User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/17/2005 9:59:12 PM EDT
What are the legal differences between an ar15 type pistol and a SBR?
Could I build a SBR M4 on a pistol lower and be legal? I really like the look of the 14.5 barrel on a true M4, but don't want to have to do the NFA thing just for barrel length. I would much rather only have to bother myself with that if I ever wanted a suppressor or FA. Anyways, thanks for any input guys. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2005 2:35:54 AM EDT
[#1]
SBR has a stock and the pistol does not You can build a SBR on a pistol lower but you cannot use the lower for a pistol build again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2005 3:00:35 AM EDT
[#2]
So could I legally build a "rifle" with a short barrel (14.5 inches) on a pistol lower and have it be viewed as a pistol and therefor get around the NFA hassle?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2005 3:45:44 AM EDT
[#3]
NO not really, if you do that you cannot have any kind of a stock on it. Once you put a stock on that pistol lower and if you are using a short barrel then it DOES become a SBR. If you don't have it registered a s a SBR you are screwed. If you have a pistol lower you can build it as a pistol or a LEGAL length rifle and even back to a pistol again, but no SBR!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2005 4:39:07 AM EDT
[#4]
I wanted an SBR and like you didn't want to do the paperwork or spend the $200 for the tax stamp. I built a Pistol instead with a CAR Buffer Tube. With the longer buffer tube and a foam sleeve installed I get the same cheekweld as you would with a rifle except nothing touches the shoulder. The stock portion of the buffer tube can never be reinstalled hence the Pistol designation instead of Rifle. This Pistol / quasi-SBR is very quick to shoulder (cheekweld actually) and dead on accurate out to 75 meters. I consider it my "poor man's SBR".
MadDog  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2005 4:39:59 AM EDT
[#5]
An AR Pistol can be built from a lower that has never had a buttstock installed. Depending on your State regs, you may have to fufill the requirements of a a pistol puchase (registration, waiting period, etc), despite this, the ATF claims that the 4473 should be logged as a "stripped lower", nothing more, nothing less, if you intend to build a pistol. There is no Federal requirement that the receiver be logged out of the manufacturer as a pistol, be marked as a pistol, or that you fill out the 4473 as a pistol. You may then build that "pistol" lower with a non-buttstock buffer system, and the upper of your choice (7, 10, 11, 14, - hell, you can put a 24" Varminter if you want). You then have yourself a legitimate pistol. ETA: Just don't put a forward pistol grip on the HG. The BATFE considers that configuration an "Any Other Weapon", and would require it's own Form 1. You may add a buttstock to that lower without the SBR tax stamp, if, and only if, your upper has an overall barrel legth of 16" or longer (again, state law may apply here, and you could be SOL). The SBR requires an NFA Tax stamp; You will need to fill out a Form 1 in duplicate, have your fingerprints done in duplicate, have the CLEO in your area approve of your intended purchase, send it all to the BATFE, and wait several months for them to sign off on it. You may then put the pertinent info on the lower you requested for the SBR, and add an upper that is less than 16". This can be done with either a "rifle" or "pistol" receiver, but it must be the one that you listed on your Form 1. If you want the 14.5" length barrel WITH a buttstock, you have two choices: Fill out the Form1, and get the NFA tax stamp. Purchase an M4 style upper, and have a 1.75" flash hider (extended A2 or Phantom) pinned and welded to the barrel. I hope that answers you question fully.  -FMD Edited to correct the spelling of receiver, and to add the AOW stuff |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2005 6:30:00 AM EDT
[#6]
+1 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2005 9:54:30 AM EDT
[#7]
Well said FMD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2005 11:15:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Rocky, MadDog, FMD; you guys are what make ARFCOM such a great place. Thanks for all the info. You guys have helped out me completely. Thanks again guys!
Edited to say: Hey MadDog, not to change the subject, but how well does a round from your "pistol" penetrate/fragment? I have heard that the shorter barrel causes lower velocites which makes the round very ineffective in self defense. Is this true? I would think 5.56 would still do a good enough job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 4:25:14 AM EDT
[#9]
grooVe -
I don't know how well the 5.56 penetrates or fragments from the shorter barrel because I have been shooting steel plates at 75 meters and the rounds that I have retrieved have been destroyed. I do know that they still put a hurtin on the plates but do not go completely through. Despite what all the naysayers say on this forum, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of an AR Pistol. I currently keep an FN Five-seveN 5.7x28 (like to think of it as a very hot .223 short) on the night stand for Home Protection. I am in the process of getting a Noise Suppressor for my AR Pistol and as soon as it arrives I can use my AR for Home Protection and not worry about hearing loss or muzzle flash from shooting it indoors if it is needed. The great thing about a home office is that I can keep this little gem on my desk while working (or not working is more like it) and play with it all day even if I can't go shooting. MadDog
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 5:48:14 AM EDT
[#10]
I predict...thanks to the efforts of BONEHEADS deliberately blurring the distinction between AR pistols and SBR's, that eventually the BATF will declare them(AR pistols) "destructive devices" and ban them like they did the "Striker"/"Streetsweeper" Shotguns. Thanks for nothing... Paladin |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 6:30:20 AM EDT
[#11]
His set up is perfectly legit, and prefered by many due to it's reliable operation over the shorty tube. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 8:23:38 AM EDT
[#12]
There was an ATF letter posted a few weeks ago that said you could build a pistol on any lower that was purchased as a stripped lower, was never assembled as a rifle and said it was a stripped lower on the paperwork. They (ATF) also said that a CAR buffer system could be used on the pistol. They made a point of pointing out that if you ever put the buttstock on it or had in your possession a buttstock, even if not installed, it could be an SBR and you could be in violation.
Link to discussion on the subject. Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 8:28:50 AM EDT
[#13]
PALADIN -
My buffer tube is only 1.5" longer then the one that comes standard on the Bushmaster Carbon 15 Pistol. Tell me how that makes me a "Bonehead". Tell me how my buffer tube makes my AR15 Pistol any different than the commercially produced Bushmaster. If there is any "Bonehead" move it is by Bushmaster who just came out with a rail on the bottom of their handguard which you know someone will put a vert grip on it without filing a form for manufacturing an AOW. And for the record I have a 12 gauge Street Sweeper (smart enough to buy before the ban) as well as an FN Five-seveN which I use for CCW (smart enough to buy before any upcoming ban). Get on board and stop your sniveling or shut the F&@K UP. MadDog 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 8:44:46 AM EDT
[#14]
I love it when "Boneheads" make "Bonehead" statements like that when they don't know what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 4:42:53 PM EDT
[#15]
I was not referring to the present legal status, we all know what's what.
But making statements implying this is in any way a substitute for an SBR will eventually draw unwanted attention to this class of weapons. I am not knocking your choices to build them, just think you should keep comments about cheek welds(yeah, explain why a pistol requires that!) and SBR's out of the discussion. The Arf pistol I built way back when used a handgun scope, with eye relief requiring it be held at arms length. No question, it is, or was, a handgun per Federal definitions. A cheek weld on the buffer tube sounds swell, until common sense tells you the rear end is also easily braced against ones shoulder, a "de facto" shoulder stock, regardless of comfort/ergonomics. Don't take my bonehead remark so personal. My prediction still holds, and the blurring of distinctions between SBR's and Arf pistols IS NOT A GOOD THING. Paladin |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 4:52:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Yeah, I don't know squat about Arf pistols, and using carbine length buffer tubes. I'm probably the FIRST one to build that way, and can document my build back to 1993, including ATF correspondence. There was nothing in print from back then that showed using a CAR length buffer, everything advertised still was using the short spring style tubes similar to what Model 1 is still selling. My buffer tube was MY orginal design, done on my own, without outside help except a single heliarc weld. Even the Bushmaster techs were surprised when I reported excellent, 100% fuctionality of an AR pistol. Have a nice day. Paladin 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 5:43:27 PM EDT
[#17]
You called it a "poor man's SBR", and why do you think that would not imply intent to circumvent NFA regs? You stated clearly you wanted a SBR and did NOT want to pay the NFA fee. That was the "bonehead" stuff I was speaking against. So you resort to profanity, why is that? I am not the one flirting with felonious behavior on a public internet forum... Paladin |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 5:46:34 PM EDT
[#18]
I do think paladin makes some very good points about blurring the distinction between SBRs and pistols. - in particular the point about a pistol that allows a cheek weld. I suspect that BATFE might have something negative to say about this if someone were to ask.
BTW, streetsweepers were never banned, they were just declared Destructive Devices, requiring NFA registration. Any that are currently unregistered are contraband. Joe |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 6:35:53 PM EDT
[#19]
NH_Joe,
The Bushmaster AR Pistol has been out for a few years with a buffer tube long enough to get a cheek weld. Before Bushmaster, Auto Ordenance made the same pistol with the same buffer tube. I doubt the ATF has said shit about those set ups. I don't think the lines are blurred at all. A butstock is a butstock and a short buffer tube is a short buffer tube. If the ATF says a buffer tube meets the requirements for a pistol, then that is what they mean. Nothing more, nothing less. The ATF can't regulate where you put your face and I am sure they don't want to. MadDog 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2005 10:13:29 PM EDT
[#20]
+1 Rules are rules you either are adhearing to them or you are not. Paladin, your implicatoin that maddog is flirting with a felony is simply nonsense. During the ban, simply adding a bayonet lug to an AR would constitue a felony. By your reasoning we were ALL flirting with disaster! The point is, you either are legal or you are not. Plain and simple. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2005 6:21:58 AM EDT
[#21]
You are missing the point about the "rules". Something that is quasi-legal TODAY may be proscribed in the future.
All it takes is BATF waking up, reading comments like MadDogDans, and seeing ONE single person using a reciever extension braced against their shoulder...and it will be "game over" for Arf pistols. Remember, for a moment, that King G2 has just nominated an Attorney General candidate who SUPPORTED the AWB. Do you know why cheap 7.62x39 steel jacketed ammo from China was banned for import? ONE manufacturer made a few AR style pistols. Period. IIRC, all examples were recovered by the manufacturer. But BATF still banned the "armor piercing" ammo from import, because a "pistol existed that could shoot it". M855 and SS109 is not classed as AP by BATF...but they have not re-considered the ruling in light of the PISTOLS now commonly available that can fire the round. Think about that... Paladin |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2005 10:41:37 AM EDT
[#22]
AR pistols could never be declared DDs because they in no way fit the legal definition: they would require a bore larger than .50 inch. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2005 11:06:25 AM EDT
[#23]
 Interesting talk..... Lets try not to go into 'reasons' of why one has one or it's usefull purpose. (IE -the BS that certain thing have to have a sporting purpose...... I for one do not agree with that type or reasoning that certane govt buracrats came up with.)  My next pistol build will be using a Vulcan Armament lower and upper....to save weight. And I will use a CAR tube (minus the stock) so that it is truely compatible w/ any upper I slap on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2005 11:42:41 AM EDT
[#24]
Kaliburz -
All I ask is that you post pics of your new build when it if finished. Awaiting another addition to the AR Pistol Club, MadDog 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2005 10:38:25 PM EDT
[#25]
It'll be a long wait. I don't think it'll happen this year......but who knows. That lower is cheap according to the V.A site..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2005 1:10:16 AM EDT
[#26]
Trying to be nice... DO you even know what the regulations say a DD is? An SBR and a handgun? I suggest you read up before making such a prediction... You prediction has about a 0% chance of occurring, IMHO. mark |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2005 5:07:52 AM EDT
[#27]
Apologies for the incorrect use of the term DD, but if you think that AR pistols will always be legal, you have NOT been paying attention to the gun control situation in this country for the last two decades.
Something as benign as a "wallet holster" used to be perfectly legal, and today "the installed combination" of gun and holster constitutes making an NFA item. That kind of BS logic is still present at the Federal level, so any smugness over presently legal items is short sighted, and IMO the farther below the radar AR pistols stayed, the better. Why not write to BATF, and ASK THEM about the legality of a pistol that requires two hands to hold, and utilizes a cheek weld for stability, with the potential to brace the tube against ones shoulder and use it as a defacto STOCK merely by doing so, with no changes needed to the weapon. And in some cases exceeds the minimum length required for a "longgun"/rifle. Yes, I know about and read the BATF letter that was posted that stated using a CAR buffer was legal. What would they say about bracing said buffer tube against one's shoulder "for stability"? Paladin |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2005 7:03:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Folks, folks...... play nice.
Your points/concerns are noted Paladine. But I found this:  If imange is the [ X ] , click here: Quoted Pic of Vulcan Pistol Now, the pic above is a Vulcan FACTORY AR pistol. Observe the  They know it exists since they authorized it could be built. It's on their "radar screen". This Link Goes to a "BIG" version of the same pic, if one wants a closer look of the buffer tube I looked at it and it looks like a CAR buffer tube w/ a plate sandwiched in between the tube and lower to keep the rear takedown pin detent/spring in. For the price they want of a comopleted one, I could prob Order their tube parts to use (or use a CAR tube); use their lower and upper rec and build one for about 600. The want 900 for their pistol. My opinion, when more restrictions come, we will cross that bridge at that time. Hiding our head in the sand and NOT building hoping they don't notice will not stop them (as anti-gunners never rest nor are ever happy). These people seem to envision a Utopia of a perfect world at peace..... human nature is 180 degrees from that...... ( I seem to have gone off on a tangent here.....sorry).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2005 8:02:18 PM EDT
[#29]
have you ever tried to shoot a .308 15" barreled Encore pistol with one hand? usually, a person uses two hands and more often then not, braces it against something else when shooting . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2005 5:55:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Paladin may be on to something - see this link to discussion of proposed new AOW rules at subguns.com:
www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=436663 Be sure to read the entire thread. Joe |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2005 7:10:14 AM EDT
[#31]
from the link:
by the language, the "gun" would have had to be "altered" or "converted"...if the stripped receiver is logged as a pistol reciever, then it would not be altered or converted to resemble a pistol, it is a pistol. also, it appears that the wording is relating to an action other than semi-automatic. i'm no lawyer, but that's what i infer from the language. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2005 8:46:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Thanks Joe, for having an open mind about my comments. The remarks directed at me personally questioning my level of understanding regarding firearms in general were not the least rebuttal to the questions I raised. And the text attributed to the Feds supports my contention robustly. Paladin |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2005 6:10:24 PM EDT
[#33]
Interesting link on sub guns......
I would assume that this is a way the "govt" gets around things. I too am not a lawyer, so I do not know who is in charge of defining things.... the legislature or the govt agency. From the inference of the posts on sub guns, it appears that a "committee" or an individual is reviewing the defenition of things. Is this a case where technology has advaced before "rules/laws" have caught up  Who should decide the definition? If you look at what has been constructed over time, like most technology, it progresses. Look at the full sized Uzi and mini uzi. It can be fired w/ one or two hands, yet it is not like "conventional" pistols.  I understand the concerns that Paladin bring up. That building these will "disturbe" the norm (ie who and what ever 'norm' means)... but they have been built for some time (ie before the ban).But the idea of a few people (ie less then say 100) making decistion that affect millions of people and not in the 'democratic republic' way.... it concerns me.  This happens w/ the congress as of now, but the idea of "hired" or appointed people that did not go through an approval process and can not be removed by being voted out is what I find...... disturbing.  Desitions w/out any representation or accountability.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2005 7:35:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Please tell me you're kidding when you said Vulcan Armament??????????hock.gif
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2005 10:45:36 PM EDT
[#35]
You mean the lower (carbon/aramide)? Well, other people have had good luck w/ it in a build. But in the pic above, yup, it's their pistol.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2005 6:14:49 AM EDT
[#36]
Paladin et-al, Eventually the BATF will require ALL guns to be registered. It started with small numbers of MG's, SBR's, AOW's, etc. Then the bans began and will be followed by confiscation in the future. Why did Ruger start issuing 10 round mags before the ban? To comply with a law that did not exist yet. The "why do you want a ______ gun" is the mindset that divides gun owners so they can be picked apart piece meal. So until that "rainy decade", stay legal and enjoy what freedom you have. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2005 6:47:41 AM EDT
[#37]
One other thing to consider is that if you have another AR in the safe and you have a spare upper for your "pistol" the BATF considers that a "constructive SBR" since you could put the short upper on the rifle lower. Same problem you have if you have your M16 colocated with an AR15. something to consider carefully.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2005 7:46:16 AM EDT
[#38]
so if you have a registered SBR rifle with 2 < 16" uppers and a bushmaster AR15, then ATF would consider you in violation because one of the uppers could be placed on the bushmaster?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2005 9:34:42 AM EDT
[#39]
No you are not in violation of NFA Laws. If one of the lowers in your safe is a registered SBR then you can have all the uppers of any length you want in the same safe with standard or non SBR lowers. For all they know the short uppers (under 16") are spares for your registered SBR lower.
MadDog 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2005 5:28:08 PM EDT
[#40]
i think you better check it out. I was told this by someone that is pretty familiar with how this stuff is being interpreted by BATF. i think that if you look through the archieves this was also mentioned by a Lawyer familair with BATF findings. Not something to fool around with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2005 6:30:00 PM EDT
[#41]
When dealing w/ a govt buracracy that makes "rulings" from people who are hired and not elected, what would you expect? They have no accountability, well, they do but not the kind where the voting public can "can" their tail.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2005 7:44:36 PM EDT
[#42]
Interesting conversation. I recently got my SBR lower for a 14.5" upper. Very happy with it. I am also LEo, however I got the SBR due to the fact that there may come a day when I retire/change jobs/ect.. It pays to have all the bases covered. When I spoke to my local BATFE folks they said SBR allows under 16" bbls with a stock of any kind. Lowers reg. as PISTOLS can NOT have a stock of any kind. Pretty simple to me.
|
|
|
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.
