I have several SBRs, now I know why.

This
thread


So I just put together a new lower and added an SBA3.

Using a '11.5 in. barreled upper', and I wanted
to legally use an VFG? What is the legal configuration? Is it a 'firearm' (26" OAL)
this then is NOT a pistol?
Who has the measurement for this?

I do not want to spend another $200 and long wait, but need to follow the law.

What happened to the AR pistol forum?

An SBA3 and an 11.5'' barrel will easily be 26'' in OAL.
Correct, after adding the front grip it will no longer fit the definition of a pistol, rifle, AOW, SBR etc. so it is just a ''Firearm''.  We use quotation marks around this type of firearm (''Firearm'') to distinguish it from other firearms during discussions.

There is documented proof of agents measuring from muzzle with brace extended during the Freedom Shop raid. Using this logic you could use an SBA3 will somewhere around a 9.5" barrel and that will get you to 26" OAL.
Of course the same agents decided that if the brace has a folding mechanism you measure with the brace folded? Even though they've approved Title 1 submissions from manufactures with a folding mechanism in the past?
Ok so in the end it probably mostly matters what ATF agent gets their hands on your firearm. Crystal clear, right?

You have two options:
- Use the evidence, and with an SBA3 you can use a 10.3" no problem.
- Play it overly safe and use the end of the buffer tube and you'll need 11.5".

With either option, you MUST remove the VFG prior to removing and brace/tube or you create and AOW.

I chose the first option. I personally am running an 8.5" with a pinned muzzle totaling 10.5" and this puts my OAL a hair over 27" from end of comp to end of brace.

You pinned a muzzle device to an 8.5" barrel?

To meet the 26" requirement. And yes, I could have used a longer barrel, but one simply does not put a sensible upper on a Space Force lower. You go purely for plasma rifle aesthetics!

Attached File

Until the ATF decides they want to measure OAL differently ...

You are using an angled front grip which does not meet the ATFs 90 degree perpendicular distinguishing characteristic of a ''vertical grip'' anyway.
You pinned the muzzle device making the OAL 26'' without a brace.
You are not counting the brace extended or at all in OAL.
You seem to have covered every possible angle with the ATF except the one nobody could expect. That particular one is the one they are saving tucked away just for you .

Ain't that the truth. Fly low.

Yep.

The biggest thing everyone needs to remember is we are not discussing law, but what the ATF's current opinion is, which they are allowed to change at a whim and not publish for public consumption. In fast in the last court case (LINKY) they actively tried to keep their opinion letters private. What we need is for Congress to make a ruling to keep them in line.

Bigjunk1,
Now, maybe I am looking at this the wrong way, but, there is validity to the argument that an arm brace is not a part of the inherent design. Yes, the design and intent of an arm brace is to aid the user in stabilizing the firearm in the pursuit of single hand shooting, but it is just that, an aid, an accessory. Suggesting that an arm brace is the equivalent of tires on a vehicle is absurd. Sure, you could ride on the rims and maintain forward progression, but with that line of thinking, you could suggest that you could deploy an AR without a gas system because it still discharges the chambered round. It would be more appropriate, in my opinion, to associate arm braces with cruise control. It aids the user in convenience of use, but is not a necessary component of the machine. Removing an Arm brace from a firearm does not render the firearm inoperable, just arguably harder to use. I guess if a firearm was specifically designed around the attachment and use of an arm brace could the argument be used that the brace is an essential component of the firearm.

At which point we'll all remove the vertical grips from our 10.5" pistols. Until then, current legal precedent is to measure OAL from the end of the fully-extended brace.

This whole point of "Well they could change the rule about measuring overall length from the end of the fully extended brace and start measuring from the end of the buffer tube" is a moot point because the same could be said of all the other rules. You could say the same thing about pistol braces in general.

The ATF could wake up tomorrow and decide that braces now count as stocks. If that happens, we'll all remove the braces and install smooth bare buffer tubes. But for now, current legal precedent is that braces are not stocks. So until then, we all use braces on ARs with barrels shorter than 16" without registering them as SBRs.

Likewise, the ATF could wake up tomorrow and decide to start measuring OAL from the end of the buffer tube. If that happens, we'll all remove our vertical grips. But for now, current legal precedent is that OAL length is measured from the end of the fully-extended brace. So until then, we use vertical foregrips on AR pistols with extendable braces that extend to make the OAL greater than 26", but would measure less than 26" if measured from the end of the buffer tube.

It's unreasonable not to do something for fear it might violate some future rule not yet enacted. I'll comply with future rules in the future when those rules get implemented. Until then, I'll comply with the current rules as they currently are.