AR Pistol vs Rifle Pics

AR-15 » AR Pistols

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AR Pistol vs Rifle Pics

Posted: 4/23/2013 7:33:10 AM EDT

A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.

Let's see yours.

Posted: 4/23/2013 8:00:25 AM EDT

[#1]

Posted: 4/23/2013 8:51:46 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4582_zpsb36dc3f2.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4585_zpsbad5991c.jpg
Let's see yours.

Two things that jumped out at me right away. You have a VFG on the pistol and used a rifle collapsible buffer tube for it, where with a knife you can easily cut off the paracords and slip on a collapsible stock. I'm no lawyer here, but unless you built your pistol from a registered SBR, the VFG is illegal without AOW paperwork and the rifle buffer tube constitutes SBR "constructive intent".

Al

Posted: 4/23/2013 8:56:29 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4582_zpsb36dc3f2.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4585_zpsbad5991c.jpg
Let's see yours.

Two things that jumped out at me right away. You have a VFG on the pistol and used a rifle collapsible buffer tube for it, where with a knife you can easily cut off the paracords and slip on a collapsible stock. I'm no lawyer here, but unless you built your pistol from a registered SBR, the VFG is illegal without AOW paperwork and the rifle buffer tube constitutes SBR "constructive intent".

Al

Wrong on both counts. Do some research before you post such a statement.

ETA:
Let's keep this to pictures and not turn it into an internet lawyering thread.

The info is out there and has been covered in depth elsewhere.

Posted: 4/23/2013 9:01:25 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4582_zpsb36dc3f2.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4585_zpsbad5991c.jpg
Let's see yours.

Two things that jumped out at me right away. You have a VFG on the pistol and used a rifle collapsible buffer tube for it, where with a knife you can easily cut off the paracords and slip on a collapsible stock. I'm no lawyer here, but unless you built your pistol from a registered SBR, the VFG is illegal without AOW paperwork and the rifle buffer tube constitutes SBR "constructive intent".

Al

Wrong on both counts. Do some research before you post such a statement.

Yep, quit posting your ignorance here, the VFG has been declared legal on a pistol it's not a "pistol grip"

Having it covered in paracord is much better than the guys I have seen with just a standard buffer tube on there.

I use a pistol tube myself.

Posted: 4/23/2013 9:05:25 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4582_zpsb36dc3f2.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4585_zpsbad5991c.jpg
Let's see yours.

Two things that jumped out at me right away. You have a VFG on the pistol and used a rifle collapsible buffer tube for it, where with a knife you can easily cut off the paracords and slip on a collapsible stock. I'm no lawyer here, but unless you built your pistol from a registered SBR, the VFG is illegal without AOW paperwork and the rifle buffer tube constitutes SBR "constructive intent".

Al

It's not a pistol (>26" OAL) and "constructive intent" doesn't mean anything. Constructive possession in that circumstance is pretty dead with the latest ATF ruling regarding Thompson Center.

Posted: 4/23/2013 9:09:34 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4582_zpsb36dc3f2.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4585_zpsbad5991c.jpg
Let's see yours.

Two things that jumped out at me right away. You have a VFG on the pistol and used a rifle collapsible buffer tube for it, where with a knife you can easily cut off the paracords and slip on a collapsible stock. I'm no lawyer here, but unless you built your pistol from a registered SBR, the VFG is illegal without AOW paperwork and the rifle buffer tube constitutes SBR "constructive intent".

Al

Wrong on both counts. Do some research before you post such a statement.

ETA:
Let's keep this to pictures and not turn it into an internet lawyering thread.

The info is out there and has been covered in depth elsewhere.

Ok, last I heard was that the AFG is OK, VFG is not, explicitly described as making an AOW.

Anyway, SBR it and you won't have a problem either way:

Posted: 4/23/2013 9:21:14 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4582_zpsb36dc3f2.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4585_zpsbad5991c.jpg
Let's see yours.

Two things that jumped out at me right away. You have a VFG on the pistol and used a rifle collapsible buffer tube for it, where with a knife you can easily cut off the paracords and slip on a collapsible stock. I'm no lawyer here, but unless you built your pistol from a registered SBR, the VFG is illegal without AOW paperwork and the rifle buffer tube constitutes SBR "constructive intent".

Al

It's not a pistol (>26" OAL) and "constructive intent" doesn't mean anything. Construction possession in that circumstance is pretty dead with the latest ATF ruling regarding Thompson Center.

Are you going by your own state law?

Posted: 4/23/2013 9:22:25 AM EDT

[#8]

Still on the ATF site, btw...

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html

Posted: 4/23/2013 10:11:01 AM EDT

[#9]

Yes, read it yourself:

The NFA further defines the term “any other weapon” (AOW) as:

… any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person

The ATF uses 26" as a presumptive standard for concealability. Over 26" is not an AOW as long as it is not "concealed on the person."

I will not be concealing a 7.5lb AR.

Again, stop the lawyering. This is well established. It has been for over forty years. It's just not well known.

Posted: 4/23/2013 10:12:23 AM EDT

[#10]

So much for "will not comply" lol. That said - it's not a pistol due to overall length of the firearm and being designed to be fired with two hands. This makes it an "other" firearm that isn't a rifle and isn't a pistol. As such it doesn't violate federal laws.

Posted: 4/23/2013 11:39:03 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
....
Yep, quit posting your ignorance here, the VFG has been declared legal on a pistol it's not a "pistol grip"

Having it covered in paracord is much better than the guys I have seen with just a standard buffer tube on there.

I use a pistol tube myself.

You're not doing so hot either, btw.

A Vertical Fore Grip (or Vertical Forward Grip) is NOT "legal on a pistol". It's only legal on one that has a a complying overall length of 26" or more.

Having paracord on a standard buffer tube is no more a defense to making a NFA firearm than having a plain one. Having a "pistol tube" isn't an absolute defense either.

The defense is simple: whether an assortment of parts in close proximity has a useful purpose other than to make a NFA firearm or not.

Visual aid:

Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.

- OS

Posted: 4/23/2013 12:12:11 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
....
Yep, quit posting your ignorance here, the VFG has been declared legal on a pistol it's not a "pistol grip"

Having it covered in paracord is much better than the guys I have seen with just a standard buffer tube on there.

I use a pistol tube myself.

You're not doing so hot either, btw.

A Vertical Fore Grip (or Vertical Forward Grip) is NOT "legal on a pistol". It's only legal on one that has a a complying overall length of 26" or more.

Having paracord on a standard buffer tube is no more a defense to making a NFA firearm than having a plain one. Having a "pistol tube" isn't an absolute defense either.

The defense is simple: whether an assortment of parts in close proximity has a useful purpose other than to make a NFA firearm or not.

Visual aid:

http://routedriver.home.comcast.net/pub/misc/Pistol-Rifle/ARpistol-rifle.jpg

Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.

- OS

This. Thanks for clarifying and your pic is a perfect illustration.

I used the paracord to stop laymen from freaking out when they saw the bare extension tube. It also looks better. I had a local gunsmith threaten to call the ATF in on me and coworkers tell me I had an illegal SBR...even those that have SBR's and silencers that I expected to know better.

The laws are pretty convoluted and seemingy contradictory but are simple enough when broken down.

Posted: 4/23/2013 12:23:01 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
....
Yep, quit posting your ignorance here, the VFG has been declared legal on a pistol it's not a "pistol grip"

Having it covered in paracord is much better than the guys I have seen with just a standard buffer tube on there.

I use a pistol tube myself.

You're not doing so hot either, btw.

A Vertical Fore Grip (or Vertical Forward Grip) is NOT "legal on a pistol". It's only legal on one that has a a complying overall length of 26" or more.

Having paracord on a standard buffer tube is no more a defense to making a NFA firearm than having a plain one. Having a "pistol tube" isn't an absolute defense either.

The defense is simple: whether an assortment of parts in close proximity has a useful purpose other than to make a NFA firearm or not.

Visual aid:

http://routedriver.home.comcast.net/pub/misc/Pistol-Rifle/ARpistol-rifle.jpg

Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.

- OS

I misspoke I meant AFG. The VFG is going to cause some problems.

I don't know how I missed it.

Posted: 4/23/2013 12:27:38 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
The laws are pretty convoluted and seemingy contradictory but are simple enough when broken down.

So, what IS the overall length of your pistol?

Posted: 4/23/2013 12:31:23 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

Posted: 4/23/2013 12:44:20 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

If it's assembled as a pistol first and then a rifle it can be made back into a pistol. The BATFE released this last year.

Posted: 4/23/2013 12:48:17 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

If it's assembled as a pistol first and then a rifle it can be made back into a pistol. The BATFE released this last year.

Correct, I guess I could have worded that better.
Hence the whole TC thing.

Posted: 4/23/2013 1:00:36 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

Wrong AGAIN. A rifle or receiver if originally built as a rifle can't become a pistol, but if a receiver is built as a pistol first it can be used as a stocked rifle or pistol lower.

ETA: Beat to the punch

Enjoy:
http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

...and since you must know...

It's 26.5" to the bare muzzle (ATF defined OAL) and 28-3/8" overall.

Posted: 4/23/2013 1:04:51 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

If it's assembled as a pistol first and then a rifle it can be made back into a pistol. The BATFE released this last year.

Correct, I guess I could have worded that better.
Hence the whole TC thing.

No, you could have researched the subject before you jumped to another incorrect conclusion.

Posted: 4/23/2013 7:30:43 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

If it's assembled as a pistol first and then a rifle it can be made back into a pistol. The BATFE released this last year.

Yeah, they finally publicly came clean on it in June of 2011 with ruling, but the issue has been decided since 1992, as stated by the SCOTUS.

- OS

Posted: 4/23/2013 7:36:48 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
....
Yep, quit posting your ignorance here, the VFG has been declared legal on a pistol it's not a "pistol grip"

Having it covered in paracord is much better than the guys I have seen with just a standard buffer tube on there.

I use a pistol tube myself.

You're not doing so hot either, btw.

A Vertical Fore Grip (or Vertical Forward Grip) is NOT "legal on a pistol". It's only legal on one that has a a complying overall length of 26" or more.

Having paracord on a standard buffer tube is no more a defense to making a NFA firearm than having a plain one. Having a "pistol tube" isn't an absolute defense either.

The defense is simple: whether an assortment of parts in close proximity has a useful purpose other than to make a NFA firearm or not.

Visual aid:

http://routedriver.home.comcast.net/pub/misc/Pistol-Rifle/ARpistol-rifle.jpg

Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.

- OS

This. Thanks for clarifying and your pic is a perfect illustration.

I used the paracord to stop laymen from freaking out when they saw the bare extension tube. It also looks better. I had a local gunsmith threaten to call the ATF in on me and coworkers tell me I had an illegal SBR...even those that have SBR's and silencers that I expected to know better.

Full disclosure re my "kit", is that I've since actually given the pistol upper its own dedicated lower, at least for now.

I used some black camo wrap on the extension, but not to disguise or "cripple" it, just makes it comfy laid alongside the cheek:

- OS

Posted: 4/24/2013 2:08:22 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

If it's assembled as a pistol first and then a rifle it can be made back into a pistol. The BATFE released this last year.

Correct, I guess I could have worded that better.
Hence the whole TC thing.

No, you could have researched the subject before you jumped to another incorrect conclusion.

You mean like you just did? No need to be a pretentious dick, I knew what I was saying.

Go back and read my post more carefully. The only way I'm wrong is if you've got dislexia.

You still can't buy or build a rifle and then turn it into a pistol.
What I failed to include was that if you buy a new receiver and build a pistol first, it's like a TC.

Posted: 4/24/2013 4:39:02 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

What part of quit lawyering in my pic thread was hard to understand? Wrong is wrong. Partially wrong is still wrong.

If it's assembled as a pistol first and then a rifle it can be made back into a pistol. The BATFE released this last year.

Correct, I guess I could have worded that better.
Hence the whole TC thing.

No, you could have researched the subject before you jumped to another incorrect conclusion.

You mean like you just did? No need to be a pretentious dick, I knew what I was saying.

Go back and read my post more carefully. The only way I'm wrong is if you've got dislexia.

You still can't buy or build a rifle and then turn it into a pistol.
What I failed to include was that if you buy a new receiver and build a pistol first, it's like a TC.

What you have failed to include is what is correct and factual. Now post pics of a rifle with an AR pistol or GTFO, please.

Posted: 4/24/2013 4:56:10 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Now post pics of a rifle with an AR pistol or GTFO, please.

Look at what I posted at the top and imagine the two on the right without stocks...

Posted: 4/24/2013 7:19:47 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4582_zpsb36dc3f2.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4585_zpsbad5991c.jpg
Let's see yours.

Two things that jumped out at me right away. You have a VFG on the pistol and used a rifle collapsible buffer tube for it, where with a knife you can easily cut off the paracords and slip on a collapsible stock. I'm no lawyer here, but unless you built your pistol from a registered SBR, the VFG is illegal without AOW paperwork and the rifle buffer tube constitutes SBR "constructive intent".

Al

Wrong on both counts. Do some research before you post such a statement.

Yep, quit posting your ignorance here, the VFG has been declared legal on a pistol it's not a "pistol grip"

Having it covered in paracord is much better than the guys I have seen with just a standard buffer tube on there.

I use a pistol tube myself.

I'm not sure why the reactive response without explanations until much further down the discussion after people asked multiple questions. You/the OP explicitly stated "next to the pistol" which lead me to believe it was under 26". All had to be said was it's not an AOW/pistol because the OAL is over 26" and we could've moved on without the 20-question game and tension between gun owners who want to stay law abiding as well as watching out for others.

Al

Posted: 4/24/2013 7:26:38 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
....
Yep, quit posting your ignorance here, the VFG has been declared legal on a pistol it's not a "pistol grip"

Having it covered in paracord is much better than the guys I have seen with just a standard buffer tube on there.

I use a pistol tube myself.

You're not doing so hot either, btw.

A Vertical Fore Grip (or Vertical Forward Grip) is NOT "legal on a pistol". It's only legal on one that has a a complying overall length of 26" or more.

Having paracord on a standard buffer tube is no more a defense to making a NFA firearm than having a plain one. Having a "pistol tube" isn't an absolute defense either.

The defense is simple: whether an assortment of parts in close proximity has a useful purpose other than to make a NFA firearm or not.

Visual aid:

http://routedriver.home.comcast.net/pub/misc/Pistol-Rifle/ARpistol-rifle.jpg

Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.

- OS

Thank you for this. While having a pistol buffer tube isn't an absolute defense, it would be easier to defend than a rifle buffer tube with paracord, which is easier than just a plain rifle buffer tube. I haven't heard of a case to illustrate any of those things specific to AR pistols, but I will minimize the risk and maximize my defense potential by using a pistol buffer tube for my pistol. So long as the risks are considered, people can pretty much do whatever they wish.

Mine, which has since been upgraded. Will have one next to a rifle later:

Al

Posted: 4/24/2013 2:21:36 PM EDT

[#27]

OP, that's a beautiful pist- ..er, firearm.

If I ever decide to make an AR pistol (or whatever), I'm going to make sure it's at least 26" in length, so I can add a VFG.

Does the VFG make it more controllable?

Posted: 4/24/2013 2:38:00 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
OP, that's a beautiful pist- ..er, firearm.

If I ever decide to make an AR pistol (or whatever), I'm going to make sure it's at least 26" in length, so I can add a VFG.

Does the VFG make it more controllable?

YMMV.

I could use VFG on mine if I wanted to make flash hider permanent, but won't cause I just don't care for that way of gripping any AR. Don't care about any of the Angled Fore Grips either.

- OS

Posted: 4/24/2013 6:12:26 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
OP, that's a beautiful pist- ..er, firearm.

If I ever decide to make an AR pistol (or whatever), I'm going to make sure it's at least 26" in length, so I can add a VFG.

Does the VFG make it more controllable?

With the compact shooting position of the stockless receiver extension a VFG near the magwell feels perfect. I've never been a VFG fan, but for this application it works. It also helps support the Hbar barrel, because every AR pistol needs a heavy match grade barrel

Just be prepared for everyone to tell you that it's illegal.

Unless you use a carbine commercial spec extension with at least a 1/2" thick rubber end or a Vltor A5 extension with the same, you'll need an 11.5" barrel to make the 26" with a pistol or "entry" style tube.

Pistol extension or not, it's pretty obvious that the firearm has no stock. It's not "more defensible" with a pistol tube. The law is clear even though Joe Blow's knowledge of it may not be. I almost need a tin foil hat to listen to these suggestions.

I once had the police called on me for reported full auto fire. I had on me only my 1911. The cop just wanted to see how I did it. I showed him my off hand trigger fanning technique in live fire and he went on his way. If things are within the law and you can explain yourself calmly and coherently these situations diffuse.

Posted: 4/24/2013 6:19:45 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A 16" carbine looks monstrous and feels ungainly next to the pistol.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4582_zpsb36dc3f2.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4585_zpsbad5991c.jpg
Let's see yours.

Two things that jumped out at me right away. You have a VFG on the pistol and used a rifle collapsible buffer tube for it, where with a knife you can easily cut off the paracords and slip on a collapsible stock. I'm no lawyer here, but unless you built your pistol from a registered SBR, the VFG is illegal without AOW paperwork and the rifle buffer tube constitutes SBR "constructive intent".

Al

Wrong on both counts. Do some research before you post such a statement.

Yep, quit posting your ignorance here, the VFG has been declared legal on a pistol it's not a "pistol grip"

Having it covered in paracord is much better than the guys I have seen with just a standard buffer tube on there.

I use a pistol tube myself.

I'm not sure why the reactive response without explanations until much further down the discussion after people asked multiple questions. You/the OP explicitly stated "next to the pistol" which lead me to believe it was under 26". All had to be said was it's not an AOW/pistol because the OAL is over 26" and we could've moved on without the 20-question game and tension between gun owners who want to stay law abiding as well as watching out for others.

Al

I could've posted the laws and specs all over the original post and I guarantee it would not have made a lick of difference. Most people don't understand the whole "firearm" nomenclature when it comes to the VFG thing, either.

Posted: 4/24/2013 7:08:22 PM EDT

[#31]

lef t to right...556 7.5 in pistol with core 15 components...6.8spc 16 in with PSA components, now has Nikon 3x9-40 on it...and 556 S&W sport

Posted: 4/25/2013 4:54:49 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

If it's assembled as a pistol first and then a rifle it can be made back into a pistol. The BATFE released this last year.

Yeah, they finally publicly came clean on it in June of 2011 with ruling, but the issue has been decided since 1992, as stated by the SCOTUS.

- OS

How would anybody know? I mean if you bought a stripped lower, it was documented on the form as a receiver. How would anybody ever know how it was assembled if it had never been transferred on a 4473

Posted: 4/25/2013 6:00:43 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

How would anybody know? I mean if you bought a stripped lower, it was documented on the form as a receiver. How would anybody ever know how it was assembled if it had never been transferred on a 4473

That's an obvious point, of course. Nonetheless, we just tend to state actual rules. If we had to comment on the absurdity of them every time, posts would be twice as long. :)

About the only actual paper trail would be on a used lower that was originally transferred as a rifle. But of course, that paperwork would only reside with the last manufacturer who shipped it and with the FFL who transferred it as new to individual. Supposedly.

- OS

Posted: 4/25/2013 6:02:26 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

If it's assembled as a pistol first and then a rifle it can be made back into a pistol. The BATFE released this last year.

Yeah, they finally publicly came clean on it in June of 2011 with ruling, but the issue has been decided since 1992, as stated by the SCOTUS.

- OS

How would anybody know? I mean if you bought a stripped lower, it was documented on the form as a receiver. How would anybody ever know how it was assembled if it had never been transferred on a 4473

To be safe I would only build a pistol on a receiver that I bought and can prove was transferred to me as "other".
You can do whatever you want, but that's how I'd handle pistol builds.

ETA ill get some pics up tomorrow

Posted: 4/25/2013 6:29:27 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
....

To be safe I would only build a pistol on a receiver that I bought and can prove was transferred to me as "other".
You can do whatever you want, but that's how I'd handle pistol builds...

You should realize that does not necessarily make it safe, though.

A used lower has to be transferred to you as "other firearm" and "receiver", just like a new one. But if it had originally been built as a rifle, it would still not be legal for you to make it a pistol.

- OS

Posted: 4/25/2013 7:03:18 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
....

To be safe I would only build a pistol on a receiver that I bought and can prove was transferred to me as "other".
You can do whatever you want, but that's how I'd handle pistol builds...

You should realize that does not necessarily make it safe, though.

A used lower has to be transferred to you as "other firearm" and "receiver", just like a new one. But if it had originally been built as a rifle, it would still not be legal for you to make it a pistol.

- OS

If it is transferred to you with paperwork....and the receiver is stripped, and is marked as "other" there is not much more you can do to cover your ass. I'd feel safe building that receiver as a pistol.

Posted: 4/25/2013 8:05:51 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
....

To be safe I would only build a pistol on a receiver that I bought and can prove was transferred to me as "other".
You can do whatever you want, but that's how I'd handle pistol builds...

You should realize that does not necessarily make it safe, though.

A used lower has to be transferred to you as "other firearm" and "receiver", just like a new one. But if it had originally been built as a rifle, it would still not be legal for you to make it a pistol.

- OS

If it is transferred to you with paperwork....and the receiver is stripped, and is marked as "other" there is not much more you can do to cover your ass. I'd feel safe building that receiver as a pistol.

Safe enough, unless the boys had an axe to grind on you for something else, and they check back on its original configuration and transfer status.

- OS

Posted: 4/26/2013 5:05:46 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
....

To be safe I would only build a pistol on a receiver that I bought and can prove was transferred to me as "other".
You can do whatever you want, but that's how I'd handle pistol builds...

You should realize that does not necessarily make it safe, though.

A used lower has to be transferred to you as "other firearm" and "receiver", just like a new one. But if it had originally been built as a rifle, it would still not be legal for you to make it a pistol.

- OS

If it is transferred to you with paperwork....and the receiver is stripped, and is marked as "other" there is not much more you can do to cover your ass. I'd feel safe building that receiver as a pistol.

Safe enough, unless the boys had an axe to grind on you for something else, and they check back on its original configuration and transfer status.

- OS

While I am not aware of any case where the ATF actually went the distance to get someone in such a manner, I wouldn't want to be the first. There will always be an overzealous enforcement agent and you will never know until it's too late.

At least the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the receiver was first built into a rifle. Still, I built all of my pistols out of KNOWN factory "virgin" receivers from retailers and not from private sellers. For the purpose of ATF 2011-4, I took photos (including a couple of shots with the serial number) and uploaded them to Facebook in a private (me only) album since that's one of the ways to "date" the photos. If it ever becomes legally necessary for me to provide proof (again, the prosecution will have to make the case first), I will have conclusive evident.

Al

Posted: 4/26/2013 5:11:50 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perfectly fine. But without the rifle upper, you have made an SBR, even without attaching the stock.
- OS

Also be aware, that once that lower receiver is assembled as a rifle, technically, it cannot legally be reassembled as a pistol.

Will you get in trouble for having an otherwise legal AR pistol that was originally transferred as a "receiver" but was assembled as a rifle somewhere in the middle? Probably not.

Wrong AGAIN. A rifle or receiver if originally built as a rifle can't become a pistol, but if a receiver is built as a pistol first it can be used as a stocked rifle or pistol lower.

ETA: Beat to the punch

Enjoy:
http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

...and since you must know...
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4550_zpsb05d6222.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4549_zpsae7f1b20.jpg
It's 26.5" to the bare muzzle (ATF defined OAL) and 28-3/8" overall.

I have done a similar configuration with a 26"+ AR pistol (11.5" Upper + VFG + Suppressor = To Be SBR'd).

I won't post pics anywheres, as there are so many arm-chair, self-proclaimed (preaching-parrot) - wannabe ATF agents, spouting-off completely wrong information .

My condolenses on all the crap you keep having to put up with, in regards to the 26" rule. I am feeling your pain bro.

Keep-up the education of the mis-informed AR masses - you have my support.

Posted: 4/26/2013 5:31:52 AM EDT

[#40]

If his goal were to educate, this thread wouldn't have gone the way it did.

His goal was to stir the pot and see who popped up with "AOW" so that he could tell them off.

Nobody was like "you gonna get raped, you idiot"
Those that did respond were trying to be helpful and keep a fellow AR enthusiast out of trouble.

Posted: 4/26/2013 6:28:20 AM EDT

[#41]

As I have said before and as FireSteel mentions, I have gone as far as to have specs and even included ATF opinion letters of all features of my pistol/firearm and it is largely ignored and almost incessantly argued.

My goal was simply to have a picture thread of AR pistols next to rifles for the sake of cool pics and size comparisons.

There was a time when people behaved the same about cane tips, side saddles, AFG's, and plenty of people still think carbine extensions are illegal or simply ill advised. It is my sincere hope that this will all pass as well if builds like this become more popular.

Granted, my pistol build is technically a "firearm" as configured, but I think it fits best here.

Anyway, I really like the 7.5" AFG builds. May have to put one together...for my kid

I'll just avoid putting it on Facebook so we don't get raided

The wife gave me the gun money lecture the other day so it will be a while before I make any large investment.

Posted: 4/26/2013 11:50:14 AM EDT

[#42]

Less LAW more PICS

LEFT:
7.5" 5.56
I'll be finishing a 10.5" upper for this this coming week.
I'm also waiting for an SBR stamp for this lower-then it will be an MK18 clone

CENTER:
14.5" Sopmod Block II clone

RIGHT:
14.5" M4 Clone

Uploaded with ImageShack.us" />

Uploaded with ImageShack.us" />

Its funny because the 14.5" rifles are short-but they look HUGE next to the 7.5"

Next I'm planning either an 18" or 20", so I cant wait to see the difference then!

Posted: 4/26/2013 1:34:28 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Less LAW more PICS

All that stuff still legally grandfathered in CT or what? Didn't ever suss the exact recent changes up there.

- OS

Posted: 4/26/2013 2:09:19 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Less LAW more PICS

http://imageshack.us/a/img805/8696/img0444ni.jpg

All that stuff still legally grandfathered in CT or what? Didn't ever suss the exact recent changes up there.

- OS

But since your curious....yea not much changed in regards to current owners. Everything is grandfathered. Parts are no problem, as long as your already have the receivers. The big problem is that we now can only buy 10rd mags or less.