Does anyone know whether the ATF considers the Magpul Angled Foregrip to be a vertical foregrip and thus verboten on a Draco pistol? I really like it and I think it would look great on a Draco.
http://store.magpul.com/images/uploads/64_337_popup.jpg
 

Until someone asks the tech branch in writing no one knows for sure.

However the guessing consensus is that it does, and would make it an AOW.

It would be the same for an ar15 pistol –– and the consensus is yes, the magpul afg would make your pistol an aow.

However, as AJ said, someone would need it in writing from the ATF for a specific answer either way.

Can just anyone write the ATF about it or must the question come from the manufacturer?

Yes, anyone can write the ATF.  Remember, you pay taxes, they work for you.

I think Magpul should have gotten it straight, with ATF, before they put it out.  I have the AFG on my AR and I like it.  I think it would be perfect on the Draco, provided one had rails to attach it to.

I expect neither a speedy nor positive reply; however, I did get this yesterday in my inbox.

 

That's something.  I bet you'll get something soon.  They probably already have it answered and will cut/paste you a copy of the letter.  I'm sure someone has asked before.

Im starting to go with the dnt bring it up crowd. The GSG5 just got its "Approved" fake can "Unapproved" and all the cans had to be sent back so they couldnt be modified into a silencer. The ATI Rep here said they sat him in a room and showed him the bottle and nipple trick and said his fake can reduced the decible level. Now from this point of view you ask is you can have an afg and ATF sees that the draco can be modified into an AOW with a rail attached and a stock drilled into the rear. I know its BS but its runs the same thought process.   What I dont understand is isnt there a law that protects your purchaseas it is from new laws.

I agree. Since the Draco is a pistol (not a rifle) and has a pistol grip, adding any other additional grip not on the original firearm creates a NFA regulated A.O.W.

I see your point but since the email cannot be unsent

we shall see what the all-powerful wizards of fun (or lack thereof) have to say.

 

The same question was asked on another forum HERE.

Consensus is that it IS a grip, and therefore illegal to install on a Draco without registering it as an AOW.  I don't think the ATFE says anything about a "vertical grip". It's more about a grip set at an angle not parallel to the bore of the barrel.


Corbin

Their press release concerning handgun foregrips consistently and exclusively uses the term "vertical foregrip." However, they do stipulate that the purpose of the vertical foregrip is to use two hands rather than one and while the Magpul Angled Foregrip is clearly not vertical, it does meet the second requirement. I'll post up whatever their email reply happens to be.



I'm quite amazed they gave the Vertical Mag Grip the A-OK for AK pistol use. Sometimes the letter of the law works out for us.




 

I would be surprised if the ATF gives the AFG a pass on the Draco pistol but it sure would be nice. ;)

AOW it, if you want to install the Magpul AFG.

CA legal AOW (not mine) from calguns

I did a google search seeing if anyone wrote to the tech branch yet.

After reading this and a few others I encourage everyone... dont.

Either way pistol grip or magpul angled grip NEITHER can be an AOW. Read the actual USC it states clearly that an AOW can not have a rifled bore. The tech branch can publish opinions until they are blue in the face that is purly wrong and it says it right there in the code.

That's the sneaky little catch they get you on.  The USC exempts pistols and revolvers that have rifled bores from being AOWs, but it does not exempt all firearms with rifled bores.  This is laid out in the last sentence of the paragraph that defines AOWs in the USC.
The ATF's argument is that when you add a second grip (of any type) the weapon is no longer a pistol.  If it is not a pistol then it can be an AOW, whether or not it has a rifled bore.
Personally I think this is a lousy argument that a decent lawyer should be able to take apart based on other clear language that can be found in 26 USC as well.  However, no one has done so yet and I'm definitely not willing to test it myself.

The really confusing part is that the term "pistol" is not defined in the USC, it is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations.  The CFR can be interpreted and modified by administrative agencies (like the BATF) without any congressional action.  As I'm sure most people reading this know, the CFR defines pistols as being designed to be fired with one hand.
It gets even more convoluted when you start to consider what the BATF thinks the terms "designed", "originally", and "made" mean.

Here are the relevant links....
AOW Defnition from United States Code - 26 USC 5845 (paragraph e)
Pistol Definition from the CFR - 27 CFR 479.11 (about a third of the way down the page)

Handstop thread in AR pistols

Here is the thread with links to letters sent and recieved from the BATF in regards to the AFG.  You would think they would just have a FAQ page so that there is a clear concise standard of whats ok and whats not.


*EDIT*
heres the direct link to the letter, sorry.
BATF LETTER

So, if it's okay for AR pistols is it okay for AK pistols?

Ok yes, but I would still personally get my own letter addressed to me.