User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 2:16:12 PM EDT
[#1]
I don't believe in this case the OAL makes a difference. If your weapon was sold as a "pistol" regardless of the barrel length then NO Vert Grip UNLESS you SBR it on a Form1 or AOW it on a Form1. Or the other route you can take is to have an 07/SOT put the vert grip on it and transfer it back to you. Then there would be a $5 "transfer tax" to you. The Arm Brace does not factor into it as the PAP is still a "pistol" with or without the brace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 2:28:59 PM EDT
[#2]
If that's the case, how do the AR pistols get away with the "over 26in" rule? An AR pistol or an AK pistol, they're both pistols. I was under the impression that you measured from the end of the threads to the end of the tube on your brace. If that measurement was over 26", I thought you fell into that magical gray area and could use a vert grip?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 2:33:08 PM EDT
[#3]
It's not so much that a "pistol is always a pistol", but that something over 26" is categorically NOT an AOW by the ATF's own definition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 2:59:01 PM EDT
[#4]
It becomes an other firearm when you add the front grip, you should be fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 3:07:04 PM EDT
[#5]
The question is whether a buffer tube (or anything else on butt end) adds to the legal OAL on an AK type pistol.
To my knowledge, nothing has ever been ruled to contribute toward OAL on the ass end of any firearm past the "firearm" itself (except a stock or grip). The buffer tube on an AR direct impingement type firearm is part of the firearm, necessary for function, hence why it counts in OAL. I suspect it would not be ruled to count on an AK, any more than would a banana. But we'll see -- I know at least a couple of folks have sent in questions for ruling on it. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 3:15:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not so much that a "pistol is always a pistol", but that something over 26" is categorically NOT an AOW by the ATF's own definition. No federal definitions have changed. There is no overall length maximum for a handgun, a 26" inch one no different, it is still a handgun. A handgun of legal 26" OAL or more, not concealed on the person, may have a VFG on it, at which point it becomes a non-NFA firearm. Remove the VFG, it's magically a pistol again. Again, no classification definitiona have changed, this is simply an interpretative exception to what has been traditionally deemed as fitting under AOW status. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 3:39:50 PM EDT
[#7]
I never thought of the AR needing the buffer tube to function , hence why it's counted in the OAL. I can't wait to see the ruling on the AK!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 3:52:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Technically the AR can function as a firearm without a receiver extension, it will just be a single shot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 7:52:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Technically the AR can function as a firearm without a receiver extension, it will just be a single shot. Just don't stick your face behind the receiver or you'll get a nice kiss from the BCG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 9:29:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just don't stick your face behind the receiver or you'll get a nice kiss from the BCG. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Technically the AR can function as a firearm without a receiver extension, it will just be a single shot. Just don't stick your face behind the receiver or you'll get a nice kiss from the BCG. And if your face didn't stop it, I suppose it would exit the firearm. I wouldn't call that a "functional" firearm myself. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 10:03:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And if your face didn't stop it, I suppose it would exit the firearm. I wouldn't call that a "functional" firearm myself. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Technically the AR can function as a firearm without a receiver extension, it will just be a single shot. Just don't stick your face behind the receiver or you'll get a nice kiss from the BCG. And if your face didn't stop it, I suppose it would exit the firearm. I wouldn't call that a "functional" firearm myself. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:45:45 AM EDT
[#12]
I am shooting off a letter today to the ATF with this exact question.
Here is the letter: To: FTB 244 Needy Road Martinsburg, WV 25405 From:Dolomite_Supafly Subject:Clarification ________________________________________________________________________ No shoulder stock is, or will be, attached to the firearm. It will only have a AR15 style buffer tube. If an AR15 style buffer tube were to be added to the rear of a semi auto AK47 pistol would the additional length of the added buffer tube contribute to the total length of the firearm? If a AR15 style buffer tube were added to the rear of a semi auto AK47 pistol how do I measure to obtain an accurate, and legal, overall length? Would I measure from the muzzle to the end of the pistol receiver, and exclude the added buffer tube in that measurement, or would I measure from the muzzle to the end of the attached buffer tube and include the additional length of the buffer tube in the overall measurement? After adding the buffer tube to a semi auto AK47 pistol, and measuring the overall length, would I legally be allowed to add a vertical forward grip to the firearm providing the overall length of the firearm was at least 26" from the muzzle to the rear most portion of buffer tube? If the AK47 pistol, with the buffer tube attached, was at least 26 inches would adding a vertical forward grip create a firearm that would be subject to the NFA? Once the firearm is 26 inches and has a vertical forward grip would it no longer be considered an AOW and at that point would become a "firearm"? Additionally, would adding a folding stock mechanism between the receiver and buffer tube change the classification? Would the use of a buffer tube designed for use with SB15 brace create a firearm classified differently than one that uses a standard style buffer tube designed to accept a standard or collapsible shoulder stock? Would the use of a standard style buffer tube, designed to accept a standard or collapsible shoulder stock, create a firearm that is classified differently than a buffer tube designed for use with SB15 brace? Again, no stock will ever be attached to the standard buffer tube. When starting with an AR15 pistol you can add a longer buffer tube to reach the 26 inches and once the AR15 pistol is at least 26 inches in length it is then legal to add a vertical forward grip, like in the instanced of the Franklin Armory Model SE-SSP, which you have ruled is legal and not subject to the NFA. Case number 3311/2011-357. Would the same ruling that applied to the Franklin Armory firearm above also apply if, instead of an AR15 "pistol" receiver, a AK47 "pistol" receiver were used? If not, why? That is if a "pistol", either AR15 or AK47, were to be at least 26" could a vertical forward grip be legally added without coming under the purview of the NFA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 11:37:07 AM EDT
[#13]
Any other weapon =
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 2:13:19 PM EDT
[#14]
I've been curious on this as well. Logically speaking, it should legitimately add to the OAL.
But the firearm doesn't need it to function! Consider a pump shotgun - its OAL is measured with the stock on. If you make it PGO, the OAL drops. Stock back on, OAL jumps. The stock isn't necessary for its function (barring the whole shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder thing), so logically the same thing should apply here. There's also the argument that since it isn't "permanently attached" (pinned/welded) it doesn't count towards the OAL, but that ruling has always only ever applied to barrels and barrels only. Super curious to see what they say back on this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 3:28:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Technically the AR can function as a firearm without a receiver extension, it will just be a single shot. Unless it is one of those AR's that is a piston driven systems that has the recoil spring "above" the carrier. That is how they can put a folding stock on it (no buffer tube). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 4:50:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless it is one of those AR's that is a piston driven systems that has the recoil spring "above" the carrier. That is how they can put a folding stock on it (no buffer tube). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Technically the AR can function as a firearm without a receiver extension, it will just be a single shot. Unless it is one of those AR's that is a piston driven systems that has the recoil spring "above" the carrier. That is how they can put a folding stock on it (no buffer tube). Well, there is a folding adapter for DI type (with buffer tube) ARs also. But I would assume that unless a ruling changes things, a tube on a piston or blowback AR pistol or the folding adapter on any AR pistol does not contribute to OAL either. It all hinges on what is deemed to constitute the "firearm", as that is the extremity of the rear measurement if no stock or grip extends past it. If they allow a buffer tube on any firearm to suffice in OAL, I'm seeing in mind's eye Glock pistol and BlackHawk revolver kits with brace and VFG. Maybe I should go ahead and patent that? ;) - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 1:19:46 PM EDT
[#17]
Hi all, has there been any update on this from the ATF?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 6:44:06 PM EDT
[#18]
I asked this same question to my local SOT when I bought my M92 with the brace. He is a pretty knowledgeable guy regarding firearms and firearms law and this stumped him. His only only opinion was that the brace wasn't part of the pistol technically, and could be considered in the same category as a sling regard OAL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 8:16:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I asked this same question to my local SOT when I bought my M92 with the brace. He is a pretty knowledgeable guy regarding firearms and firearms law and this stumped him. His only only opinion was that the brace wasn't part of the pistol technically, and could be considered in the same category as a sling regard OAL. The question is whether anything on rear of firearm not necessary for function counts in overall length. And if so, what? So far, only stocks on rifles and grips on pistols have been considered as part of the OAL due to their necessary function as per the definition of the type of firearm itself. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 10:28:21 PM EDT
[#20]
oops, meant to edit post above
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 4:25:50 AM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:19:09 PM EDT
[#22]
As far as i know the vertical grip is a no no but the magpul afg is ok.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:56:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As far as i know the vertical grip is a no no but the magpul afg is ok. To summarize the thread you obviously haven't read that you're posting in 
- a vertical grip is okay on a pistol of 26" or more legal over all length. - The barrel end is clear cut regarding role in OAL. - What's not clear is what counts on the other end. - With an AR direct impingement firearm, it's quite clear that the buffer tube counts also, because it is part of the firearm itself, as is necessary for function. - Beyond that, there is only conjecture as to whether anything else would count, such as a buffer tube on an AK pistol -- and a letter has been submitted for a ruling on that. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:38:36 AM EDT
[#24]
How long does the ATF usually take to respond to these inquiries anyway?
Really looking forward to an answer to Dolomite's letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:56:12 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How long does the ATF usually take to respond to these inquiries anyway? Really looking forward to an answer to Dolomite's letter. No set time. Feller in AR pistol forum in this thread, it took just about exactly 6 months: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/642931_Possible_solution_to_a_problem_AR_pistol_owners_face__10_4_UPDATE__ATF_Responded_.html Another guy put in a question there was a big hoodo about a month or two earlier than that still no answer apparently. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:56:38 PM EDT
[#26]
On another forum I saw a guy's letter from the BATF regarding a VFG on his M92 build. He was using the Stark angled grip and the letter confirmed that they do not have a problem with an ANGLED grip.
What's interesting is that it goes on to clarify that the BATF defines a vertical fore grip as a grip that extends out on a 90 degree perpendicular angle from the barrel regardless of orientation (side, top, etc...). The letter makes it clear that because the Stark is not at a 90 degree angle that it's not a vertical grip and it's perfectly ok to use it on his M92. This has me thinking about putting a BCM grip on mine as it's not exactly 90 degrees, I think it's 85... I just wish they didn't market it as a 'vertical' foregrip....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:09:11 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On another forum I saw a guy's letter from the BATF regarding a VFG on his M92 build. He was using the Stark angled grip and the letter confirmed that they do not have a problem with an ANGLED grip. What's interesting is that it goes on to clarify that the BATF defines a vertical fore grip as a grip that extends out on a 90 degree perpendicular angle from the barrel regardless of orientation (side, top, etc...). The letter makes it clear that because the Stark is not at a 90 degree angle that it's not a vertical grip and it's perfectly ok to use it on his M92. This has me thinking about putting a BCM grip on mine as it's not exactly 90 degrees, I think it's 85... I just wish they didn't market it as a 'vertical' foregrip.... Does it mean this is gtg on a pistol? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:33:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does it mean this is gtg on a pistol? http://fortismfg.com/image/cache/data/Grip/Shift-10-640x480.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: On another forum I saw a guy's letter from the BATF regarding a VFG on his M92 build. He was using the Stark angled grip and the letter confirmed that they do not have a problem with an ANGLED grip. What's interesting is that it goes on to clarify that the BATF defines a vertical fore grip as a grip that extends out on a 90 degree perpendicular angle from the barrel regardless of orientation (side, top, etc...). The letter makes it clear that because the Stark is not at a 90 degree angle that it's not a vertical grip and it's perfectly ok to use it on his M92. This has me thinking about putting a BCM grip on mine as it's not exactly 90 degrees, I think it's 85... I just wish they didn't market it as a 'vertical' foregrip.... Does it mean this is gtg on a pistol? http://fortismfg.com/image/cache/data/Grip/Shift-10-640x480.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:02:39 PM EDT
[#29]
I'd think one should most wisely use only a forward grip that has letter of approval, myself, regardless of "close to vertical but not really truly vertical" and all that.
- OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 2:33:34 PM EDT
[#30]
I'll be bumping this every month or so 'til we hear back from the ATF, super interested in what they have to say.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 4:35:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll be bumping this every month or so 'til we hear back from the ATF, super interested in what they have to say. Yeah, me too. I'm a friend of Dolomite's, so if he forgets to come back and post it here, I'll try to remember to do it. Making link to thread. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2014 5:05:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Thanks guys for keeping this thread alive, I can't wait to hear what the final verdict is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2014 5:44:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks guys for keeping this thread alive, I can't wait to hear what the final verdict is. I'm guessing at least 6 months more to hear, I'm afraid. Ya never know though, seems they aren't necessarily handled in chronological order or anything. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2014 3:34:32 PM EDT
[#34]
We could always have someone just do it and see if they get arrested. Much faster turnaround.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2014 4:08:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We could always have someone just do it and see if they get arrested. Much faster turnaround. Not a good test, unless they're willing to walk into an ATF field office with it or something. Odds are most folks would never be slammed for any illegal config in the normal course of their shooting lives.
- OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 3:28:20 AM EDT
[#36]
I always cringe when regular people (non-nfa lawyer, non-SOT types) send inquiry letters to the ATF... Never seems to end well for the little man UNTIL we get the NFA lawyer and SOT guys into the mix...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 1:17:18 PM EDT
[#37]
I own an AK AOW , the way I see it , the vertical grip will make it an AOW . The Sig brace being improperly used has no effect on the base gun. It still is a pistol with a vertical grip hence AOW ..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 2:34:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I own an AK AOW , the way I see it , the vertical grip will make it an AOW . The Sig brace being improperly used has no effect on the base gun. It still is a pistol with a vertical grip hence AOW .. To re-summarize: Direct impingement AR pistols with an overall length of 26" or more are no longer pistols with a VFG attached, but legal firearms. Presumably, other type handguns would be the same, but the question is just what contributes to the legal overall length on other type pistols. It's clear on the barrel end for all firearms, clear on ass end for long guns, but not clear at all on the ass end for other type pistols. It has just never been an issue before this 26"/VFG ruling. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:43:37 PM EDT
[#39]
The new ATF letter received by Black Aces Tactical has implications for this.
Note the submitted weapon, a PGO short barreled shotgun with added buffer tube, VFG, and pistol brace; was approved as a non-NFA firearm*. It is described as having an 8.5" barrel, but 27" overall length. This means the buffer tube length HAD to be included in the ATF's overall length measurement to qualify as a 'firearm,' instead of an AOW. Despite the weapon not needing the buffer tube to function. *Yes, they also stated the brace could be considered a stock if shouldered, making it a, SBS, but this is likely due to the brace being approved for use with a 'pistol' and the firearm in question never having been a pistol. Since an AK pistol is a pistol, the letter approving firing it from the shoulder should still apply. So there is precedence for including buffer tube length in OAL measurement, even if the firearm doesn't need the tube to function for determining if it is an AOW or a 'firearm.' |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 12:06:03 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The new ATF letter received by Black Aces Tactical has implications for this. Note the submitted weapon, a PGO short barreled shotgun with added buffer tube, VFG, and pistol brace; was approved as a non-NFA firearm*. It is described as having an 8.5" barrel, but 27" overall length. This means the buffer tube length HAD to be included in the ATF's overall length measurement to qualify as a 'firearm,' instead of an AOW. Despite the weapon not needing the buffer tube to function. *Yes, they also stated the brace could be considered a stock if shouldered, making it a, SBS, but this is likely due to the brace being approved for use with a 'pistol' and the firearm in question never having been a pistol. Since an AK pistol is a pistol, the letter approving firing it from the shoulder should still apply. So there is precedence for including buffer tube length in OAL measurement, even if the firearm doesn't need the tube to function for determining if it is an AOW or a 'firearm.' Yeah, I noticed that, and even mentioned it on another forum. If indeed that was 8.5" barrel on the one that was submitted, then I agree, buffer tube had to have been counted in OAL. On the other hand, for all we know, Mr. Griffth may have by now handed Mr. Kingery's Acting Director Of A Sub Department's ass to him and a future missive could be in the works. I still want to see the first two pages of that thing; there's a lot of expository stuff and reasoning missing. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 8:49:06 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am shooting off a letter today to the ATF with this exact question. Here is the letter: Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am shooting off a letter today to the ATF with this exact question. Here is the letter: To: FTB 244 Needy Road Martinsburg, WV 25405 From:Dolomite_Supafly Subject:Clarification ________________________________________________________________________ No shoulder stock is, or will be, attached to the firearm. It will only have a AR15 style buffer tube. If an AR15 style buffer tube were to be added to the rear of a semi auto AK47 pistol would the additional length of the added buffer tube contribute to the total length of the firearm? If a AR15 style buffer tube were added to the rear of a semi auto AK47 pistol how do I measure to obtain an accurate, and legal, overall length? Would I measure from the muzzle to the end of the pistol receiver, and exclude the added buffer tube in that measurement, or would I measure from the muzzle to the end of the attached buffer tube and include the additional length of the buffer tube in the overall measurement? After adding the buffer tube to a semi auto AK47 pistol, and measuring the overall length, would I legally be allowed to add a vertical forward grip to the firearm providing the overall length of the firearm was at least 26" from the muzzle to the rear most portion of buffer tube? If the AK47 pistol, with the buffer tube attached, was at least 26 inches would adding a vertical forward grip create a firearm that would be subject to the NFA? Once the firearm is 26 inches and has a vertical forward grip would it no longer be considered an AOW and at that point would become a "firearm"? Additionally, would adding a folding stock mechanism between the receiver and buffer tube change the classification? Would the use of a buffer tube designed for use with SB15 brace create a firearm classified differently than one that uses a standard style buffer tube designed to accept a standard or collapsible shoulder stock? Would the use of a standard style buffer tube, designed to accept a standard or collapsible shoulder stock, create a firearm that is classified differently than a buffer tube designed for use with SB15 brace? Again, no stock will ever be attached to the standard buffer tube. When starting with an AR15 pistol you can add a longer buffer tube to reach the 26 inches and once the AR15 pistol is at least 26 inches in length it is then legal to add a vertical forward grip, like in the instanced of the Franklin Armory Model SE-SSP, which you have ruled is legal and not subject to the NFA. Case number 3311/2011-357. Would the same ruling that applied to the Franklin Armory firearm above also apply if, instead of an AR15 "pistol" receiver, a AK47 "pistol" receiver were used? If not, why? That is if a "pistol", either AR15 or AK47, were to be at least 26" could a vertical forward grip be legally added without coming under the purview of the NFA? Was this "letter" submitted to the ATF as an actual letter (via mail), or as an email? I was researching this same issue and I was going to ask it to the ATF when I noticed that the ATF will not answer "technical" questions submitted via emails. They will only answer "technical" questions that are mailed to their Washington, DC office. See highlighted potion, below: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 12:03:31 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Was this "letter" submitted to the ATF as an actual letter (via mail), or as an email? I was researching this same issue and I was going to ask it to the ATF when I noticed that the ATF will not answer "technical" questions submitted via emails. They will only answer "technical" questions that are mailed to their Washington, DC office. See highlighted potion, below: Actual letter. Dolo has dealt with ATF a good bit over time, knows the ropes. Lots of NFA stuff, makes his own silencers, etc. - OS |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
