User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/14/2011 9:45:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HardShell]
I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere around here. I was wondering if anyone had any personal experience with them. How reliable/ accurate/ well built are they? I would like to put together a basic 1911 frame and put one of these on it.
This is what I am talking about. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 6/14/2011 10:57:32 PM EDT
[#1]
I have a Mech-Tech carbine in 10mm and it works great.
I also have a Colt Delta Elite and I bought a new Rock Island Armory G.I. 45 just for the lower frame to use in the Mech-Tech so that I could carry both at the same time. The Rock Island Armory .45 was so good that I use it a lot. 10mm, when you care enough to send the very best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2011 7:49:09 PM EDT
[#2]
The dark side of these uppers is that they permanently convert the legal status of your pistol frame into a rifle frame. If you attach the Mech Tech to your 1911 pistol frame, then you cannot legally revert that frame back to pistol form unless you first register it as a Short Barrel Rifle via ATF Form 1.
Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanetly for use in the Mech Tech. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2011 9:43:40 PM EDT
[#3]
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
The dark side of these uppers is that they permanently convert the legal status of your pistol frame into a rifle frame. If you attach the Mech Tech to your 1911 pistol frame, then you cannot legally revert that frame back to pistol form unless you first register it as a Short Barrel Rifle via ATF Form 1. Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanetly for use in the Mech Tech. Where have you read that? |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2011 10:30:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
The dark side of these uppers is that they permanently convert the legal status of your pistol frame into a rifle frame. If you attach the Mech Tech to your 1911 pistol frame, then you cannot legally revert that frame back to pistol form unless you first register it as a Short Barrel Rifle via ATF Form 1. Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanetly for use in the Mech Tech. Wha, wha, what?!? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2011 10:55:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TkFF]
[#5]
He is correct. Once you use the Lower(pistol frame) on a barreled rifle upper, It is forever considered a "rifle". Revert it to its sub 16inch pistol form, you have illegally made an SBR. The first letter from the ATF in the link covers it, even though it pertains to an AR pistol.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=525036 Originally Posted By Homeinvader: The dark side of these uppers is that they permanently convert the legal status of your pistol frame into a rifle frame. If you attach the Mech Tech to your 1911 pistol frame, then you cannot legally revert that frame back to pistol form unless you first register it as a Short Barrel Rifle via ATF Form 1. Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanetly for use in the Mech Tech. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2011 11:15:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Originally Posted By TkFF:
He is correct. Once you use the Lower(pistol frame) on a barreled rifle upper, It is forever considered a "rifle". Revert it to its sub 16inch pistol form, you have illegally made an SBR. The first letter from the ATF in the link covers it, even though it pertains to an AR pistol. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=525036 Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
The dark side of these uppers is that they permanently convert the legal status of your pistol frame into a rifle frame. If you attach the Mech Tech to your 1911 pistol frame, then you cannot legally revert that frame back to pistol form unless you first register it as a Short Barrel Rifle via ATF Form 1. Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanently for use in the Mech Tech. Unfortunately, most Mech Tech owners are not aware of this and Mech Tech is not exactly clear about what their product does to customers' host firearms, legally speaking. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2011 11:52:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HardShell]
[#7]
Originally Posted By Homeinvader: Unfortunately, most Mech Tech owners are not aware of this and Mech Tech is not exactly clear about what their product does to customers' host firearms, legally speaking. Yep. I've long wanted a MechTech for one of my G21s (and don't even mind forever leaving it as a rifle), but one of my biggest qualms is with the company itself –– I personally think they are being both disingenuous and irresponsible in not addressing this issue openly. Back to the OP's question, the ones I have shot over the years (several different models) have all been reliable and reasonably accurate, albeit a bit on the heavy side. But I really like both the concept and the product. ETA, PLEASE NOTE: Be sure to see KoImprobable's post below! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2011 3:21:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanetly for use in the Mech Tech.
That's pretty much my plan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2011 6:48:01 PM EDT
[#9]
Originally Posted By TkFF:
He is correct. Once you use the Lower(pistol frame) on a barreled rifle upper, It is forever considered a "rifle". Revert it to its sub 16inch pistol form, you have illegally made an SBR. The first letter from the ATF in the link covers it, even though it pertains to an AR pistol. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=525036 Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
The dark side of these uppers is that they permanently convert the legal status of your pistol frame into a rifle frame. If you attach the Mech Tech to your 1911 pistol frame, then you cannot legally revert that frame back to pistol form unless you first register it as a Short Barrel Rifle via ATF Form 1. Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanetly for use in the Mech Tech. If this is true exactly how does the ATF know it was once attached to the upper? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2011 8:20:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TkFF]
[#10]
There are no "If" about it unfortunately, as much as I wish there were. Most of us who collect SBRs among other Title II weapons have been dealing with this very issues when we assemble our rifles. Truthfully, the ATF may never know of someone doing what you described in you post. However, we do have many discussions in the Class 3 section regarding Constructive Possession, which is just having the part available to build an SBR, which without paperwork is illegal. For instance, taking both your stock pistol slide and barrel with to the range while firing the lower attached to the Mech Tec could be considered constructive possession. In the eyes of the ATF, it seems just having the parts to assemble an illegal weapon is the same thing as having one.
Originally Posted By Rich_V: Originally Posted By TkFF: He is correct. Once you use the Lower(pistol frame) on a barreled rifle upper, It is forever considered a "rifle". Revert it to its sub 16inch pistol form, you have illegally made an SBR. The first letter from the ATF in the link covers it, even though it pertains to an AR pistol. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=525036 Originally Posted By Homeinvader: The dark side of these uppers is that they permanently convert the legal status of your pistol frame into a rifle frame. If you attach the Mech Tech to your 1911 pistol frame, then you cannot legally revert that frame back to pistol form unless you first register it as a Short Barrel Rifle via ATF Form 1. Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanetly for use in the Mech Tech. If this is true exactly how does the ATF know it was once attached to the upper? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2011 8:25:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Just went to the website again, and saw the Glock lower with the AR configured upper......may have to start looking for a beater glock pistol.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/17/2011 7:29:51 AM EDT
[#12]
I wonder what ATF's stance would be if MechTech were to get these uppers classified as firearms (serialized and all). If the upper/kit was the firearm, would the 1911 frame still become a rifle once assembled?
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2011 12:34:39 PM EDT
[#13]
It would still be the same. Once it has a butt stock attached and has a rifled barrel 16 inches or more, it's a rifle forever. It's sad that such rules even exist, and that an otherwise lawful person could make an honest mistake that could land them in prison.
 Originally Posted By boricua9mm: I wonder what ATF's stance would be if MechTech were to get these uppers classified as firearms (serialized and all). If the upper/kit was the firearm, would the 1911 frame still become a rifle once assembled? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2011 2:19:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Thompson Contender won a court case involving this very same issue. While that case only applies to the TC pistol/carbine kits, it does provide precedent for any court cases against a Mech Tech owner.
And as mentioned already. The ATF has no way of knowing if you are swapping back and forth. Don't take both the upper and the slide to public ranges at the same time and if you are really worried about the ATF having remote viewing capablities, don't store them together either. I don't advocate breaking the law but I do advocate using common sense and not having irrational fear of the ATF. The only case I'm aware of someone getting convicted of possession under the "constructive possession" argument involved full auto parts, who's only function was to make a full auto gun, and it was one of many secondary charges to the primary charge in the case. There are a number of companies selling 1911 and Glock (aliuminum) lowers. Just get a frame assembly kit from Brownells or elsewhere and have a dedicated carbine frame. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2011 9:32:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: HardShell]
[#15]
Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER: ... There are a number of companies selling 1911 and Glock (aliuminum) lowers. Just get a frame assembly kit from Brownells or elsewhere and have a dedicated carbine frame. Glockmeister also sells both stripped and complete factory Glock lowers –– they even put them on sale occasionally. I strongly advocate using a dedicated lower with these Mech-Techs –– not so much because "the Feds would know" or prosecution is at all likely, but just because the potential penalties are severe and IMHO it simply isn't worth the risk. When dealing with firearm laws and regs, I ALWAYS err on the side of caution, personally. YMMV. ETA, PLEASE NOTE: Be sure to see KoImprobable's post below! |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:58:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: wraith1323-]
[#16]
Holy crap! My buddy has had one of these for years. I talked him into buying it because I was really interested but didn't have a 1911 at the time.
We've shot the hell out of this thing. He uses a Kimber Pro Carry, which is his only handgun. With this set up, he has a handgun and a carbine, just switches the frame out for whatever he wants to do at the time. He'll shoot the carbine, pop the frame off, and head over to the pistol range. I never even considered this. I advised him quite some time ago to just pick up a cheap frame for the carbine and leave it set up. He isn't a "gun guy", so he just never got around to it. OP, to answer your question, he has had this thing for several years and we both shoot it regularly. No idea what the round count would be. Never had any problem whatsoever. He's got a cheap red dot mounted and we shoot it out to 100 yards. Accuracy and reliability have never been a problem. Holy crap! Thanks guys, I need to make a phone call... |
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2011 5:04:34 PM EDT
[#17]
I sent a letter to the ATF asking about this very issue (going back and forth from Mech Tech Carbine to pistol), before I bought one. I waited a month and a half, thinking that they'd just lost or thrown away my letter. Apparently, they were just taking their time.
Today, I got their response: http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech001.jpg <–– Page1 http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech002.jpg <–– Page2 (pictures edited to remove my personal info, only) If the lower has never been assembled as a pistol, you put a Mech Tech upper on it, and then turn it into a pistol, then, and only then, are you making an NFA item. That said, I'm still going to keep this letter in a safe place so that if some ATF agent has a different interpretation, I have something to defend myself with in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2011 5:11:53 PM EDT
[#18]
That goes against every related opinion I have seen them issue but (1) I am very glad to see it and (2) I am especially glad to see it related specifically to a Mech-Tech conversion.
Thanks for sharing it here. If you haven't, I would suggest that you contact Mech-Tech directly... I feel sure they would be VERY interested to know this. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2011 5:18:53 PM EDT
[#19]
In fact, this is so unexpected/such a potential game-changer for those considering M-T conversions, I'm going to tack this thread for a while...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2011 5:47:06 PM EDT
[#20]
It seems that the logic of the ruling is thus:
Putting the MT Upper on your Glock or 1911 makes it into a rifle. Reassembled as a pistol, the frame becomes a firearm again because it is under 26" OAL and 16" barrel, and was made from a rifle. I think there's a logical step not explicit in the letter where the item in question doesn't fall into any NFA categories (despite our belief that it is an SBR). If anything, I guess it isn't an SBR because it's not shot form the shoulder. So can we take the butt stocks off of our AR receivers, and install barrels shorter than 16" now? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2011 5:39:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Originally Posted By HardShell: In fact, this is so unexpected/such a potential game-changer for those considering M-T conversions, I'm going to tack this thread for a while... PLEASE recall (everyone) that ATF letters are valid only for the addressee. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2011 6:23:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By HardShell:
In fact, this is so unexpected/such a potential game-changer for those considering M-T conversions, I'm going to tack this thread for a while... PLEASE recall (everyone) that ATF letters are valid only for the addressee. True dat, but ATF would have a hard time in court saying persons in identical situations should be charged differently. Equal protection and all that. Anyone know of any cases where they did prosecute differently? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 10:36:24 AM EDT
[#23]
Originally Posted By andrasik: Originally Posted By HardShell: In fact, this is so unexpected/such a potential game-changer for those considering M-T conversions, I'm going to tack this thread for a while... PLEASE recall (everyone) that ATF letters are valid only for the addressee. Yes, I specifically mentioned this elsewhere in reference to this but did not do so here. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 5:09:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: TexasRifleman1985]
[#24]
This thread is relevant to my interests.
Can anyone post some good photos of these? The ones on their website suck. TR85. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 7:58:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Originally Posted By KoImprobable:
I sent a letter to the ATF asking about this very issue (going back and forth from Mech Tech Carbine to pistol), before I bought one. I waited a month and a half, thinking that they'd just lost or thrown away my letter. Apparently, they were just taking their time. Today, I got their response: http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech001.jpg <–– Page1 http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech002.jpg <–– Page2 (pictures edited to remove my personal info, only) If the lower has never been assembled as a pistol, you put a Mech Tech upper on it, and then turn it into a pistol, then, and only then, are you making an NFA item. That said, I'm still going to keep this letter in a safe place so that if some ATF agent has a different interpretation, I have something to defend myself with in court. Thanks for posting this. This letter along with the T/C letter (and others I'm sure) both just confirm what the regulations say : Pistol - A weapon originally designed, made, and intended...when held in one hand... Configuring a pistol as a rifle does not magically change it's original legal status of being a pistol just as configuring a rifle (>16" and >26") as a pistol (<16" and no stock) does not magically change it's original legal status of being a rifle. Types of firearms are what they were ORIGINNALY configured as. Just as most Title 1 firearms that have been used to make Title 2 firearms are no longer considered Title 2 firearms when returned to Title 1 configuration. I am going to go out on a limb and predict that this type of determination, based on the definition of 'pistol', could also be used to prove that adding a forward grip to a handgun does NOT turn it into an AOW. Contrary to current opinion. Only time will tell. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 8:00:39 AM EDT
[#26]
Originally Posted By felrom:
So can we take the butt stocks off of our AR receivers, and install barrels shorter than 16" now? I looks like it. AS LONG AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONFIGURED THAT WAY. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:00:13 AM EDT
[#27]
Originally Posted By shrikefan: Thanks for posting this. This letter along with the T/C letter (and others I'm sure) both just confirm what the regulations say : Pistol - A weapon originally designed, made, and intended...when held in one hand... Configuring a pistol as a rifle does not magically change it's original legal status of being a pistol just as configuring a rifle (>16" and >26") as a pistol (<16" and no stock) does not magically change it's original legal status of being a rifle. ... Except that flies in the face of past rulings and letters...  ... which is why I would urge anyone considering something like this to make their own inquiry directly on-point and get their own personal letter from Tech Branch to be safe. Free advice, worth what you paid for it.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:05:16 AM EDT
[#28]
Originally Posted By shrikefan: Originally Posted By felrom: So can we take the butt stocks off of our AR receivers, and install barrels shorter than 16" now? I looks like it. AS LONG AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONFIGURED THAT WAY. Again, there have been numerous letters/opinions issued which contradict that stance. And I echo my recommendation above. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 3:25:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: shrikefan]
[#29]
Hardshell,
I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestions. What I am saying is that these couple opinions support what the regulations say. Not that the regulations need any supporting because they still mean what they say even though some employees of the atf have poor reading comprehension skills. The letter you posted above presumes that some magical transformation of the receiver has taken place and a rifle is the result of adding a buttstock and >16" barrel to a handgun (not in that order). What you have is a pistol receiver with a long barrel and a buttstock - a Mech Tech conversion. Nothing more nothing less. A similar issue arrises when a person submits a Form 1 to 'make' an NFA firearm. Using atf reasoning, adding a spoiler and racing slicks to my 4x4 truck would magically transform it into a race car. Or adding mud tires to my car would magically transform it into a monster truck. While the atf is not usually known for using logic in their decisions, the links to the original posted above prove that there is at least one person there with the capability of fundamental reading comprehension and the proper application thereof. Do I want to be the test case? NO! But it will be interesting to follow these opinion letters from atf in the future. UPDATE - Check this out!!  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 7:01:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Hardshell, I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestions. What I am saying is that these couple opinions support what the regulations say. Not that the regulations need any supporting because they still mean what they say even though some employees of the atf have poor reading comprehension skills. The letter you posted above presumes that some magical transformation of the receiver has taken place and a rifle is the result of adding a buttstock and >16" barrel to a handgun (not in that order). What you have is a pistol receiver with a long barrel and a buttstock - a Mech Tech conversion. Nothing more nothing less. A similar issue arrises when a person submits a Form 1 to 'make' an NFA firearm. Using atf reasoning, adding a spoiler and racing slicks to my 4x4 truck would magically transform it into a race car. Or adding mud tires to my car would magically transform it into a monster truck. While the atf is not usually known for using logic in their decisions, the links to the original posted above prove that there is at least one person there with the capability of fundamental reading comprehension and the proper application thereof. Do I want to be the test case? NO! But it will be interesting to follow these opinion letters from atf in the future. UPDATE - Check this out!! That looks rather definitive to me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2011 10:22:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: HardShell]
[#31]
Originally Posted By Rich_V: That looks rather definitive to me. Yep, that ruling (published as a ruling instead of a letter to an individual) is HUGE! It still makes it clear that one cannot make a pistol from something that started as a rifle, but it finally (and sensibly IMO) states definitively that adding a carbine kit to a pistol does not render it forever more as a rifle... which, ironically, is directly contrary to years' worth of their own opinions and letters on the subject. I strongly suspect the recent availbilty of the Beretta NEOS carbine kits, added to the MechTechs and other conversions already on the market, prompted this. It's neat to see a BATFE ruling that actually makes sense. (And I bet the folks at MechTech are doing a happy dance.  )I know that this means I will definitely be getting a MT for my G21s, and I might even revisit the NEOS again...  ETA: This is also an incentive for AR hobbyists to build most/all of their stripped ARs into a pistol configuration first, before ever putting them in rifle configuration, so that they can also be put back in pistol configuration if the future if desired. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2011 4:42:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Originally Posted By HardShell:
Originally Posted By Rich_V:
That looks rather definitive to me. Yep, that ruling (published as a ruling instead of a letter to an individual) is HUGE! It still makes it clear that one cannot make a pistol from something that started as a rifle, but it finally (and sensibly IMO) states definitively that adding a carbine kit to a pistol does not render it forever more as a rifle... which, ironically, is directly contrary to years' worth of their own opinions and letters on the subject. I strongly suspect the recent availbilty of the Beretta NEOS carbine kits, added to the MechTechs and other conversions already on the market, prompted this. It's neat to see a BATFE ruling that actually makes sense. (And I bet the folks at MechTech are doing a happy dance. )
I know that this means I will definitely be getting a MT for my G21s, and I might even revisit the NEOS again... In my opinion, this is the result of the Supreme Court pimp-slapping the ATF in the Thompson Center case. The ATF is having to bring their policies in line with that ruling, and make them more consistant. We have TC to thank. ETA: This is also an incentive for AR hobbyists to build most/all of their stripped ARs into a pistol configuration first, before ever putting them in rifle configuration, so that they can also be put back in pistol configuration if the future if desired.
Exactly my thoughts. Again, does anyone have some higher quality pics of this platform? TR85. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2011 10:59:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Originally Posted By HardShell:
Originally Posted By Rich_V:
That looks rather definitive to me. Yep, that ruling (published as a ruling instead of a letter to an individual) is HUGE! It still makes it clear that one cannot make a pistol from something that started as a rifle, but it finally (and sensibly IMO) states definitively that adding a carbine kit to a pistol does not render it forever more as a rifle... which, ironically, is directly contrary to years' worth of their own opinions and letters on the subject. I strongly suspect the recent availbilty of the Beretta NEOS carbine kits, added to the MechTechs and other conversions already on the market, prompted this. It's neat to see a BATFE ruling that actually makes sense. (And I bet the folks at MechTech are doing a happy dance. )
I know that this means I will definitely be getting a MT for my G21s, and I might even revisit the NEOS again...
ETA: This is also an incentive for AR hobbyists to build most/all of their stripped ARs into a pistol configuration first, before ever putting them in rifle configuration, so that they can also be put back in pistol configuration if the future if desired. Just an FYI - installing the buttstock the very last thing would technically suffice to make it considered a pistol since that would satify the held and fired with one hand without a buttstock requirement. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2011 10:36:52 AM EDT
[#34]
Originally Posted By shrikefan: Just an FYI - installing the buttstock the very last thing would technically suffice to make it considered a pistol since that would satify the held and fired with one hand without a buttstock requirement. Yep, that's probably sufficient... but, me being one who errs on the side of caution WRT gun laws (some would even call me paranoid, and that's okay), I'll probably completely assemble them with a pistol tube and upper first (and take pics) just the same.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2011 10:46:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: HardShell]
[#35]
Originally Posted By TexasRifleman1985: ... In my opinion, this is the result of the Supreme Court pimp-slapping the ATF in the Thompson Center case. The ATF is having to bring their policies in line with that ruling, and make them more consistant. We have TC to thank... I'll respectfully disagree, at least in part. That case was decided in 1992 and they have issued hundreds of letters since reinforcing "once a rifle, always a rifle" and specifically contending that the TC case applied only to TC Contenders... and, further, not even all TC Contenders but only those that came as combo kits. (I've seen the letters stating such.) I have a feeling that Tech Branch was receiving such a large volume of inquiries on this issue of late (TCs, MTs, NEOS, etc.) that they finally decided a formal ruling would be easier on everyone (them included) than hundreds or thousands more letters. But yes, I do think that when they eventually formulated the ruling that case weighed heavily in which side they came down on. So even if I'm correct and it didn't bring the ruling about, it certainly affected it. So thanks, TC and the USSC, in either case! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2011 1:48:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Originally Posted By HardShell:
Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Just an FYI - installing the buttstock the very last thing would technically suffice to make it considered a pistol since that would satify the held and fired with one hand without a buttstock requirement. Yep, that's probably sufficient... but, me being one who errs on the side of caution WRT gun laws (some would even call me paranoid, and that's okay), I'll probably completely assemble them with a pistol tube and upper first (and take pics) just the same.
I'm with you brother! Plus I can sleep at night with a clear conscience knowing I did what was right. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:49:21 AM EDT
[#37]
Originally Posted By HardShell:
Originally Posted By TexasRifleman1985:
... In my opinion, this is the result of the Supreme Court pimp-slapping the ATF in the Thompson Center case. The ATF is having to bring their policies in line with that ruling, and make them more consistant. We have TC to thank... I'll respectfully disagree, at least in part. That case was decided in 1992 and they have issued hundreds of letters since reinforcing "once a rifle, always a rifle" and specifically contending that the TC case applied only to TC Contenders... and, further, not even all TC Contenders but only those that came as combo kits. (I've seen the letters stating such.) I have a feeling that Tech Branch was receiving such a large volume of inquiries on this issue of late (TCs, MTs, NEOS, etc.) that they finally decided a formal ruling would be easier on everyone (them included) than hundreds or thousands more letters. But yes, I do think that when they eventually formulated the ruling that case weighed heavily in which side they came down on. So even if I'm correct and it didn't bring the ruling about, it certainly affected it. So thanks, TC and the USSC, in either case!
The BATFE was sticking its head in the sand for nearly two decades trying to ignore US vs TC. The reality is, if the SCOTUS decided against the BATFE in that case, it is quite possible they would side against the BATFE in various other similar pistol/rifle conversion cases. The only way this could change is if the SCOTUS changes its composition to one more friendly towards the BATFEs position on the matter... Which hasn't really happened. Basically, the BATFE has been running the risk of yet more unfavorable rulings with its policies since US vs TC... I believe someone in that organization finally showed some good sense and decided to reform the policy to one more palatable to the SCOTUS. Otherwise it was just a matter of time until they pushed too far and got totally declawed on this matter with more SCOTUS rulings. Or at least, there was a risk of that, which is unappealing to a bureaucracy. Just my opinion... Might not reflect the actual mechanics behind this. But keep in mind that organizations like the BATFE are very slow to change, and slower still to admit their policy has been flawed. TR85. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 11:47:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Mahamotorworks]
[#38]
Just for clairification: I want to make sure I have this right...
On the 4473 the Stripped lower will still be transfered as "other" becasue it doesnt meet the definition of a rifle or pistol. Build Stripped lower as a pistol with no buttstock and barrel less then 16". Take photos, test fire and enjoy. We can "upgrade" the pistol to a rifle. Buttstock and barrel Greater then 16". Take photos, test fire and enjoy. Then we can revert it back with no reprocussions because it was built as a pistol first? . Thanks MAHA |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 6:16:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Originally Posted By Mahamotorworks: Just for clairification: I want to make sure I have this right... On the 4473 the Stripped lower will still be transfered as "other" becasue it doesnt meet the definition of a rifle or pistol. Build Stripped lower as a pistol with no buttstock and barrel less then 16". Take photos, test fire and enjoy. We can "upgrade" the pistol to a rifle. Buttstock and barrel Greater then 16". Take photos, test fire and enjoy. Then we can revert it back with no reprocussions because it was built as a pistol first? . Thanks MAHA Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2011 7:21:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: forever4]
[#40]
I think this matter has been cleared up. You can make a carbine from a pistol and then change it back. But, as has been pointed out, if it started life as a rifle it is always a rifle. Having a kit to convert back and forth is NOT a crime as some would have us believe. The courts have made it clear. The ATF got bitch-slapped on that one. But, they will keep trying to screw us over. Look at who Obama-man wants to appoint to head the ATF.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 4:55:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Also, if you don't currently have a pistol length upper, test fire the upper with any length barreled upper and you still have a pistol. Being a pistol isn't contingent upon a certain barrel length––-just the absence of a stock on the gun.
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
Originally Posted By Mahamotorworks:
Just for clairification: I want to make sure I have this right... On the 4473 the Stripped lower will still be transfered as "other" becasue it doesnt meet the definition of a rifle or pistol. Build Stripped lower as a pistol with no buttstock and barrel less then 16". Take photos, test fire and enjoy. We can "upgrade" the pistol to a rifle. Buttstock and barrel Greater then 16". Take photos, test fire and enjoy. Then we can revert it back with no reprocussions because it was built as a pistol first? . Thanks MAHA Yes. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/23/2011 10:07:56 PM EDT
[#42]
I shot a Wilson Combat with one of these uppers on it a few years ago and it was extremely accurate!
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2012 11:23:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KogaShuko]
[#43]
You could always do this, this is just like the forward grip on a pistol. The ruling is just something the ATF made up. You can not be convicted of this and magistrates or judges should never issue a warrant for this because it simply does not meet the code section.
If you ever get arrested for this contact a lawyer. After the case gets thrown out file a 1983 claim (they will know what that means.) The money you get for your rights being violated will more than make up for any problems. I also urge anyone charged with a TSA violation to do the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2012 1:23:58 PM EDT
[#44]
can you put a folding AR stock on these? Like maybe an ACE?
|
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2012 2:51:37 AM EDT
[#45]
just a question I think I have it figured out, but gonna throw another twist in, I think...I am building a SBR, so if I buy a stripped lower and assemble it as a pistol first, take a few snap shots and then get the stamp and register it as a SBR, I can pull the stock off and it is once again a pistol even if it is registered with the ATF as a SBR??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2012 3:33:25 AM EDT
[#46]
Originally Posted By suthrncop66:
just a question I think I have it figured out, but gonna throw another twist in, I think...I am building a SBR, so if I buy a stripped lower and assemble it as a pistol first, take a few snap shots and then get the stamp and register it as a SBR, I can pull the stock off and it is once again a pistol even if it is registered with the ATF as a SBR?? This is hashed out all the time in the Class 3 section - once you put your SBR into a non-SBR configuration, it's no longer an SBR. Search over in Class 3 legal, you'll see dozens of threads on this. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2012 4:49:32 AM EDT
[#47]
thanks hadn't really thought about it until I began reading this thread and then just thought I would ask....I will look over there
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2012 5:58:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Originally Posted By wesmerc: can you put a folding AR stock on these? Like maybe an ACE? They offer an adapter for the use of AR stocks and it attaches behind the action so, unless some part of the adapter protrudes back into where the tube would be (I don't know one way or the other, but I can't imagine why it would), my guess is you could use a folding AR stock (ACE, AGP, ZM/Para style etc.). instead of a traditional fixed or collapsible one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2012 6:02:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Anyone know who invented these? A name? Address? State of residence?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:03:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Originally Posted By RyJones:
Originally Posted By suthrncop66:
just a question I think I have it figured out, but gonna throw another twist in, I think...I am building a SBR, so if I buy a stripped lower and assemble it as a pistol first, take a few snap shots and then get the stamp and register it as a SBR, I can pull the stock off and it is once again a pistol even if it is registered with the ATF as a SBR?? This is hashed out all the time in the Class 3 section - once you put your SBR into a non-SBR configuration, it's no longer an SBR. Search over in Class 3 legal, you'll see dozens of threads on this. I phrased this like the asshole I am - I apologized in private for saying it, and I'll apologize here. I should have phrased this better, I'm sorry I was an asshole. |
|
|
|
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.
