View Full Version : Making an SB23 Compliant AR?

08-11-2006, 1:22 PM
I'm hoping one of you "experts" can tell me how to make an SB23 compliant AR-15.

The hard part is the pistol grip. Adding a fixed stock, and replacing the flash suppressor with a muzzel break or compensator is easy.

But is the FAB10 ATF Approved grip actually legal here? If it is this would be my preferred option. It's not a thumb hole stock because it's not a hole in a one peice stock, and it does not "protrude conspicuously below the action". So it shoud be legal...but is it?

I've read the DOJ accepts the "One Minute Fix" of cutting off the pistol grip in line with the bottom of the trigger guard. Is that true?

Are there other legal grip options on the market?

08-11-2006, 1:26 PM
I would stay away of the fab10 grip just to be safe.
There are some other options like the SRB and monster man grip which are both made by board members

08-11-2006, 1:27 PM
The FAB 10 ATF approved grip is not CA approved. However, just b/c it is not "DOJ Approved" doesn't mean that it is a pistol grip. Basically, you use that grip at your peril.

A better route is to use a spring retaining bracket, or a "MonsterGrip" which are sold at http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=146

Good luck.

(edit: the above poster replied while I was composing my post... his post is on point).

08-11-2006, 1:35 PM
I got my telescopic stock before the last memo. So what I did was drilled one hole on the bottom of the stock outer tube and installed a permanent pop-rivet in there. My telescopic stock is now a fixed stock, similar to the one that bushmaster sells. I also used a RRA muzzle break and SRB. That makes my rifle SB23 compliant.

08-11-2006, 1:52 PM
Steer clear from that grip, it does not need to be closed at the back to be construed as a thumbhole stock since you can grab it with your hand and the line of the thumb can be below the trigger. Either use the sawed pistol grip, monsterman grip, SRB or just run no grip and no safety (if my gun is loaded im shooting and if it isn't loaded the safety is not on.)

08-11-2006, 2:12 PM

The trigger guard drops down with a bullet tip.:D

I may or may not of used this method when last shooting my OLL rifle.

(click for video)

08-11-2006, 3:40 PM
While I certainly don't want to find myself in a court room...any reasonable person would have a hard time defining it as...

A) pistol grip

B) thumb hole stock

This is clearly something different.

Hold up a picture of a thumb hole stock...hold up a picture of a pistol grip...they are clearly not the same as this chunk of metal.

I was hoping for something definative. Maybe an actual example of an arrest or a court case or something. Because I know these things are all over CA. I will admit...I don't want to be the test case.

None of this makes any sense.

The DOJs job is to enforce the law as it is written, not make it up as they go. I get that they can add banned weapons, and that there is due process to contest such a ban. But they intentionally keep things very vague, and use a lot of intimidation tactics that are just plain wrong!

They went so far as to lie to my local FFL. They told him Lauer lowers were illegal to transfer because they had the "possibility" of accepting a detachable magazine. They said nothing about the pistol grip, and said there was no such thing as "off-list" lowers. They told him that if it has the possibility of being made into an assault rifle, then it was illegal. The dummy didn't even guestion it. He just hung up the phone. When I pointed out that the Mini-14 on the wall behind him had a detachable magazine, and is not illegal...he was too stupid to make the connection.

I chose not to explain the finer points of SB23 to him...because he clearly was not smart enough to understand any of it.

Can you tell I am frustrated?

08-11-2006, 3:57 PM
Can you tell I am frustrated?

Just a bit :D

08-11-2006, 5:55 PM
I like the suggestion of using the trigger guard as if it were a grip...but my luck I would get caught doing it by an anti-gun cop, and land my butt in jail. You know they'd define it as "conspicuosly protruding below the action" and also claim it was a "pistol grip" even though it clearly is not.

Plus, I like the idea of the trigger guard being in place. It's an added safety feature keeping things away from the trigger.

Yes...my brain is my safety...and I would use the built in safety when moving it around...but I'm worried about the occasional friend I might let shoot it if I ever build it...not myself. I like to keep things simple for people who are not as familiar with guns as I am.

I just wish there was a nice neat and clean answer (short of don't build and AR type rifle)...clearly there isn't. Nobody has a 100% certain definition of legal...and the DOJ constantly is changing their minds. Take them trying to change the language of SB23. If they get their way, all those bolt on magazine kits might be considered illegal...while as of today, they are likely to be considered legal in a court of law. That's just playing dirty!

08-11-2006, 8:40 PM
If memory serves me correct, there are no DOJ approved devices designed to replace a pistol grip thus eliminating a evil feature right?

And I'll take my answer off the air. Thank you.

08-11-2006, 9:07 PM
It is my experience that for the most part, they are avoiding the issue all together. As I mentioned, depending on who you get on the phone - they say they are still illegal. So if they aren't telling their own staff that they are legal (I am assuming it was an oversight in training and not a deliberate attempt to deceive) then they definitely are not going to admit that compliance devices are legal. It is very frustrating.

My guess is...Vulcan and Bushmaster spent big money getting their CA versions approved by the DOJ. They sent test versions, and went through a big song and dance to get the ball rolling in their favor opening up the door for others to follow. I can only assume this involved applying pressure to senators and local law enforcement agencies they supplied. Not trying to sound like they did something malicious, this just how the game is usually played.

Unless the makers of compliance devices do the same, the DOJ will continue to ignore them. Because there just isn't enough pressure from the powers that be to get them looked at and taken seriously.

Money talks...the rest walks.

08-11-2006, 9:16 PM
If memory serves me correct, there are no DOJ approved devices designed to replace a pistol grip thus eliminating a evil feature right?

And I'll take my answer off the air. Thank you.

There was a device somewhat like the Shooless ventures (fab10) device I would have to find the doj letter that spoke of it but the letter talked about the device being mfg by the barret as in ronny barret company.

Im not 100% sure of this its just from memory.

So if im wrong don't hang me up by my thumbs.

08-11-2006, 9:33 PM
IIRC, the tumor grip was CA DOJ approved.

08-11-2006, 9:38 PM
There are no "DOJ-approved" AR accessories. There never will be, they'd like to shut all this down and leave us with "FUD" - fear, uncertainty and doubt.

However, lack of approval does not equal illegality - but you have to be careful.

The best and clearly legal grip for AR type rifles is the MonsterMan grip that works in conjunction with A2 stocks, and thus allows legal use of detachable magazines (though such a gun cannot have a flash hider).

The DOJ regulatory description of pistol grip is not that well written, and without care some designs (like the FAB10 grip that everyone should avoid like the plague!) could have legal issues depending if the shooter has fat vs. skinny hands!

The MonsterMan grip is clearly legal, and forms the contour of a regular rifle stock in relation to the trigger - and the web of the hand cannot be placed behind it.