If you shoulder an AR-15 pistol with a buffer tube...

D

Darker Loaf

New member
So, I am sorry if I am rehashing things from a different thread, if so, I guess close this one or tell me where to go, but here goes.

Since if you take a Sig-braced AR-15 pistol with a buffer tube attached and shoulder it, in the eyes of the ATF you are remanufacturing the gun and in violation of the NFA. So, what does this do to just bare pistol-style buffer tubes? Can you shoulder a pistol with a pistol buffer tube without making an "SBR?"

I always thought you could shoulder an AR pistol with a pistol buffer tube, but after reading the AFT's opinion about the Sig Brace, it made me think that the AFT could easily apply the "Remanufacturing" idea to any action with a pistol.

If you can change the legal nature of a pistol simply by misusing it, it makes me want to abandon my desire to own one. I'd just stick with regular legal rifles and "standard" pistols.... maybe SBR via tax stamp something someday. But in the short term, it'd change the order of my I-Want-To-Buy-This List.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
We can't really say. The ATF opinion only covered guns with the stabilizing brace. Sig is bringing a lawsuit, which may render this moot.
 
T

Tucker 1371

New member
Great question. You would really have to ask BATFE since they seem to be making things up as they go these days. I've wondered about this myself.
 
T

tobnpr

New member
By extension of your logic/question, what about shouldering the back end of a PPS-43? Not that anyone would want the thing going off next to their ear and it would take a contortionist- but it comes down to how a weapon is classified.

I had an ATF Supervisor for my FFL inspection a few weeks ago, and we discussed this. He said in his opinion, it's "common sense" that if you shoulder a weapon, it's a rifle.

Hard for me to argue that point. I think ATF put themselves between a rock and a hard place allowing the SIG brace to be shouldered in the first place- opened a real can of worms. I suspect they wish they had that initial letter back.
Whether or not one agrees with NFA laws in general, I think that anyone that looks at the brace objectively realizes that it is easily shouldered as a stock. I suspect, there could have been an entirely different design that would have served the purpose of a brace, without being able to be effectively shouldered as a stock.

JMO- let the flames fly...
 
D

Darker Loaf

New member
I realize that I should be asking the ATF about this, but I figured I'd ask this to TFL first. If do ever get around to asking the ATF about this, I'll be sure to post the results on TFL.


tobnpr, exactly my thinking. But the problem is that the definition of a pistol is strange according to the ATF: "and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)."

This means if a gun can be redesigned through use as the ATF now claims, then holding a pistol in any other way than with one hand could be constituted as redesigning the weapon.

I was just specifically asking about pistol-buffer tube based designs because if you can legally shoulder a pistol buffer tube w/o a Sig brace attached and this is a less ambiguous than cheek-welding a Sig brace (which seems, really, really lame) or at least more legal than shouldering a Sig brace around a pistol buffer tube, then I would consider an AR-15 style pistol. If bare AR-15 pistol buffer tubes now reside in a gray area of weapon redesign/remanufacture, too, then I'll skip that category of gun all together and stick with plain rifles, get a bullpup, or do an SBR.


Thanks, Tom. I appreciate the response. It's nice to know that my memory still works and that I wasn't mistaken or misinformed. And I will respect the ambiguity of the situation until the ATF makes itself more clear or Sig wins a lawsuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top