Advice on building AR pistol in 22lr for wife and kid?

[TunnelRat]

That works too. I like the BAD levers as they put the controls needed for the mag change together.

Also makes locking the bolt back with no mag in the gun easier, with either hand too.

They are pretty handy once you get used to them.

I do generally use a ambi mag release and I don’t find reaching between that and the bolt release to be a problem and I seem to be able to lock the bolt back without issue. That said I haven’t tried one myself, but I’ll keep it in mind thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

AR "pistols" are only pistols due to the language of various laws. And what is on one side of the law today, could be moved to the other side of the law because enough people in DC say so. The "brace" that makes it legally a pistol today could be redefined as a "stock", turning a legal handgun into an NFA regulated firearm and possibly turning the owner into a criminal, for having it without proper Federal registration, license and tax paid.

The brace doesn't make it a pistol -- the lack of a shoulder stock makes it a pistol. The very first AR pistols didn't have "braces," they just had a round buffer tube hanging off the aft end. Then people started putting the equivalent of a tennis ball on the end of the buffer tube, and then along came the "braces."

That said -- the argument that the "brace" could be reclassified as a shoulder stock is, IMHO, completely valid. This is why it upsets me every time I see someone on YouTube bragging about firing their new AR "pistol" and showing themselves firing it with the "wrist brace" tucked into their shoulder.

The law defines a rifle as a firearm designed (or "intended," I'd have to look up the law to be sure) to be fired from the shoulder. The use of a "wrist brace" to fire from the shoulder occasionally is an exception that the BATFE has been allowing -- for now. But, at what point do you violate the law? If you build an AR "pistol" with one of those "braces" and you know full well when you begin the build that your intention is to use the "wrist brace" as a shoulder stock -- IMHO you will be violating the law when you complete the build and start using your nice new NFA short barrel rifle.

If enough people keep posting those videos, sooner or later the BATFE is going to want to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[AK103K]

One thing Ive never understood here, is why the NRA has never taken up all the conflicting and contrary ATF decisions and edicts that seem to be forever coming.

Seems to me, there are plenty of flip-flops and arbitrary changes in whats supposed to be legal and not. So where is the NRA and all the others supposedly watching out for our rights in all this?

Personally, I think its because they need all the drama and confusion just like the politicians, to keep that big money coming in. Wayne needs a new suit and Mercedes dont ya know.

 

[TunnelRat]

The brace doesn't make it a pistol -- the lack of a shoulder stock makes it a pistol. The very first AR pistols didn't have "braces," they just had a round buffer tube hanging off the aft end. Then people started putting the equivalent of a tennis ball on the end of the buffer tube, and then along came the "braces."

That said -- the argument that the "brace" could be reclassified as a shoulder stock is, IMHO, completely valid. This is why it upsets me every time I see someone on YouTube bragging about firing their new AR "pistol" and showing themselves firing it with the "wrist brace" tucked into their shoulder.

The law defines a rifle as a firearm designed (or "intended," I'd have to look up the law to be sure) to be fired from the shoulder. The use of a "wrist brace" to fire from the shoulder occasionally is an exception that the BATFE has been allowing -- for now. But, at what point do you violate the law? If you build an AR "pistol" with one of those "braces" and you know full well when you begin the build that your intention is to use the "wrist brace" as a shoulder stock -- IMHO you will be violating the law when you complete the build and start using your nice new NFA short barrel rifle.

If enough people keep posting those videos, sooner or later the BATFE is going to want to put the genie back in the bottle.

We’ve talked about this before and generally I agree with you. I believe braces started for a genuine reason and then people realized they were a way to skirt the NFA. It doesn’t bother me personally that people film it. I think the genie has been out of the bottle for some time and there’s plenty of evidence out there.

I have both an SBR and a pistol equipped with a brace. Besides the cost of a tax stamp there are also the legal requirements involved in traveling with the SBR as well as who is able to possess the SBR (which gets into NFA trusts and the like). It wouldn’t surprise me if the current ATF guidance on braces changed in the near future. My guess is a number of people went the brace route to avoid the legal headache of the NFA, but that headache reduction might not last.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stagpanther]

The concept of the AR pistol using a short barrel and brace "came into being" not through any attempt at getting around SBR rules--they came about as a result of developing an "assistive" device so disabled people--such as vets--could shoot with just one hand/arm. The term brace had a specific use intent in that context as it was never intended to be used as a shoulder stock. The ATF has probably realized that they would have a tough time "proving intent" if the brace was potentially used as a shoulder stock. Shooting public being what it is, they have pushed the concept to the limit way past its original intent.

 

[44 AMP]

The brace is what makes it a pistol under the legal definition. If it were a stock the gun would be an NFA firearm. I thought the context was clear, but let me add some for better understanding.

Take a rifle/carbine, shorten the barrel and the stock below the legal limits and you have an SBR, which is NFA regulated. Remove the stock and its a pistol. Put something on the end that looks like a stock but is legally defined as a brace, its a pistol. USE that brace as a stock and brag about it on the interweb will convince people, including those making laws that it is a stock, and they will support the ATF when the ATF gets around to deciding to change the legal status from brace, to stock.

Many of us know about the nuances of the law and how intent plays a part in legal definitions, but many do not. And apparently a number of U-tubers don't know or don't care. And that's a serious PR problem for all of us.

I didn't mean to imply that having a brace makes it a pistol, I meant having a brace, and not a stock, is what allows classification as a pistol where if it had a stock it would not be a pistol, but a rifle (and a short barrel rifle) under the definitions used by the ATF.

Right now all kinds of crap is being thrown at us, and if past experience is a guide, we can avoid the worst of it, but odds are something will stick. And it could just be the govt "re-examining" braces

 

[ThomasT]

For a long time I really didn't know what an AR pistol was so I watched a youtube video of a guy shooting his AR "pistol". Every shot was fired with the "brace" firmly against his shoulder. My first thought was Pistol my A$$. Thats nothing but a short barreled rifle and they found a way to skirt the law.

Now I call the AR pistols Wink Wink pistols. Like in "let me show you my new AR Pistol, Wink Wink".

But as long as they are legal have fun. I have always wanted a handgun with a shoulder stock ever since I shot one of the Canadian made Hi-Power 9mms with a shoulder stock. I thought it was great.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The brace is what makes it a pistol under the legal definition. If it were a stock the gun would be an NFA firearm. I thought the context was clear, but let me add some for better understanding.

No, it's not.

As I posted above, the first AR-15 pistols did not have anything on the buffer tubes. No brace, no stock ... nothing but a round piece of tubing sticking out of the back end of the lower receiver. They were pistols because they did NOT have a shoulder stock, not because they had a brace.

Like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo...in-fallout15-ar15-pistol-black.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The braces came along years later, as an accessory that gets hung off the buffer tube. What makes it a pistol is the absence of a shoulder stock, not the presence of a brace.

 

[ss1/G8RFAN]

Back in the day before the braces, when we would build AR pistols, we had to use pistol buffer tubes because using a com/mil spec tube without a stock would still be the grey area of intent to build an SBR. Then came the Sig SB pistol brace which we were instructed to install fully onto the buffer tube with the indexing tab inserted into the end plate and not sticking partially onto the tube to prevent the temptation of shouldering it. Fast forward and now you have indexing braces where you can swap out the brace for a stock, etc. So if they did ban braces it might be as simple as pulling off the brace or having to install a generic pistol tube. IMHO, with the lumping of SBRs and SBSs into NFA is retarded. It’s blaming the weapon and not the criminal with the hacksaw as if murder robbery etc wasn’t illegal already.

 

[TunnelRat]

Shooting public being what it is, they have pushed the concept to the limit way past its original intent.

I think you need to lump the manufacturers into this one as well. Look at SB Tactical and the evolution of their products. The original SB 15 and SB PDW were obviously braces. These products could be shouldered and used as a crude stock, at least more than a bare buffer tube, but they were made of rubber and not very sturdy. Look at something like an SBA3 brace. That is, imo, a stock that is masquerading as a brace. While SB Tactical may well have started making products as assistive devices for the disabled it seems to me they have fully embraced what a number of people in the shooting public are using these braces for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThomasT]

Doing a little reading I see that the Colorado shooter who killed 10 people used a Ruger AR556 Pistol with brace. Thats too bad because thats all congress and Shotgun Joe will need to start a ban on these just like they did bump stocks after the Vegas shooter used one on his gun.

It only takes one idiot to ruin it for everyone else who would never consider using a gun to shoot up a bunch of innocent people.

 

[stagpanther]

I think you need to lump the manufacturers into this one as well. Look at SB Tactical and the evolution of their products. The original SB 15 and SB PDW were obviously braces. These products could be shouldered and used as a crude stock, at least more than a bare buffer tube, but they were made of rubber and not very sturdy. Look at something like an SBA3 brace. That is, imo, a stock that is masquerading as a brace. While SB Tactical may well have started making products as assistive devices for the disabled it seems to me they have fully embraced what a number of people in the shooting public are using these braces for.

Good points that I agree with--I meant "shooting public" to include manufacturers--in fact it's mostly them driving the "evolution."

No, it's not.

As I posted above, the first AR-15 pistols did not have anything on the buffer tubes. No brace, no stock ... nothing but a round piece of tubing sticking out of the back end of the lower receiver. They were pistols because they did NOT have a shoulder stock, not because they had a brace.

Like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The braces came along years later, as an accessory that gets hung off the buffer tube. What makes it a pistol is the absence of a shoulder stock, not the presence of a brace.

I'm not sure that's entirely true either. A pistol has a clearly defined definition and registration requirements in it's production--what happened as I recall is along the way a "loophole" was created to allow the production of a shortened rifle--in other words a user-end conversion of a multi-cal rifle lower into a pistol upon its first manufacture by the end purchaser--allowing the use of a brace in order to enable it's use by disabled people. Within the context of a home-manufactured AR pistol that uses any kind of stock/buffer attachment it was clearly never intended to have any shoulder bracing or LOP adjustment. I don't use any kind of attachments on my buffer tubes just to be on the "safe side." I suspect the vast majority of people making these things without a manufacturer's license are not familiar with the legal restrictions governing manufacturing of weapons.

 

[9x19]

stag, when we get old, memory is one of the first challenges we face.

In this this instance, Aguila is correct, you are not.

Aguila:

No, it's not.

As I posted above, the first AR-15 pistols did not have anything on the buffer tubes. No brace, no stock ... nothing but a round piece of tubing sticking out of the back end of the lower receiver. They were pistols because they did NOT have a shoulder stock, not because they had a brace.

Like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The braces came along years later, as an accessory that gets hung off the buffer tube. What makes it a pistol is the absence of a shoulder stock, not the presence of a brace.

Stag:

I'm not sure that's entirely true either. A pistol has a clearly defined definition and registration requirements in it's production--what happened as I recall is along the way a "loophole" was created to allow the production of a shortened rifle--in other words a user-end conversion of a multi-cal rifle lower into a pistol upon its first manufacture by the end purchaser--allowing the use of a brace in order to enable it's use by disabled people. Within the context of a home-manufactured AR pistol that uses any kind of stock/buffer attachment it was clearly never intended to have any shoulder bracing or LOP adjustment. I don't use any kind of attachments on my buffer tubes just to be on the "safe side." I suspect the vast majority of people making these things without a manufacturer's license are not familiar with the legal restrictions governing manufacturing of weapons.

 

[stagpanther]

In this this instance, Aguila is correct, you are not.

I'm good with that--but what exactly is it that I said that is incorrect?

 

[44 AMP]

The braces came along years later, as an accessory that gets hung off the buffer tube. What makes it a pistol is the absence of a shoulder stock, not the presence of a brace.

This is entirely correct. I apologize for any confusion caused by my choice of words. You got what I said, but not the way I meant it.

What was meant was, that the brace "makes" it a pistol because its not a stock.
Its still a pistol without the brace.
Looks like stock, acts like a stock, but its not a stock, its a "brace", so, since its a brace and not a stock, its pistol not an SBR.

I was thinking along the lines of how the right amount of seasoning "makes" the soup, sauce, or sandwich.

And, we're getting into the weeds with this, I think.

I feel an AR pistol in .22LR is not as good a choice as a more conventional pistol, for anything I would use a .22LR for. SO, I would not recommend one (built or bought) for the wife and kids. Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.

 

[stagpanther]

I just want to be perfectly clear that the ATF has responded with a series of rulings and findings as the industry became more "proactive" in it's interpretation of what constitutes an AR pistol and not an SBR. This comes up over and over again. I'm not denying that pistols were first "allowed" in the naked buffer tube configutration--but it was sig who "pushed the boundary forward" with their introduction of the rubber brace which they went to great lengths to differentiate the adjustable stock and intended use as an assistive device. The ATF took them at their word and so used the language in a subsequent clarification on what qualified as an AR pistol and not an SBR. This included language that the brace would not be easily adjustable and shouldered. This does not preclude the use of a naked buffer tube as a qualified AR pistol. Sig's over-priced rubber Duckie didn't last long before a wide range of "stocks in drag" flooded the market and additional requests/challenges were submitted to the ATF for clarification. My personal biased view is that the market has pushed the boundaries way past the ATF's original intent and couldn't "leave well-enough alone." I see this as kick the sleeping bear long enough and it's going to wake up and take a swipe at you.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My personal biased view is that the market has pushed the boundaries way past the ATF's original intent and couldn't "leave well-enough alone." I see this as kick the sleeping bear long enough and it's going to wake up and take a swipe at you.

I agree completely, and this is a point I have tried to make in several different threads. It's another example of overly zealous pro-gun people being our own worst enemies by pushing the envelope too hard and too far -- and then whining when the BATFE wakes up and slams the door.

Back to the original topic: I'm right in there with 44 AMP -- I don't think an AR pistol is in any way a good choice for a young or novice (or a young novice) shooter. The ergonomics are terrible. The balance is terrible. There are innumerable .22 rimfire handguns that are better.

On the other hand, if the OP's wife and kid just want a .22 AR-15 clone to play with -- just buy the S&W and start shooting.

 

[rep1954]

I already had been into ar pistols before the braces became popular. I learned to shoot ar pistols without a brace by using a cheek weld on the buffer tube and pulling my strong arm into my side to stabilize the back half of the gun. I cup the mag housing with my weak hand. Shooting standing without any rest not much difference between with or without a brace but once I start using any kind of rest the brace helps. I shoot Mares Leg firearms much the same way as a non braced ar. I will survive without a pistol brace but I do find it disturbing when the criminals who stole our rights almost 100 years ago and want to sell them back for $200.00 ransom money. How does a $200.00 ransom payment make a dangerous gun non dangerous?

 

[ThomasT]

I will survive without a pistol brace but I do find it disturbing when the criminals who stole our rights almost 100 years ago and want to sell them back for $200.00 ransom money. How does a $200.00 ransom payment make a dangerous gun non dangerous?

Excellent and very valid point. As has been said many times before its not the tool its the skilled worker who makes the mechanic.

A killer can kill with anything. And its the killer thats dangerous and not the weapon. Its just that the weapon gets the blame. And thats why killers will always exist. At least until a way to control them before they kill is found.

The last paragraph sums this up very nicely.

http://www.darkcanyon.net/gunmen_of_el_paso.htm

 

[stinkeypete]

Someone correct me if I am wrong- I don’t think anyone has used a NFA stamped firearm in a crime... ever.

These are not the toys I am interested in, but those who go through the trouble to apply for NFA stamps all seem to me to be sober responsible citizens that have undergone extra scrutiny for their $200.

I particularly enjoyed the suggestion of the Browning .22 as a more practical option. In my opinion, it’s the most aesthetic .22 rifle ever made.