I have a Norrell 10/22 auto sear that I'm currently hosting on an integrally suppressed upper. I'd like to get another set up with a short barrel, but don't want to mess around with SBRing a 10/22 receiver and such.

My initial plan was to just get a Charger that I could just put the pistol stock back on when I don't have the auto-sear in it. However, as I've realized they're no longer in production, I'm looking at just getting a pistol 10/22 receiver, adding a short-barrel to it and just never mounting the stock without the auto-sear in it.

Is there anyone who makes an explicit pistol 10/22 receiver? I know that technically if it's never had a stock on it, it can be a pistol, but I'd prefer something with "pistol" written on it or that transfers from my FFL as a pistol.

KIDDs receivers are a definite no-no for a pistol build. Tactical Innovations are good to go for pistol builds.....

As far as a receiver with "pistol" written on it, the only one is the Ruger Charger.

Why are KIDD no able to be used in a pistol?  They sell bare receivers?  That would make them a virgin receiver.

Many, many people have asked KIDD and the response is always the same, they are only legal to be used as rifle receivers. I'm not 100% sure to the exact reason, I just know they will not beat around the bush if you ask them. It's always no.

Here is a response I found over at RFC when someone asked KIDD about building a pistol from one of their receivers...
"Hi XXXXX,
Our receivers are classified as Rifle receivers. You will have to contact your FFL to see the process in having the receiver turned into a short barreled receiver. Good Shooting-Shalee

IIRC, I read it has something to do with more excise taxes and/or different license for pistol manufacturing, and they don't do that

NDS, maybe as a manufacturer you can help answer the question.

How can a receiver be designated as something if it isn't actually built that way? The definition of a rifle for example is that it has a >16" barrel, >26" OAL, and a shoulder stock, it has to have a physical configuration met. If a receiver has never had a barrel or stock, how can it be legally designated a rifle? It should be recorded as a receiver in the A&D and as an other firearm on a 4473.

I could understand being designated as a rifle for the excise tax purpose, but the only reason to designate it as a rifle is to pay the maximum amount of tax to cover your bases and not have to do separate tracking for complete rifles and receivers. When I read about the tax rate, rifles were highest at 11%, pistols were only 10%, and bare receivers (not sold with parts kits to make a complete rifle/pistol) were 0% tax.

So unless Kidd is assembling the bare/virgin/stripped receivers as rifles first (shoulder stock, barrel, length requirements met), there should be no reason you couldn't use a Kidd receiver for a pistol build.

Hypothetical situation here:
My concern would be trying to prove that a Kidd receiver, even if purchased from Kidd directly, was never a rifle. I don't know how Kidd records their receivers when they ship them out, but that could be a possible issue if a firearm was being traced back to the manufacturer. For example, if you purchased a receiver from Kidd, they sent it to your FFL, then the FFL transferred it to you. As long as the receiver was recorded (in A&D book) as a receiver when it left Kidd, was received as a receiver by the FFL (A&D book), and was recorded as a receiver when transferred to you (A&D book and 4473), you shouldn't have a problem. If for some reason Kidd recorded the receiver as a rifle in their A&D book when they sent it out, that could cause a discrepancy, in particular if it was properly recorded as a receiver by the receiving FFL. At that point, I'm not sure how the situation would be handled. Kidd may say that some percentage of receivers (or all receivers) are test built as rifles first, or that they consider all receivers rifles for tax purposes, or that they just don't know if a particular receiver was built as a rifle or not.

Without having any real first hand knowledge of how or why Kidd does what they do, this is all speculation. I wouldn't trust making pistol out of one of their receivers on the slight chance that I'd really have an unregistered SBR and be liable for the time/money involved if it was ever questioned.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have a Kidd receiver with rear tang capability that I could build into a pistol first, then convert to a rifle, and be able to change back into a pistol. But until Kidd can and will verify a receiver I purchase from them as a virgin receiver that has never actually been built as or designated as a rifle, I'll have to stick to other manufacturers.

"OK with ATF"?..................since when?
ATF is damned clear that a firearm receiver is transferred as an "Other Firearm" on the 4473.
Kidd doesn't get to "designate" jack shit.........if its a receiver.....it's a receiver.

I don't have to.
I'm an FFL and can read fucking English.
If I buy a receiver from Kidd it gets entered into my bound book as a receiver.....not as a "rifle receiver", not as a "pistol receiver".

If you aren't aware of that you damned well better get up to speed on your ATF Rulings.
Read this:http://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2009/07/070709-openletter-ffl-gca.pdf

The problem is we don't know if Kidd test fits all their receivers with a barrel and shoulder stock before they send them out. If they did, they would legally be rifles, even if disassembled and distributed as receivers. In the highly unlikely situation you were asked to prove that a pistol built on a Kidd reciever hadn't previously been a rifle and all the manufacturer will say is "all of our products are designated as rifles," it would be a pain in the ass to prove otherwise. If Kidd were to testify that all receivers were test fit/built as rifles, you'd be screwed. If they were to say the test fit some receivers as rifles, and have records showing that your serial number was test fit that way, you'd be screwed. If they don't test fit them, or if they don't keep records of particular serial numbers being test fit, you'd have reasonable doubt. Again, all hypothetical...unless Kidd chimes in.

Sorry, but if a manufacturer ships a receiver............it's a fucking receiver.
There is no such thing as a receiver "designated as a rifle".
Read the instructions on the 4473.

If the manufacturer builds it as a rifle, then disassembles it into a receiver, it is still legally a rifle for future building purposes. It would transfer as a receiver, but could not be used for a pistol build. If the manufacturer can't or won't say a receiver was never at any time a rifle, I wouldn't buy that receiver if I was intending to use it for a pistol build.

Name any AR manufacturer that says anything of the sort about their stripped lower receivers.

I would think that most if not all manufacturers that sell stripped receivers would say that if you asked. But we're not talking about an AR right now, we're talking about a 10/22 receiver and a manufacturer that has claimed that their receivers are for rifles only. Kidd even lists the age restriction to purchase the receiver as 18.

I contacted another 10/22 receiver manufacturer, CST, to ask if their receivers can be used for a pistol build and received the response below. Is it possible that since KIDD produces rifles using these receivers and only rifles that somehow that makes them illegal for a pistol build? I know very little about the legalities regarding this subject so take it easy on me, I'm just throwing this out there...


The ATF agent in our area has informed us that since CST is only selling receivers (sometimes referred to as frames) and not a complete rifle or pistol, then the receivers can in fact be used for either a rifle or pistol. However, once the customer "completes" the manufacturing process by attaching a rifle barrel and rifle stock, then it becomes a rifle and it cannot be used as a pistol afterwards unless appropriate forms and a NFA license is granted to use it as a SBR, (short barrel rifle). As long as the completed firearm exhibits a pistol stock and barrel directly after purchase, than essentially it has completed its birth in the world as a pistol.

What part of IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE MANUFACTURER SAYS do you not get?...........ATF says if its a receiver IT'S NOT A RIFLE.
If you would spend two minutes and read the fucking instructions on the 4473 you would know why NO MANUFACTURERS would say a receiver is a rifle.

And yes, an AR lower receiver is EXACTLY the same firearm as a Kidd 10/22 receiver..........they are both "Other Firearms" on the 4473.


If so Kidd is the dumbest motherfucker in the firearms business.........ATF regulations are clear that only rifles and shotguns may be transferred to 18 year olds. Handguns and other firearms require the buyer to be 21.

Why are you being so dense? We don't know what Kidd does or doesn't do with their receivers, only that they (for some reason) claim that their receivers are only to be used for rifles. I've given you a hypothetical situation, that they possibly test fit a barrel and stock to all receivers, making them a rifle, and only able to be a rifle from that point forward, regardless of whether they sell it as a receiver or as a complete rifle. So, a manufacturer can affect the original legal designation if they do that (even if they strip the receiver and sell it as a receiver). It could matter what a manufacturer says...and the point I'm making is that if the ATF were to go to Kidd and ask what a particular serial number matches up to, and if Kidd were to say "rifle" regardless of actual status/configuration, you are screwed if you had it configured as a pistol. As far as the 4473, Kidd wouldn't generally be filling those out, that is up to the transferring dealer. I'm very familiar with the 4473 and how they are supposed to be filled out. I'm not familiar with Kidd's specific operation and what they do or don't do that might restrict your use of their receivers.

Yes, 10/22 receivers and AR receivers are the same thing, but there are a lot less people out there building 10/22 pistols. Most manufacturers of AR receivers are aware of the requirements that an AR receiver not be built as a rifle if it is to be used for a pistol. 10/22 receiver manufacturers may not be as well versed in the intricacies.

As far as Kidd listing the age requirement as 18 for a receiver, they may not know that receivers require you to be 21, and that would be annoying if you purchased one as an 18 year old and when you went to pick it up from a dealer you couldn't actually get it. Or it may be a typo/copy/paste eroor on their site. But if they truly believe you only have to be 18 to purchase only the receiver, that leads me to suspect they can say a receiver is a rifle, even if they never actually built them as a rifle. This is why I would avoid a Kidd receiver for a 10/22 pistol build, and would only use a receiver from a manufacturer that would confirm that it had never a rifle.

I'd go find a Charger and avoid all this BS.

use a nodak reciever

I have read the law. Here is the definition of a rifle: (18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(7) and 27 CFR § 478.11) The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

So, if a receiver has had a barrel and shoulder stock attached, it is a rifle. It can be stripped to a receiver and then sold as a receiver, but it can only be built back into a rifle (or registered as a NFA item). Also, read ATF rule 2011-4 for further clarification on why a rifle cannot change to a pistol, but a pistol can change to a rifle and back to a pistol. This points out that actual configuration matters...it doesn't appear that a manufacturer can designate specific use of a receiver by paperwork or just saying so, but they can by actual configuration.




Again, I don't think you're reading/comprehending what I'm saying. A manufacturer can make it so their receiver can't be used as a pistol if they have ever built the receiver into a rifle. We both agree that what the manufacturer calls the firearm doesn't necessarily affect what it can legally be used for, but you don't seem to believe that they can actually configure it in such a way that would make a receiver legally unusable as a pistol.

If Kidd doesn't want to associate themselves with having pistol receivers available, that is their prerogative. If they do that by legally making sure it can't by building all receivers as rifles, or by saying they won't verify a receiver as anything other than a rifle as a matter of policy. There's nothing that says they can't call all their receivers rifles for marketing purposes, even if it doesn't match their legal status. The only ATF regulation issue they might have is if they are logging the receivers out of the their A&D book as rifles.



You're actually the one that's arguing, and it appears you are getting angry and losing your civility...probably because you know you're wrong.




You're the one that brought AR receivers into the conversation when they have no more relevance than any other receiver.

Agreed, a manufacturer should be more well versed in the issues surrounding their product. But it may be a typographical error. We don't know what Kidd does or doesn't know, only what it appears that they know.






What if's are all we have since we don't have a clear answer from Kidd. We both agree how a dealer has to transfer a receiver. Kidd may or may not know.

It's best that anyone reading this thread has as much information as possible regarding how you might be able to build a 10/22 pistol, including the hypothetical situations that might make you want to avoid a Kidd receiver as a base for the build.

Exactly. Right now it would likely be less expensive and/or easier to find a virgin 10/22 aftermarket receiver that you can verify has never been a rifle, and build a charger out of it.

Quoted:


I have read the law. Here is the definition of a rifle: (18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(7) and 27 CFR § 478.11) The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

So, if a receiver has had a barrel and shoulder stock attached, it is a rifle. It can be stripped to a receiver and then sold as a receiver, but it can only be built back into a rifle (or registered as a NFA item). Also, read ATF rule 2011-4 for further clarification on why a rifle cannot change to a pistol, but a pistol can change to a rifle and back to a pistol. This points out that actual configuration matters...it doesn't appear that a manufacturer can designate specific use of a receiver by paperwork or just saying so, but they can by actual configuration.
Well no shit Sherlock.......now read the ATF link I refer to in post 13 above.
Now that you've read all that why the fuck do you still hold that a 10/22 receiver can be transferred as a "rifle"?
Nothing in Federal law prohibits manufacturing a pistol from an "Other Firearm"...........if you disagree then post that citation.



Again, I don't think you're reading/comprehending what I'm saying. A manufacturer can make it so their receiver can't be used as a pistol if they have ever built the receiver into a rifle. We both agree that what the manufacturer calls the firearm doesn't necessarily affect what it can legally be used for, but you don't seem to believe that they can actually configure it in such a way that would make a receiver legally unusable as a pistol.
Again...........you have no facts to support this. If a manufacturer builds a rifle it damn well better have the features that meet the definition of "Rifle" under Federal law..........and a 10/22 receiver doesn't does it?
Again......ATF is damn fucking clear that a receiver gets transferred as an "Other Firearm"..............and that in no way inhibits its ability to be built into a pistol, rifle or any other type of firearm. Only your imagination has dreamed up the "what if Kidd put a barrel and stock on it?"...........which makes no difference if the firearm is transferred as a receiver.

If Kidd doesn't want to associate themselves with having pistol receivers available, that is their prerogative. If they do that by legally making sure it can't by building all receivers as rifles, or by saying they won't verify a receiver as anything other than a rifle as a matter of policy. There's nothing that says they can't call all their receivers rifles for marketing purposes, even if it doesn't match their legal status. The only ATF regulation issue they might have is if they are logging the receivers out of the their A&D book as rifles.
And they can lose their license by doing so.



You're actually the one that's arguing, and it appears you are getting angry and losing your civility...probably because you know you're wrong.
Point out ANY FUCKING THING where I have posted erroneous information.
This really isn't an argument...........I post ATF regs and you respond with supposition.



You're the one that brought AR receivers into the conversation when they have no more relevance than any other receiver.

Agreed, a manufacturer should be more well versed in the issues surrounding their product. But it may be a typographical error. We don't know what Kidd does or doesn't know, only what it appears that they know.
Basically you don't really know shit about Kidd or ATF regulations...........is that what you are saying?





What if's are all we have since we don't have a clear answer from Kidd. We both agree how a dealer has to transfer a receiver. Kidd may or may not know.

It's best that anyone reading this thread has as much information as possible regarding how you might be able to build a 10/22 pistol, including the hypothetical situations that might make you want to avoid a Kidd receiver as a base for the build.

While YOU might need a "clear answer from Kidd"........anyone who can read doesn't.

Sorry, your reading comprehension and reasoning skills show me that you're not qualified to participate in this conversation.

Sounds like you realize that you're full of shit and have no substantive argument.

Go troll somewhere else.

what stock is that?  and what sights?

Wish i would have had that crystal ball when i tried dumping my charger. Couldn't give it away.