User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 3:43:00 PM EDT
[#1]
1.) Throw worksheet in trash.
2.) Drill holes to reduce weight. 3.) Enjoy life trying to find enough ammo to feed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 3:46:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1.) Throw worksheet in trash. 2.) Drill holes to reduce weight. 3.) Enjoy life trying to find enough ammo to feed it. 1: I follow the law. 2: No. 3: I have been at this a while, and have ammunition. Ammunition is not the point of this thread. Thank you for your comment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 3:48:51 PM EDT
[#3]
I follow the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 3:55:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I follow the constitution. I get it man. Maybe start your own thread in general discussion about it. This thread is looking for advice from members dealing with the arbitrary rule-set the BATF just put out. I respect your opinion, but I am looking for advice on the build above. Best of luck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:10:10 PM EDT
[#5]
4 points per section or 4 total?
Constructive intent identified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:12:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 4 points per section or 4 total? Constructive intent identified. 4 points each section (as I read it). I am not attempting to construct a rifle, or short barreled rifle. I am attempting to make the build above legal pursuant to the BATF's new proposed rule set. Did I mess up somewhere? (Thanks in advance). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:18:34 PM EDT
[#7]
It's 4 points per section.
ATF may consider the magpul stock to be based on a known shoulder stock design (CTR/MOE) which would add 2 more points to section one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:19:27 PM EDT
[#8]
This is why we cant have nice things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:22:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is why we cant have nice things. Don't I know it. I respect all of you that are willing to step outside the law on principle, but this thread is about meeting the requirements of the BATFE's arbitrary worksheet. Best of luck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:24:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's 4 points per section. ATF may consider the magpul stock to be based on a known shoulder stock design (CTR/MOE) which would add 2 more points to section one. The whole point to the bingo card is that if it remotely looks like an ar/ak/weapon of mass destruction, you're boned. The wanna be ctr stock but defined as a brace falls under the "designed to be shouldered" unspoken rule. OP, Jaqufrost had it right from the start and is one of the biggest dudes on this board that skirts that line each and every build. If you want to listen to anyone, it's him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:24:27 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:25:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is the only way it should look  https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56078/20210425_121023_jpg-1972883.JPG Don't I know it! My goal is to avoid a tax stamp and keep my unit as a pistol. Best of luck to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:27:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's 4 points per section. ATF may consider the magpul stock to be based on a known shoulder stock design (CTR/MOE) which would add 2 more points to section one. Shoot. If that is the case, then I am boned and will need to remove the stock and put a stopper in the rear trunnion making the hinge inoperable. Thanks for the comment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:29:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shoot. If that is the case, then I am boned and will need to remove the stock and put a stopper in the rear trunnion making the hinge inoperable. Thanks for the comment. Was it factory built with an SBA3 brace? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:31:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Was it factory built with an SBA3 brace? Custom built. Originally, we went with the SBA3 brace because these new "rules" had not been written. I was (and continue) operating in good faith with the intention that I had a pistol built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:33:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Custom built. Originally, we went with the SBA3 brace because these rules had not been written. I was (and continue) operating in good faith with the intention that I had a pistol built. IF all these pistols built with braces are actually rifles, removal of the brace doesn't change its status as a short barrel rifle. US code is pretty clear that short barreled firearms built from weapons designed to be fired from the shoulder are SBR's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:36:28 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IF all these pistols built with braces are actually rifles, removal of the brace doesn't change its status as a short barrel rifle. US code is pretty clear that short barreled firearms built from weapons designed to be fired from the shoulder are SBR's. This is a pistol. It was not built to be fired from the shoulder. Nor are any of the other pistols on the market my friend. Judging by the language in the proposed rules, the BATF understands this and is allowing people three options: 1: turn in their pistol/destroy their pistol 2: bring the pistol to a legal configuration 3: register the pistol under the NFA I am hoping I can continue to own this unit in its pistol configuration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:44:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a pistol. It was not built to be fired from the shoulder. Nor are any of the other pistols on the market my friend. Judging by the language in the proposed rules, the BATF understands this and is allowing people three options: 1: turn in their pistol/destroy their pistol 2: bring the pistol to a legal configuration 3: register the pistol under the NFA I am hoping I can continue to own this unit in its pistol configuration. 1: turn in their pistol/destroy their pistol 2: bring the pistol to a legal configuration This is going to require taking off anything that attaches to the back of the receiver. 3: register the pistol under the NFA |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:47:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1: turn in their pistol/destroy their pistol 2: bring the pistol to a legal configuration This is going to require taking off anything that attaches to the back of the receiver. 3: register the pistol under the NFA If my understanding of the worksheet is correct, this is not the case. The brace extension and brace I am hoping to use score lower than 4 in each section. If you are correct, then It will be back to the drawing board! Out of curiosity, did you read my original post? Was there any place I was incorrect in my assumptions? Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:49:32 PM EDT
[#20]
What's your overall length with the brace unfolded and extended?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:51:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The whole point to the bingo card is that if it remotely looks like an ar/ak/weapon of mass destruction, you're boned. The wanna be ctr stock but defined as a brace falls under the "designed to be shouldered" unspoken rule. OP, Jaqufrost had it right from the start and is one of the biggest dudes on this board that skirts that line each and every build. If you want to listen to anyone, it's him. I listen to everyone, and respect each of your opinions. My take is different, and this thread is basically looking for advice dealing with the proposed rule-set. I do not see the similarities between the CTR and the BTR. Up close, the BTR is really REALLY thin, and (appears to be) uncomfortable to shoulder/ not designed to shoulder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 4:53:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's your overall length with the brace unfolded and extended? I'll measure in a bit, and I will remeasure the LOP as well. Its my day off and I have a 18-month old that I'm rocking as I write this... will get on this as soon as dad duty ends! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:00:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I listen to everyone, and respect each of your opinions. My take is different, and this thread is basically looking for advice dealing with the proposed rule-set. I do not see the similarities between the CTR and the BTR. Up close, the BTR is really REALLY thin, and (appears to be) uncomfortable to shoulder/ not designed to shoulder. What the ATF defines as "uncomfortable to shoulder/not designed to shoulder" is not up to you. The shockwave blade sucks ass and is uncomfortable to shoulder but anyone who owns one probably shouldered it and dealt with it. Again the whole point of the card is to make it impossible to abide by the rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:03:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What the ATF defines as "uncomfortable to shoulder/not designed to shoulder" is not up to you. The shockwave blade sucks ass and is uncomfortable to shoulder but anyone who owns one probably shouldered it and dealt with it. Again the whole point of the card is to make it impossible to abide by the rules. Anything short of a knife or spike sticking out of the back will probably be considered shoulderable by the ATF |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:05:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:I listen to everyone, and respect each of your opinions. My take is different, and this thread is basically looking for advice dealing with the proposed rule-set. I do not see the similarities between the CTR and the BTR. Up close, the BTR is really REALLY thin, and (appears to be) uncomfortable to shoulder/ not designed to shoulder. I think it's likely ATF would look at the BTR name itself and use that to say it was derived from the CTR stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:05:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What the ATF defines as "uncomfortable to shoulder/not designed to shoulder" is not up to you. The shockwave blade sucks ass and is uncomfortable to shoulder but anyone who owns one probably shouldered it and dealt with it. Again the whole point of the card is to make it impossible to abide by the rules. Like I said man, we are not in disagreement. But this is not the point of the thread. I am looking for technical advice here. I am just as concerned as you are about the moral and legal dubiousness of these proposed rules. I will write in during the comment period. When all is said and done, I will follow the law (or in this case, the rules made by ATF under the administrative discretion given to them). In any case, there are many threads about the ethical/moral/ and legal issues at hand in general discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:06:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Still a proposed rule.
Spend the energy calling your Representatives and making comments. Guarantee that AFT is not really wanting to get stuck in the enforcement tar baby this will be for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:06:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anything short of a knife or spike sticking out of the back will probably be considered shoulderable by the ATF Don't I know it! best of luck to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:08:05 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it's likely ATF would look at the BTR name itself and use that to say it was derived from the CTR stock. I don't believe the name of the brace has anything to do with their determination criteria. That being said: I can't bloody find the determination criteria around what makes a "known" design, so you may be on to something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:09:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Still a proposed rule. Spend the energy calling your Representatives and making comments. Guarantee that AFT is not really wanting to get stuck in the enforcement tar baby this will be for them. I was a boy scout and believe in being prepared. Thank you for your comment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:27:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Ill be constructive, as I read the regs there are no points assigned for just folding. Folding device to increase LOP is a penalty. The other mention of folding device I believe is relevant to a tailhook device, see below.
If your brace was the triangle type folding brace or folder brace commonly used for Scorpions, what would be the points? Hard to tell because of the subjective is this brace based on a stock and the suitability for shouldering... What I really love is how the same feature gets scored multiple times. There is already a point system for LOP. Why should it matter if I use folding mechanism or spacers. Or if the brace is adjustable, shouldn't it just default to max LOP allowed instead of double or triple penalty. I believe this refers to tailhook style device: Counterbalance designs18 utilize the weight of the weapon as a lever to push the “stabilizing brace” into the forearm and provide stability for firing. These designs do not typically include a strap because the “stabilizing brace” itself contacts the side and bottom of the shooter’s arm and is held in place by the weight of the firearm, using the shooter’s hand as the fulcrum. However, whether characterized as a method of storage or otherwise, there is no forearm stabilizing purpose in a Counterbalance design that folds closed such that it can no longer be used as a “stabilizing brace.” Indeed, this type of design may create rear surface area such that the “stabilizing brace” may be suitable only as a shoulder stock when closed. The folding feature of the Counterbalance design stands in contrast to the purported intent of the device. This feature presents some evidence that a firearm equipped with a Counterbalance “stabilizing brace” is intended to be fired from the shoulder and therefore will accrue 1 point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:30:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's your overall length with the brace unfolded and extended? OK, had a chance to measure. OAL Just under 31". The LOP with the brace in the position I use it is 11.81" BUT if I extend the brace to the last point on the extension that would change to roughly 14" (which puts me over). Does ATF always count LOP fully extended? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 5:32:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ill be constructive, as I read the regs there are no points assigned for just folding. Folding device to increase LOP is a penalty. The other mention of folding device I believe is relevant to a tailhook device, see below. If your brace was the triangle type folding brace or folder brace commonly used for Scorpions, what would be the points? Hard to tell because of the subjective is this brace based on a stock and the suitability for shouldering... What I really love is how the same feature gets scored multiple times. There is already a point system for LOP. Why should it matter if I use folding mechanism or spacers. Or if the brace is adjustable, shouldn't it just default to max LOP allowed instead of double or triple penalty. I believe this refers to tailhook style device: Counterbalance designs18 utilize the weight of the weapon as a lever to push the “stabilizing brace” into the forearm and provide stability for firing. These designs do not typically include a strap because the “stabilizing brace” itself contacts the side and bottom of the shooter’s arm and is held in place by the weight of the firearm, using the shooter’s hand as the fulcrum. However, whether characterized as a method of storage or otherwise, there is no forearm stabilizing purpose in a Counterbalance design that folds closed such that it can no longer be used as a “stabilizing brace.” Indeed, this type of design may create rear surface area such that the “stabilizing brace” may be suitable only as a shoulder stock when closed. The folding feature of the Counterbalance design stands in contrast to the purported intent of the device. This feature presents some evidence that a firearm equipped with a Counterbalance “stabilizing brace” is intended to be fired from the shoulder and therefore will accrue 1 point. Interesting! Thank you for this, I will remove one point from my consideration. HOWEVER, I am concerned that unless I put a stopper into the tube extension I am using, I will hit a longer LOP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 6:07:04 PM EDT
[#34]
AFT doesn’t make law. They are jumping the shark with this BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 6:14:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AFT doesn’t make law. They are jumping the shark with this BS. Thank you for your comment. Typically, in our system, these bureaucracies receive some amount of administrative discretion from statutes and are (often) given broad leniency in how they regulate. In this case, I am fairly certain the proposed rules do not comply with the intention of the NFA as stabilization aids were not mentioned. That being said, the purpose of this thread is to get technical advice on these arbitrary rules, not debate them. I respect and share your opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 6:22:58 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a pistol. It was not built to be fired from the shoulder. Nor are any of the other pistols on the market my friend. Judging by the language in the proposed rules, the BATF understands this and is allowing people three options: 1: turn in their pistol/destroy their pistol 2: bring the pistol to a legal configuration 3: register the pistol under the NFA I am hoping I can continue to own this unit in its pistol configuration. Shouldn't disassembly be a fourth option? i.e. separate the barrel from the upper receiver, or break it down even further. I have three pistols and am considering rebuilding with a 16" barrel on at least one of them. I'll wait to see how this falls out before I decide a course of action on the other two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 6:25:33 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK, had a chance to measure. OAL Just under 31". The LOP with the brace in the position I use it is 11.81" BUT if I extend the brace to the last point on the extension that would change to roughly 14" (which puts me over). Does ATF always count LOP fully extended? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 6:28:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OAL of 26" with everything extended is too long. Anything over 26" when fully extended instantly fails. See section 1 pre-requisites. So I would need to effectively shave 5" from it. I think I can get 3" using a shorter buffer device, and another 1" removing the muzzle device... They do not make this easy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 6:29:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shouldn't disassembly be a fourth option? i.e. separate the barrel from the upper receiver, or break it down even further. I have three pistols and am considering rebuilding with a 16" barrel on at least one of them. I'll wait to see how this falls out before I decide a course of action on the other two. Yeah, I am summarizing. I have no intention of destroying the pistol, or turning it in. I just want to comply with the law and keep this as configured. Thanks for your comment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 6:41:05 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So I would need to effectively shave 5" from it. I think I can get 3" using a shorter buffer device, and another 1" removing the muzzle device... They do not make this easy. Effectively removing the brace all together like I said above. Your AK was built to be shouldered. If it wasn't, you don't need the tube and "brace." If you are this concerned, take the tube off and put a single point sling attachment on the back and push out shoot the thing. If you're not concerned, leave the dang brace on and shoot the thing however you want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 6:44:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Effectively removing the brace all together like I said above. Your AK was built to be shouldered. If it wasn't, you don't need the tube and "brace." If you are this concerned, take the tube off and put a single point sling attachment on the back and push out shoot the thing. If you're not concerned, leave the dang brace on and shoot the thing however you want. Thanks for your response. There is a third option: I shave off the necessary length and continue to run this pistol as intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 7:09:44 PM EDT
[#42]
We use the ATFs version of length of pull or the actual length of pull?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 7:14:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We use the ATFs version of length of pull or the actual length of pull? Sadly, after reading the document, length of pull translates to the center of the trigger to the center of the brace. This seems to mean fully extended on the buffer (or other) tube. I am looking for some solutions to cut down LOP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 7:21:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So I would need to effectively shave 5" from it. I think I can get 3" using a shorter buffer device, and another 1" removing the muzzle device... They do not make this easy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 7:29:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's their point Sadly, that seems to be the case. I think I can get to 26" with a thread protector and a smaller buffer tube extension. I am about one inch shy, and can make that up with some customization of the tube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 7:35:55 PM EDT
[#46]
believe OAL is measured before the brace is attached... but who knows, I am not going to read the 71 page document again.
I see the Magpul has an adjustment like a standard M4 stock to adjust pull. That was used as justification for being stock like for the SBA3 example. From what I remember, your only chance to pass the worksheet is to have a non adjustable brace with a strap. Sounds like it can fold as long as its not a folding adapter on a buffer tube. LOP probably needs to be under 12.5" They screw you by counting the KAK system as adjustable even though you need an allen wrench to make adjustments. Maybe if you JB weld over the adjustment hole it counts as fixed, lol... But the KAK tube still dings you for one point. I believe the regs might be loosened before implementation, but I don't expect the pseudo SBA3 or 4 brace that acts like a stock to be legal. ARs are heavily penalized by the 26" OAL as they need the buffer tube to function before a brace is ever added. Buying a new barrel is going to cost most of a stamp anyway so maybe time to put in that form and beat the rush. Esp if you have a 11.5" barreled gun you love to use with magnified optics, just go ahead and stamp it. Or learn to love it with an A5 or rifle length tube covered in foam and no brace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 7:45:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1: I follow the law. 2: No. 3: I have been at this a while, and have ammunition. Ammunition is not the point of this thread. Thank you for your comment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 1.) Throw worksheet in trash. 2.) Drill holes to reduce weight. 3.) Enjoy life trying to find enough ammo to feed it. 1: I follow the law. 2: No. 3: I have been at this a while, and have ammunition. Ammunition is not the point of this thread. Thank you for your comment. I follow the law too. In this case, it is your government that doesn't follow the law. Fuck them, fuck appeasing them, and fuck this thread. "I follow the law". Yeah, I guess you think Rosa Parks was wrong for not sitting in the back of the bus too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 7:46:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I get it man. Maybe start your own thread in general discussion about it. This thread is looking for advice from members dealing with the arbitrary rule-set the BATF just put out. I respect your opinion, but I am looking for advice on the build above. Best of luck. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I follow the constitution. I get it man. Maybe start your own thread in general discussion about it. This thread is looking for advice from members dealing with the arbitrary rule-set the BATF just put out. I respect your opinion, but I am looking for advice on the build above. Best of luck. Write a letter to the ATF and ask them. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 8:00:05 PM EDT
[#49]
Welcome fellow firearms enthusiast.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2021 8:21:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: believe OAL is measured before the brace is attached... but who knows, I am not going to read the 71 page document again. I see the Magpul has an adjustment like a standard M4 stock to adjust pull. That was used as justification for being stock like for the SBA3 example. From what I remember, your only chance to pass the worksheet is to have a non adjustable brace with a strap. Sounds like it can fold as long as its not a folding adapter on a buffer tube. LOP probably needs to be under 12.5" They screw you by counting the KAK system as adjustable even though you need an allen wrench to make adjustments. Maybe if you JB weld over the adjustment hole it counts as fixed, lol... But the KAK tube still dings you for one point. I believe the regs might be loosened before implementation, but I don't expect the pseudo SBA3 or 4 brace that acts like a stock to be legal. ARs are heavily penalized by the 26" OAL as they need the buffer tube to function before a brace is ever added. Buying a new barrel is going to cost most of a stamp anyway so maybe time to put in that form and beat the rush. Esp if you have a 11.5" barreled gun you love to use with magnified optics, just go ahead and stamp it. Or learn to love it with an A5 or rifle length tube covered in foam and no brace. I was actually considering some kind of customization to fill all but one hole in the tube, but I don't know if they would accept that. I am now about half way through the document, and LOP is from the center of the trigger to the center of the brace (if I am reading this right). |
|
|
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.
Attached File