1/2" it interferes with the charging handle and the average sight plane starts going over the sights. Cheek rests may be needed for large belled scopes propped up on high mounts, but for the natural eye alignment not so much.

And that is the way the ATF might see it - after all, they have inspectors who have looked at this stuff for decades and for the most part, it's all a dodge to circumvent what the pistol is and effectively make it an SBR - which they have repeatedly said they will see it as.

The ATF isn't the enemy, we are our own worst enemy. We keep trying to poke the bear and do it long enough you get things like the Brace Letter which states "it's a stock and just don't bother us about it." If we took as much effort supporting the revocation of the '34 NFA it would likely have been dismantled long ago, but no, we waste time working around it instead of attacking it directly. And if we did, the word would get out how stupid it all is instead of looking less than smart trying to play footsie with the ATF and get our special favor anointed.

Good luck on that faux shoulder stock attachment. Maybe it will pass their scrutiny. If so, you actually have a much bigger obstacle, bringing it to market and getting some profit out of it. Not to forget that 95% of all new business ventures fail in the first 10 years.

Will the NFA still exist in 10 years? If it's take out of the law - end of the Brace business. They will be curios of a long ago time.

Quoted:
I recently built my first AR Pistol and I had a lot of fun putting it together. It's an econo build so some of the components were either purchased used, or on ebay. The pistol buffer tube that I purchased is milspec and it came with the foam cover. The foam cover is too thick and it creates a higher LOS that I'm not comfortable with,.. so I walked over to the drawing board.

The photos shows the pistol with the pistol buffer tube/foam cover. The second shows my cheek rest slipped on the pistol buffer tube. I made the cheek rest with a decorative thin rudder.  

Does the design of my cheek rest violate current ATF regulations when mounted onto the pistol tube on a AR Pistol ..?

With my homemade Cheek Rest..:

Quoted:

None. When I first wrote the BATF I included photos of the Cheek Rest mounted on the Pistol. I also included multiple photos of the CR framed to show exact dimensions.

I received a response from the BATF within a week stating that they would not be able to make a decision on classification until I provided a sample for a hands-on in examination/inspection. They also advised that it would probably take 90-120 days before they could examine the sample. So, maybe not till May..?

Quoted:
The ability to take nice pictures has always alluded me.

Not you, those are nice pictures. What is the background material?

Quoted:


I can't answer for OP but our local art supply store has these giant white poster sheets that i have used before to take nice pictures. They're great since they don't wrinkle like a normal piece of fabric though they're kind of a pain in the ass to store.

Quoted:
Not to take away highjack or "anything" from OP's post but i have a question:

My question is, can you legally shoulder a buffer tube on a  AR pistol without a brace ?

Because If you moved OP's "cheek rest" design forward on the tube an inch or two. There would be no cheek rest, brace/shoulder etc
contact.

Would that be legal ?



Nice looking work and idea OP !

Quoted:
LOS, any word back from ATF? When did they get your cheek rest in?

Quoted:
Man this looks awesome. With the rivet holes in different areas I bet you could make some sweet parachord designs.

I'm looking at building a pistol soon and would be cool to make my own cheek rest. How do you get the kydex to stay on the tube? Is it just tight enough the friction keeps it on?

Quoted:



Oh gotcha. So that one actual screw is tight enough that it keeps everything from moving? When I make mine I might try a parachord design and send you a picture.

Quoted:



It might be a wee bit because I've never used kydex before but I can't wait to do it. Any tips on that?

Quoted:

Expect to make mistakes so purchase a few extra sheets of kydex. I don't use a mini oven to heat kydex, I use a heat gun. For me it works very good and it heats kydex 4 times faster.

A good set of tin snips will work well to cut the kydex, and a dremel tool with a sanding drum/polishing tip can be used to trim excess material and provide a smooth finished edge.  

You'll probably have to invest in a good tool if you decide to use eyelets for connecting kydex parts together. Connecting/assembling the parts with glue and eyelets will create a solid final product.

Finally, I use graph paper to design different models/shapes to actual scale. If I like the design, I trace it on the kydex and begin the fab process. Take your time, specially when you start cutting and trimming the kydex. You will make mistakes, but don't let it discourage you...

Quoted:

It's a Cheek Rest.  The rudder is thinner and much smaller than the one on the Shockwave Blade.

Quoted:
As far as pistols are concerned, you could use a milspec adjustable M4 tube. The reason "pistol" diameter tubes sell is for guys like me who can then prevent someone from just shoving a stock on it to create an issue.

As for the thin blade hanging down, as far as it being a shoulder rest  the thinner you make it the more uncomfortable. So, why not just shoot nose to the charging handle and brace forward to keep the minor recoil from bothering you?

I've seen dozens of braces/cheek rests/whatever in this forum for years now, but rarely if ever a sling set up to keep recoil at a minimum bracing the weapon forward. I've read dozens of posts arguing VFG's and how much vertical slant and projection will trip the ATF's radar, but almost zilch on how to attach the sling to the front of the handguard and use IT for a forward stop. (And yeah I do recognize some would immediately think vertical forward grip. Well take it up with the ATF and write them a letter. )

We are still thinking of the ATF as the enemy when the real enemy is a lack of imagination to address the problem of stabilizing the sight picture with no stock held to the shoulder. Since the invention of the Brace it's been one copycat after another and most aren't successful in getting approval. And that is because the obvious intent is to circumvent their ruling and hold it up to your shoulder.

Why even bother? You have to cramp your head down to the sight line and there's no significant recoil anyway. It's not a .308 that can give you a case of scope eye, it's 5.56 and you can shoot it with the butt held to your chin. Seen it, done it. No big deal. They even marketed a jaw rest at one time.

BTW - building up the tube for a cheek rest? After about 1/2" it interferes with the charging handle and the average sight plane starts going over the sights. Cheek rests may be needed for large belled scopes propped up on high mounts, but for the natural eye alignment not so much.

And that is the way the ATF might see it - after all, they have inspectors who have looked at this stuff for decades and for the most part, it's all a dodge to circumvent what the pistol is and effectively make it an SBR - which they have repeatedly said they will see it as.

The ATF isn't the enemy, we are our own worst enemy. We keep trying to poke the bear and do it long enough you get things like the Brace Letter which states "it's a stock and just don't bother us about it." If we took as much effort supporting the revocation of the '34 NFA it would likely have been dismantled long ago, but no, we waste time working around it instead of attacking it directly. And if we did, the word would get out how stupid it all is instead of looking less than smart trying to play footsie with the ATF and get our special favor anointed.

Good luck on that faux shoulder stock attachment. Maybe it will pass their scrutiny. If so, you actually have a much bigger obstacle, bringing it to market and getting some profit out of it. Not to forget that 95% of all new business ventures fail in the first 10 years.

Will the NFA still exist in 10 years? If it's take out of the law - end of the Brace business. They will be curios of a long ago time.

Quoted:
Still no word from ATF? It's been what, 4 months now right?

Quoted:
Oh, I was under the impression you sent them the letter near the start of this thread. Welp.

Quoted:
What's that material you used for the cheek weld? Any good?

Quoted:

It's only been about 63 days. The projected time frame for review is between 90-120 days.