PDA

View Full Version : Franklin Armory XO-26 The first NON-AOW Configuration


franklinarmory
04-15-2011, 7:25 PM
Well since my marketing literature has already turned up in the Centerfire Rifles thread, I just thought I would post here to tell the 2A community that we have secured a letter from the Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF, Mr. John R. Spencer, that states that we can put a secondary vertical grip on our SE-SSP firearms without creating an AOW so long as it measures over 26 inches overall.

This firearm is considered to not be a rifle because it does not have a stock. It is also not a pistol because it has two grips. He simply called it a "firearm." The obvious conclusion is that it will transfer as an "other" on the 4473. California law however, seems to indicate under 12001 PC that anything with a barrel less than 16 inches is a pistol. (Unless it has a stock, in which case it would obviously be an SBR.)

There are a lot of "what if's" that this specific configuration brings up. I will leave it up to brighter legal minds to determine how much new ground we have been given by the letter. Heck, maybe it will exonerate someone convicted on an AOW charge. I can say that the addition of the vertical grip greatly improves the stability of the configuration and that the XO-26 will have great defensive, sporting, and perhaps LE applications.

dfletcher
04-15-2011, 7:40 PM
What would this be in CA if one put a +16" barrel on it and no VFG? And whatever it is, would it then require a fixed 10 round magazine to comply with CA law or could a detachable magazine be used? A "RRA type" AR handgun (no buffer tube) with +16" upper makes +26 OAL so I presume it would be the legal equivilent?

Quiet
04-15-2011, 7:48 PM
What would this be in CA if one put a +16" barrel on it and no VFG? And whatever it is, would it then require a fixed 10 round magazine to comply with CA law or could a detachable magazine be used? A "RRA type" AR handgun (no buffer tube) with +16" upper makes +26 OAL so I presume it would be the legal equivilent?

With a 16+" barrel and with or without the VFG, wouldn't it be a semi-auto centerfire "other".
Because, it would not fit the Federal & CA state legal definition of a handgun or rifle.
Since it's not legally a rifle or a handgun, would the CA assault weapons laws for handguns and rifles apply to it?

:willy_nilly:

franklinarmory
04-15-2011, 8:04 PM
Read 12001pc before making a conclusion. Again, I don't know how all that would apply in that configuration.

Quiet
04-15-2011, 8:07 PM
Oh, by the way...
Thanks for all the work you've done on this.

:party:

franklinarmory
04-16-2011, 10:18 AM
Oh, by the way...
Thanks for all the work you've done on this.

:party:

Chief Spencer deserves the thanks for encouraging Franklin Armory to send in a physical sample so it could be approved. Now we all have a whole new bunch of options.

CalNRA
04-16-2011, 10:22 AM
a while back someone posted a thread about this. The conclusion was, I'm paraphrasing here, a 16+ inch barrel 26+ inch OAL center fire long gun with detachable magazine with no stock is legal, but don't expect cops to know it when you bring it outside the house.

thedrickel
04-16-2011, 10:23 AM
Where is the letter . . . ? You might as well post it . . . as soon as it's out in the wild it's going to show up here immediately . . . it's just a matter of time.

franklinarmory
04-16-2011, 10:27 AM
a while back someone posted a thread about this. The conclusion was, I'm paraphrasing here, a 16+ inch barrel 26+ inch OAL center fire long gun with detachable magazine with no stock is legal, but don't expect cops to know it when you bring it outside the house.

That's why each XO-26 will ship with a copy of the ATF authorization letter. The last thing we want is to see any customers arrested for something legal.

CalNRA
04-16-2011, 10:28 AM
That's why each XO-26 will ship with a copy of the ATF authorization letter. The last thing we want is to see any customers arrested for something legal.

The other part of the puzzle with be cops' ignorance of CA AW laws.

That's the tricky part.

Baconator
04-16-2011, 10:30 AM
Is this something we come to you to buy? I can't think of an FFL that would touch this..it looks so scary!

franklinarmory
04-16-2011, 10:32 AM
Where is the letter . . . ? You might as well post it . . . as soon as it's out in the wild it's going to show up here immediately . . . it's just a matter of time.

The letter will be posted shortly. It wasn't my plan to post this ahead of distribution, but a well meaning patron managed to let the cat out of the bag. We're planning on shipping the first units on 5/2. We'll post a copy the same day they go out.

franklinarmory
04-16-2011, 10:42 AM
Is this something we come to you to buy? I can't think of an FFL that would touch this..it looks so scary!

No Sir. We do not DROS anything because we would then compete against our own dealers. We have a network of dealers up and down the state. Most dealers have ordered at least one or two units, and other dealers are waiting to see if demand is there before they order. I have had only one dealer express concern about carrying the product, so almost all of them are on board for this project.

CHS
04-16-2011, 11:21 AM
Is this something we come to you to buy? I can't think of an FFL that would touch this..it looks so scary!

Weird. I can think of a bunch of FFL's that WOULD touch it.

383green
04-16-2011, 11:28 AM
Weird. I can think of a bunch of FFL's that WOULD touch it.

Touch? More like a loving caress, followed by enthusiastic groping.

trashman
04-16-2011, 11:37 AM
Wow - interesting update....this has some really interesting implications.

--Neill

Baconator
04-16-2011, 11:40 AM
Weird. I can think of a bunch of FFL's that WOULD touch it.

tell me who, it can be a super secret pm if necessary.

CSACANNONEER
04-16-2011, 11:42 AM
Is this something we come to you to buy? I can't think of an FFL that would touch this..it looks so scary!

Weird. I can think of a bunch of FFL's that WOULD touch it.

I can't think of one shop (that does not overcharge on PPTs, doen't spread FUD, doesn't think all AR/AKs are AWs, etc.) that would have a problem with this.

wildhawker
04-16-2011, 11:48 AM
tell me who, it can be a super secret pm if necessary.

I think you're over-thinking this by considering it a 'razors' edge' weapon. It pretty clearly isn't.

As with bdsmchs and CSA, most or all of the good black rifle shops I can think of would handle this given demand.

-Brandon

Baconator
04-16-2011, 11:53 AM
Sorry for my concern. I guess I have just been taught that if it looks like it is something I would want, it is likely illegal or one step away from illegal.

I'll get over it, I'm learning. Thanks.

So this transfers as an "other" on the federal form, does it transfer as a pistol on the state form?

thmpr
04-16-2011, 12:14 PM
Got a pic?

bwiese
04-16-2011, 12:17 PM
With a 16+" barrel and with or without the VFG, wouldn't it be a semi-auto centerfire "other".
Because, it would not fit the Federal & CA state legal definition of a handgun or rifle.
Since it's not legally a rifle or a handgun, would the CA assault weapons laws for handguns and rifles apply to it?

Yes, BUT DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDDIES.

We need to clear some ground on that aspect and get some docs in place.

mtakedown
04-16-2011, 12:23 PM
I had to read all the posts a few times then pull up the Franklin Armory website to get a grasp on the definitions.

The key part of this discussion is that the "pistol" is a single shot, ie the model Self Extracting - SINGLE SHOT PISTOL or SE-SSP.

I kept assuming that it was a semi auto center fire, the pistols are not! They are single shot.

CSACANNONEER
04-16-2011, 12:40 PM
I had to read all the posts a few times then pull up the Franklin Armory website to get a grasp on the definitions.

The key part of this discussion is that the "pistol" is a single shot, ie the model Self Extracting - SINGLE SHOT PISTOL or SE-SSP.

I kept assuming that it was a semi auto center fire, the pistols are not! They are single shot.

This is NOT a pistol! It is a centerfire semi auto title one firearm which is niether a pistol nor a "rifle" by definition. Therefore, it can not be a Pistol AW nor a Rifle AW. So, it does not need a magzine lock and can also utilize +10 round mags.

franklinarmory
04-16-2011, 12:52 PM
This is NOT a pistol! It is a centerfire semi auto title one firearm which is niether a pistol nor a "rifle" by definition. Therefore, it can not be a Pistol AW nor a Rifle AW. So, it does not need a magzine lock and can also utilize +10 round mags.
I have been told that 12001pc defines it as a pistol. It would DROS as a pistol 4473 as an ”other”.

CSACANNONEER
04-16-2011, 1:07 PM
I have been told that 12001pc defines it as a pistol. It would DROS as a pistol 4473 as an ”other”.

While you have done far more research about this than I have and I am not a lawyer, I would have to dissagree with that interpetation. Otherwise, all those who have legally put short barrels on their 1919s would be breaking the law by trying to make a long gun into a "pistol". I guess, I'm just a bit more confused than I was a few minutes ago.

Spaceghost
04-16-2011, 1:23 PM
I dug up the old thread in which Stan built his legal non-bullet buttoned toy. A lot of good info in that thread that relates to this product.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=310269&highlight=my+toy

CalNRA
04-16-2011, 1:34 PM
I dug up the old thread in which Stan built his legal non-bullet buttoned toy. A lot of good info in that thread that relates to this product.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=310269&highlight=my+toy

yep, that's the thread I tried (and failed) to find.
:thumbsup:

GlennG31
04-16-2011, 1:37 PM
yep, that's the thread I tried (and failed) to find.
:thumbsup:

Same here. I remembered another Calgunner tried to do something like this, but I couldn't find the thread because I couldn't remember his screen name. Thanks for finding it, Spaceghost. :thumbsup:

CSACANNONEER
04-16-2011, 1:46 PM
Stan originally got the idea from another, now deleted thread, from here posted by bdsmchs (I think). The idea of a +16" barrelled long gun without a shoulder stock is far from a new idea. But, this thread is about <16" barrelled ones.

Spaceghost
04-16-2011, 1:53 PM
I agree, but there was a lot of interesting and civil conversation in that thread that was very informative and I do recall the thread that was deleted. Just wanted other members to see it.

Stan originally got the idea from another, now deleted thread, from here posted by bdsmchs (I think). The idea of a +16" barrelled long gun without a shoulder stock is far from a new idea. But, this thread is about <16" barrelled ones.

ke6guj
04-16-2011, 2:11 PM
This is NOT a pistol! It is a centerfire semi auto title one firearm which is niether a pistol nor a "rifle" by definition. Therefore, it can not be a Pistol AW nor a Rifle AW. So, it does not need a magzine lock and can also utilize +10 round mags.
this is not a federally-defined pistol, but is a CA-defined pistol. CA's law says that if it has a <16" barrel, then it is a "pistol". There is no OAL dimension that excludes a firearm from those defintions. Since it still fits the 12001 definition of pistol, then the pistol Roster regulations still apply, as well as the Pistol AW regs.


The feds say that it isn't an AOW because it is >26" OAL, which means that it isn't considered to "concealable", so it doesn't fit in the AOW catagory.

I have been told that 12001pc defines it as a pistol. It would DROS as a pistol 4473 as an ”other”.correct, DROSes as a pistol since it has a <16" barrel. And since ATF say that is federally an "other" then that is how it gets 4473'd.

While you have done far more research about this than I have and I am not a lawyer, I would have to dissagree with that interpetation. Otherwise, all those who have legally put short barrels on their 1919s would be breaking the law by trying to make a long gun into a "pistol". I guess, I'm just a bit more confused than I was a few minutes ago.

federally, they haven't made a pistol since even with the short barrel, OAL is still >26". If they went below 26" OAL on that 1919a4, ATF would declare it to be an AOW since it was a concealable firearm that wasn't considered a pistol. Apparantly, per panaceabeachbum, they felt that it as a pistol, it couldn't be fired by one hand (with that grip so far back and the CG so far forward), hence it didn't meet the pistol definition that is exempt from the AOW catagory. I wonder what they would say if you used one of those conversion kits that move the trigger and grip under the receiver, where you might be holiding near the CG.

Note that in either case, CA would probably call it a pistol AW (due to the belt feed being a detachable magazine), so I haven't seen the need to see if it could be made an non-AW with a moved PG assembly.

mtakedown
04-16-2011, 2:32 PM
How is this any different than the MKE at-94p with a front forearm grip?
http://dealer.americantactical.us/products?product=1216

A >16" barrel and its >26"?

Basically we are looking at a AR that has a: >16" barrel, >26" OAL and no stock. That AR also has a detachable mag with a forward grip. What am I missing?

CHS
04-16-2011, 2:48 PM
How is this any different than the MKE at-94p with a front forearm grip?
http://dealer.americantactical.us/products?product=1216

A >16" barrel and its >26"?


Those were imported so that people could build them into MP5 rifles. Imported as pistols, they got around some of the weird import restrictions from the BATFE. But since they had a 16" barrel, people could slap a stock on them and convert them to a rifle.

Also, ATI doesn't have a letter from the ATF saying that it's ok to put a forward grip on it.

And it's not an AR.

And it's 9mm, not 5.56.

And an MP5 is a TOTALLY different platform that shares absolutely nothing in common with the AR?


Basically we are looking at a AR that has a: >16" barrel, >26" OAL and no stock. That AR also has a detachable mag with a forward grip. What am I missing?

No. The Franklin Armory firearm has a less-than 16" barrel. Not 16" or greater.

It also requires a bullet button so it does not have detachable mags.

mtakedown
04-16-2011, 2:59 PM
I understand that an MP5 is very different than a AR. :eek:

I am missing the point of the Franklin Armory setup then. <16" barrel with a bullet button. Whats so exciting?

ke6guj
04-16-2011, 3:02 PM
the point is that it is a CA-legal AR-pistol that can have a VFG without needing a federal tax stamp.

Quiet
04-16-2011, 3:32 PM
the point is that it is a CA-legal AR-pistol that can have a VFG without needing a federal tax stamp.

What he said.

Since it has a less than 16" barrel, CA considers it a "handgun". [PC 12001(a)]
So, the CA assault weapons laws for handguns applies to it.

But, since the overall length is greater than 26", the Feds consider it a Title 1 "other" firearm. Therefore it is legal to have a vertical forward grip on it.

They are manufacturing it as a single-shot "pistol" so that it can be 4473'd as an "other" and DROS'd as a "handgun". Which makes it a CA legal "handgun" with a vertical forward grip. Something that normally can not be done legally without BATFE approval (tax stamp for an AOW).

Gio
04-16-2011, 3:38 PM
the point is that it is a CA-legal AR-pistol that can have a VFG without needing a federal tax stamp.

As long as the OAL is 26" or greater, correct?

Quiet
04-16-2011, 3:42 PM
As long as the OAL is 26" or greater, correct?

Correct!

12voltguy
04-16-2011, 6:42 PM
ATF has a letter on AFG not being ilegal on pistols as it's not a VFG
so why not use that on a pistol with less then 16" barrel?

12voltguy
04-16-2011, 6:45 PM
a while back someone posted a thread about this. The conclusion was, I'm paraphrasing here, a 16+ inch barrel 26+ inch OAL center fire long gun with detachable magazine with no stock is legal, but don't expect cops to know it when you bring it outside the house.
so does this not have a BB
I'm confused I see it as both in this thread,lol

KaLiFORNIA
04-16-2011, 6:51 PM
So does this mean current ar pistol owners with > 26 in. OAL can run a VG now?

dfletcher
04-16-2011, 7:02 PM
this is not a federally-defined pistol, but is a CA-defined pistol. CA's law says that if it has a <16" barrel, then it is a "pistol". There is no OAL dimension that excludes a firearm from those defintions. Since it still fits the 12001 definition of pistol, then the pistol Roster regulations still apply, as well as the Pistol AW regs.




I mentioned this earlier - if the upper is greater than 16" what effect does that have on CA law? I realize a 16" bbl plus the receiver extension sort of defeats the compactability purpose, but Oly Arms and RRA have an upper set up that does not require a receiver extension. One of those would make +26" OAL and have a 16" barrel to avoid pistol status in CA, yes?

I think one could do the same with a DSA FAL - para set up on virgin receiver, 16" bbl - makes +26" OAL.

A stripped 1911 receiver attached to a +16" Mech Tech unit (they can be had with no shoulder stock) makes +26" OAL too.

I think there are quite a few other possibilities.

Quiet
04-16-2011, 7:02 PM
so does this not have a BB
I'm confused I see it as both in this thread,lol

What Franklin Armory is making does have a BB mag lock.

The maglock is needed because under CA laws [PC 12001(a)] it is considered a handgun. So, it needs to be made as a single-shot pistol in order to be exempt from the approved list and it needs the maglock with 10 round or less magazine in order to comply with the assault weapons laws.

The threads with the no need maglock were theorizing other builds and the need to have it or not. So, disregard those threads.

A MAGAZINE LOCK IS REQUIRED FOR THIS TYPE OF PISTOL.

Quiet
04-16-2011, 7:08 PM
I mentioned this earlier - if the upper is greater than 16" what effect does that have on CA law? I realize a 16" bbl plus the receiver extension sort of defeats the compactability purpose, but Oly Arms and RRA have an upper set up that does not require a receiver extension. One of those would make +26" OAL and have a 16" barrel to avoid pistol status in CA, yes?

I think one could do the same with a DSA FAL - para set up on virgin receiver, 16" bbl - makes +26" OAL.

A stripped 1911 receiver attached to a +16" Mech Tech unit (they can be had with no shoulder stock) makes +26" OAL too.

I think there are quite a few other possibilities.

See Bill's first post (Post #22) in this thread.

12voltguy
04-16-2011, 7:31 PM
What Franklin Armory is making does have a BB mag lock.

The maglock is needed because under CA laws [PC 12001(a)] it is considered a handgun. So, it needs to be made as a single-shot pistol in order to be exempt from the approved list and it needs the maglock with 10 round or less magazine in order to comply with the assault weapons laws.

The threads with the no need maglock were theorizing other builds and the need to have it or not. So, disregard those threads.

A MAGAZINE LOCK IS REQUIRED FOR THIS TYPE OF PISTOL.

I knew that, mag outside of grip needs lock
so all this to get a FPG?
anyone make a bb for rugger 10-22 so I can build a pistol from an 80% receiver? or do I need to make my own:D

Quiet
04-16-2011, 7:41 PM
I knew that, mag outside of grip needs lock
so all this to get a FPG?
anyone make a bb for rugger 10-22 so I can build a pistol from an 80% receiver? or do I need to make my own:D

Yes. All this to legally get a Forward Vertical Grip on a handgun without needing BATFE approval (tax stamp for an AOW).

Note that the barrel length has to be less than 16" and the overall length needs to be greater than 26", in order for the Feds to consider it a Title 1 "other" firearm and CA to consider it a "handgun".

There are maglocks for the Ruger 10/22, people use them for their CA legal Ruger Charger pistols.

Blackhawk556
04-16-2011, 7:48 PM
EDIT:
nevermind, pic is in his sig line. couldn't see it on mobile.

12voltguy
04-16-2011, 7:51 PM
Yes. All this to legally get a Forward Vertical Grip on a handgun without needing BATFE approval (tax stamp for an AOW).

Note that the barrel length has to be less than 16" and the overall length needs to be greater than 26", in order for the Feds to consider it a Title 1 "other" firearm and CA to consider it a "handgun".

There are maglocks for the Ruger 10/22, people use them for their CA legal Ruger Charger pistols.

thx
I would just use the AFG already ATF aproved;)
I will search for the 10-22 bb, thx for that!;)

ke6guj
04-16-2011, 8:42 PM
thx
I would just use the AFG already ATF aproved;)
now you have 3 options.

AFG on a <26" OAL, <16" barrel pistol with no stamp needed.
VFG on a <26" OAL, <16" barrel pistol with AOW stamp needed.
VFG on a >26" OAL, <16" barrel pistol with no stamp needed.

franklinarmory
04-18-2011, 12:09 PM
Here's a video of the XO-26 in action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpFxiUSd8c

JagerTroop
04-18-2011, 12:28 PM
This nothing new (sans the <16" bbl) around here. In Ca, if it has a 16" bbl, then it is simply a title 1 firearm.

This has been a sporadic topic for a few years. Always ending with the same concensus... don't do it (yet), unless you have a kick*ss lawyer. IIRC, CGF is encouraging us to refrain from this configuration until other issues are tended to.

franklinarmory
04-18-2011, 12:47 PM
This nothing new (sans the <16" bbl) around here. In Ca, if it has a 16" bbl, then it is simply a title 1 firearm.

This has been a sporadic topic for a few years. Always ending with the same concensus... don't do it (yet), unless you have a kick*ss lawyer. IIRC, CGF is encouraging us to refrain from this configuration until other issues are tended to.
While we do have a great lawyer (Jason Davis,) we have an ATF letter that allows us to build these without the onerous NFA/AOW paperwork. I have not heard anyone w/CGF recommending that we not build our new XO-26.

It does have a BB, so why would there be an issue?

Gio
04-18-2011, 1:04 PM
While we do have a great lawyer (Jason Davis,) we have an ATF letter that allows us to build these without the onerous NFA/AOW paperwork. I have not heard anyone w/CGF recommending that we not build our new XO-26.

It does have a BB, so why would there be an issue?


I believe he was referring to the Title 1 Long Gun with a 16" bbl and no mag lock and front grip of sorts. That is why the older Title 1 thread was deleted but Stan still went ahead and put one together along with others.

franklinarmory
04-18-2011, 1:11 PM
Hey Gio. Nice to hear from you. Your technique of indexing the firearm off the cheek bone really works well with the XO-26. I'm glad you shared that last year. :)

Reductio
04-18-2011, 1:52 PM
This nothing new (sans the <16" bbl) around here. In Ca, if it has a 16" bbl, then it is simply a title 1 firearm.


And that's rather the important part... as far as CA's concerned, this is a pistol, not a non-BB'd long gun.

wash
04-18-2011, 9:10 PM
I would like to try and get a letter for a similar AR that gets to 26" in a slightly different way.

Could you break down the process you used to get your letter?

Thanks for the help.

JagerTroop
04-19-2011, 2:10 AM
And that's rather the important part... as far as CA's concerned, this is a pistol, not a non-BB'd long gun.

SO, how would Ca not consider this an AOW or an AW? It's a pistol with a forward pistol grip.

And before you say, "the ATF says it's cool", the ATF does not consider a Taurus Judge a SBS, yet Ca does.

I'm not necessarily doubting you, just genuinely curious. I have been reading about this configuration for quite a while now. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, with JD in your corner I'm sure all angles have been covered.

Quiet
04-19-2011, 2:16 AM
SO, how would Ca not consider this an AOW or an AW? It's a pistol with a forward pistol grip.

And before you say, "the ATF says it's cool", the ATF does not consider a Taurus Judge a SBS, yet Ca does.

I'm not necessarily doubting you, just genuinely curious. I have been reading about this configuration for quite a while now. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, with JD in your corner I'm sure all angles have been covered.

CA goes by what BATFE considers to be an AOW. [PC 12020(b)(8)]

Because it has a less than 16" barrel, CA considers it a handgun. [PC 12001(a)]
Since it is a handgun, the CA assault weapons laws for handguns apply to it. [PC 12276.1(a)(4)&(5)]


Since, you brought up the Taurus Judge...
The Taurus Judge in .45LC/.410 is considered a Title 1 handgun under Federal laws and a SBS under CA laws, which makes it illegal in CA.
If you got BATFE approval to make an AOW and made the Taurus Judge into an AOW (either by installing a smoothbore barrel or adding a vertical forward grip), it would then be legal under CA laws. Because, AOWs are exempt from CA's SBS/SBR laws.

Gio
04-19-2011, 9:22 AM
Hey Gio. Nice to hear from you. Your technique of indexing the firearm off the cheek bone really works well with the XO-26. I'm glad you shared that last year. :)

Not my technique, but I was taught to use it that way. Looks like the forward grip also helps out as well :)

Reductio
04-19-2011, 9:47 AM
SO, how would Ca not consider this an AOW or an AW? It's a pistol with a forward pistol grip.

And before you say, "the ATF says it's cool", the ATF does not consider a Taurus Judge a SBS, yet Ca does.

I'm not necessarily doubting you, just genuinely curious. I have been reading about this configuration for quite a while now. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, with JD in your corner I'm sure all angles have been covered.

There's no "CA AOW," and the PC relevant to a pistol with a VFG is 12276.1 (a) (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Restrictions_on_semiautomatic_handguns)... and it only restricts it on pistols with a detachable mag:

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer
to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds

JagerTroop
04-19-2011, 11:09 AM
While we do have a great lawyer (Jason Davis,) we have an ATF letter that allows us to build these without the onerous NFA/AOW paperwork. I have not heard anyone w/CGF recommending that we not build our new XO-26.

It does have a BB, so why would there be an issue?

My reasoning was in reference to prior threads regarding a Title 1 firearm that is of similar design, but uses a 16" bbl.

As to the ATF? ATF is not too concerned with Ca law. In fact, they laugh when we speak of the ridiculous restrictions here. ATF does not consider a Judge to be a SBS, but Ca does. This is why I tend to be leary of ATF opinions (alone).

I absolutely commend you on your willingness to innovate, and to take risks. This is the type of thing that got us to where we are now. If no one pushed the limits, we'd all be shooting mini 14s and kel tecs. lol.


...This firearm is considered to not be a rifle because it does not have a stock. It is also not a pistol because it has two grips. He simply called it a "firearm." The obvious conclusion is that it will transfer as an "other" on the 4473. California law however, seems to indicate under 12001 PC that anything with a barrel less than 16 inches is a pistol. (Unless it has a stock, in which case it would obviously be an SBR.)...

Regarding ATF opinion vs. Ca law, this is my point exactly. It's examples like this that justify my apprehension.

I believe he was referring to the Title 1 Long Gun with a 16" bbl and no mag lock and front grip of sorts. That is why the older Title 1 thread was deleted but Stan still went ahead and put one together along with others.

Yes, that was the one. Thanks Gio.

...Since, you brought up the Taurus Judge...
The Taurus Judge in .45LC/.410 is considered a Title 1 handgun under Federal laws and a SBS under CA laws, which makes it illegal in CA.
If you got BATFE approval to make an AOW and made the Taurus Judge into an AOW (either by installing a smoothbore barrel or adding a vertical forward grip), it would then be legal under CA laws. Because, AOWs are exempt from CA's SBS/SBR laws.

Ohhhh I'm well aware ;) I may get one, but what I have on the way makes the Judge look like a squirtgun :D

ke6guj
04-19-2011, 11:38 AM
It was legal 2 weeks ago to have a VFG on your AR-pistol, you just had to have a tax stamp for it. That was for federal reasons. It didn't violate CA law to have a VFG on our AR-pistols, because they were fixed-mag configs. All this letter does is say that if the OAL of that AR-pistol is over 26", then you can install a VFG without it becoming a federally-defined AOW. Nothing changed regarding CA law.

JagerTroop
04-19-2011, 12:07 PM
It was legal 2 weeks ago to have a VFG on your AR-pistol, you just had to have a tax stamp for it. That was for federal reasons. It didn't violate CA law to have a VFG on our AR-pistols, because they were fixed-mag configs. All this letter does is say that if the OAL of that AR-pistol is over 26", then you can install a VFG without it becoming a federally-defined AOW. Nothing changed regarding CA law.

Well then, it looks like I've got some forwards grips to install when I get home :p

Thanks Jack (and FA, Quiet, etc.)

ke6guj
04-19-2011, 12:36 PM
Well then, it looks like I've got some forwards grips to install when I get home :p

Thanks Jack (and FA, Quiet, etc.)I would suggest holding off at least until you actually know what the letter says.

JagerTroop
04-19-2011, 1:03 PM
I would suggest holding off at least until you actually know what the letter says.

Well, as I posted before, I've been reading about this on other (out of state) forums for at least a month. I've seen the letter. In fact, I should have a downloaded copy of it somewhere. FA isn't the first to do this (unless it is their letter that I have). My only concern was with Ca law.

iBkickinit
04-19-2011, 5:47 PM
What about the rule as far as building an "Other from a rifle"? I know that Rifle>Pistol = BAD. Can you go Rifle>Other?

If so or not, is that a federal rule/law or CA-based?

wash
04-19-2011, 6:00 PM
As I understand it, CA considers it a pistol even if the Feds don't, so you would have to do what we do to dodge the roster of not unsafe handguns with a single shot exemption, then convert to semi auto.

The other way to do it is start with a virgin 80% lower and do the same thing but avoid any appearance of rifle to pistol conversion.

CHS
04-19-2011, 6:12 PM
What about the rule as far as building an "Other from a rifle"? I know that Rifle>Pistol = BAD. Can you go Rifle>Other?

If so or not, is that a federal rule/law or CA-based?

There's no such thing as going from Rifle -> Other. A firearm made from a rifle, is a rifle. That's federal law.

You can configure a rifle to "other" looking, as long as you keep a minimum 26" OAL and 16" barrel, otherwise going to "other" could be an SBR. However, even if it's configured like an "other" and looks like an "other", it would still be a rifle.

carsonwales
04-19-2011, 6:56 PM
I bought a half a dozen lowers about two years ago...

All but one has been built up...

If the folks who handled the transfer checked "other" on the paperwork...which I guess they would have seeing as they at the time of transfer they were neither rifles or pistols...

Could I make one of these things with my last stripped lower?

Just wondering...I would love to have one of these

Carson

ke6guj
04-19-2011, 7:03 PM
I bought a half a dozen lowers about two years ago...

All but one has been built up...

If the folks who handled the transfer checked "other" on the paperwork...which I guess they would have seeing as they at the time of transfer they were neither rifles or pistols...

Could I make one of these things with my last stripped lower?

Just wondering...I would love to have one of these

Carson

those were DROSed as long guns, so it is felt that CA would consider them to be SBRs if assembled witha <16" barrel.

Quiet
04-19-2011, 7:15 PM
those were DROSed as long guns, so it is felt that CA would consider them to be SBRs if assembled witha <16" barrel.

What he said.

Fed 4473 = "handgun", "long gun", "other"
CA DROS = "handgun", "long gun"

Currently, AR lower recievers are 4473'd as "other" but DROS'd as "long gun".

Since, it was DROS'd as a "long gun", it is felt that if you made it into a "handgun", you can be arrested/charged for making a SBR under CA state laws.
Even though it is legal under Federal laws to make an "other" into a "handgun". CA would consider it a "long gun" being made into a "handgun".

carsonwales
04-19-2011, 7:25 PM
That totally bites

I want one of these things...

carsonwales
04-19-2011, 7:32 PM
those were DROSed as long guns, so it is felt that CA would consider them to be SBRs if assembled witha <16" barrel.

I am assuming that your <16" thingy also includes <26" OAL ?

In other words if I made up this last lower with >=16 barrel and >=26 OAL all is cool? (14.5 with a pinned or soldered comp)

Just asking

Carson

edit: Question ~ where exactly do they measure the barrel length from?

galupo
04-19-2011, 8:16 PM
Would love to see this as a NYC legal firearm not applying as a rifle for the AWB or a pistol. Being a pistol permit holder and a shotgun/rifle permit holder this would be awesome....

wash
04-19-2011, 8:17 PM
Barrel length is measured from the breach face to the muzzle or the end of the permanently attached muzzle device.

80% lowers make lots of things possible. If you can handle the machining, you can do all of these things and you don't have to tell CA about it (possibly not even AOWs if you have the right trust).

franklinarmory
04-19-2011, 9:25 PM
I have not published the letter yet, but we will post it during the first week in May. Honestly there are some bright minds here on calguns that have already covered the pertinent details and how it applies in ca. The letter is interesting to read, but really the only other major points noted by Mr. Spencer are 1) if you take the fvg off you then have a pistol, and 2) don't conceal the firearm. (...and if you do, you need an aow stamp.)

I have to tell you that comments from the 2a section got me thinking about this in the first place. It's nice to contribute to the cause.

franklinarmory
04-19-2011, 9:44 PM
Would love to see this as a NYC legal firearm not applying as a rifle for the AWB or a pistol. Being a pistol permit holder and a shotgun/rifle permit holder this would be awesome....

We will be shipping the xo-26 to other jurisdictions, where legal. I imagine most states will not require these to ship on a pistol frame nor need a BB. Send me a PM and we can configure it accordingly to clear it through you doj.

IncVoid
04-20-2011, 5:36 AM
Note that the barrel length has to be less than 16" and the overall length needs to be greater than 26", in order for the Feds to consider it a Title 1 "other" firearm and CA to consider it a "handgun".

Hope I grasp this right. Federal paperwork (4473) says it's OTHER. California DROS says it's a pistol.

Can people with Single shot pistols that were brought into California as handguns on the 4473 and DROS'd as handguns be converted between OTHER and HANDGUN without paperwork or notifying ATF?

Basically goto the range and slap on an upper that makes it >26inches overall, and play with or without Vertical forward grips then head home and not worry about updating paperwork? If not, then I can see how getting a naked receiver as OTHER and PISTOL in ca would have its benefits.

I understand it has to be brought into california as less than 16 inch barrel. But I did read somewhere in 12001(a) that if it has a longer than 16inches barrel but designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16inches, is still considered a pistol.

But that is for penal code. Not DROS guidelines right? I'm scrambled here.
It appears they can say it's a pistol with a barrel greater than 16inches. Designed/intended to be concealed.

Also:
Major points noted by Mr. Spencer are 1) if you take the fvg off you then have a pistol, and 2) don't conceal the firearm. (...and if you do, you need an aow stamp.)

What was said about going from "OTHER" to pistol? Is that the same as making a pistol out of a rifle :(

Basically do we have freedom to make our pistols into OTHERs? and back?
Are OTHERs locked legally into OTHERs and/or rifles? not pistols?
Federally?
State wise?

Is this the what everybody is asking but nobody will ask atf or doj about?

Not concealing meaning no under the blazer jacket holster contraptions?
Basically don't treat it as a pistol?

I have no intention of doing this anyway until there are lots of memos floating around, and a defended case...sadly.
Last thing ya need.

franklinarmory
04-22-2011, 10:16 AM
Hope I grasp this right. Federal paperwork (4473) says it's OTHER. California DROS says it's a pistol.


Yes on above.

Switching from "pistol" to "other" under federal law will probably not be an issue since both classes require the buyer to be 21 or over. However, I suspect that a letter of determination will be required to know for sure. OTOH, I would not recommend any out of state buyers switching from "other" to "pistol" if their state law has any registration that is pistol specific. In Ca, we won't have a problem with that since ALL XO-26s sold in state will be registered as pistols.

timdps
04-22-2011, 10:50 AM
Is it possible that BATFE rolled over on this issue so they would not have to admit to this:

The NFA further defines the term “any other weapon” (AOW) as any weapon or device...
Such term shall not include a pistol or revolver having a rifled bore...


From: http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/archive/index.php/t-409682.html

"People need to read the NFA AOW definition closely and stop allowing a provenly abusive prosecuting authority (BATFE) to tell you what they want the law to say instead of what it really says.

The NFA further defines the term “any other weapon” (AOW) as any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e).


A pistol can't be an AOW if it has a rifled bore. It says so right there in the definition.

United States v. Fix firmly smacks down the ATF on this.

Fix argues that the government did not prove the Calico Liberty III, found during a search of his home and business, was a weapon that required registration. Fix was convicted under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) of possession of an unregistered firearm. In a related provision, "firearm" is defined by a list of eight weapons and a catchall provision of "any other weapon." See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a). "Any other weapon" includes "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive," but not "a pistol . . . having a rifled bore . . ." See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). Weapons not included in the definition of firearm in § 5845 need not be registered under § 5861(d). Fix argues that his Calico was a pistol, met the exception in § 5845(e), and did not need to be registered under § 5861.

We agree that the Government failed to prove a violation of § 5861(d) for two reasons.

First, the weapon does not fit the definition required by the statute. The provision defining "pistol" for the purposes of the statute is 27 C.F.R. § 179.11, which defines a pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand . . . ." The government argues that because the Calico was modified to be fired with two hands, it "falls out" of the definition of pistol and falls back into the definition of "any other weapon" in § 5845. This argument ignores the definition's requirement that the weapon be capable of being held with one hand at the time it was originally designed and made. As written, this definition does not consider modifications of the weapon by the owner. The Calico was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip.

Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in §§ 5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore. We assume that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons. A sawed off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun. The Government's witness stated that the Calico Liberty III had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered "any other weapon."

Accordingly, the conviction on Count V must be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence. "

franklinarmory
04-22-2011, 12:36 PM
I agree that the AOW definitions appear incongruous with the common interpretations. For instance, why should an UZI with a secondary grip be an AOW? However, our attorney, the local ATF agent, and many others have said that the XO-26 could be defined as an AOW if it was not approved by the Firearms Technology Branch. Perhaps there is another level of detail, court cases, or even executive orders that have led up to that interpretation in federal law.

To be honest, we have had so much to deal with in order to comply with state regulations, that this is our first chance to work on a project that has advanced the 2A opportunities on a federal level. My personal belief is that Mr. Spencer is a patriot for responding the way he did.

IncVoid
04-22-2011, 7:17 PM
@franklinarmory Have you sent a letter to the tech branch asking about the PISTOL to OTHER and back conversion?

@timdps
U.S. vs. Fix seems to imply that adding a foregrip to any pisto originally designed for one handed use seems legal then.
Since all/most pistols would seem designed to be fired with one hand, or that's the definition then.

Most people shoots with both hands on a pistol anyway.
I don't see how they can make it illegal to shoot a pistol with two hands. Every video I've seen or book on proper shooting technique shows one hand supporting the other.

I always get scared when I think of them adding Syntax to AOW and pistol or even AW definitions. They'd make it where "mis-using" an attachment rail that wasn't designed to have a "grip" is illegal. Meant for lasers and lights only :(. Hopefully we never see that.

Weird how we can bring a single shot pistol and turn it into a semi-auto legally.
But cannot turn a 10/30 magazine into a 30 once we bring it into california
California seems to have it's laws worded more tightly than the federal level on a similar issue.


ATF should just allow pistols to have forward grips.
It doesn't seem that it would stop californians from getting their pistols into CA, AW rules apply, and California re-interprets everything.

franklinarmory
04-22-2011, 7:31 PM
@franklinarmory Have you sent a letter to the tech branch asking about the PISTOL to OTHER and back conversion?

Nope. Not as of yet.

They still have our test sample that they used to approve the configuration. If they don't send it back soon, I'll send in a request in writing and I'll bring up that topic.

timdps
04-22-2011, 11:05 PM
The big deal about U.S. vs. Fix is only smoothbores can be AOWs. Anything with a rifled barrel is specifically exempt from being an AOW, so adding a front grip to a handgun should NOT trigger AOW status.

Its not a fight that needs to be fought now, but someday...

Tim


@franklinarmory Have you sent a letter to the tech branch asking about the PISTOL to OTHER and back conversion?

@timdps
U.S. vs. Fix seems to imply that adding a foregrip to any pisto originally designed for one handed use seems legal then.
Since all/most pistols would seem designed to be fired with one hand, or that's the definition then.

Most people shoots with both hands on a pistol anyway.
I don't see how they can make it illegal to shoot a pistol with two hands. Every video I've seen or book on proper shooting technique shows one hand supporting the other.

I always get scared when I think of them adding Syntax to AOW and pistol or even AW definitions. They'd make it where "mis-using" an attachment rail that wasn't designed to have a "grip" is illegal. Meant for lasers and lights only :(. Hopefully we never see that.

Weird how we can bring a single shot pistol and turn it into a semi-auto legally.
But cannot turn a 10/30 magazine into a 30 once we bring it into california
California seems to have it's laws worded more tightly than the federal level on a similar issue.


ATF should just allow pistols to have forward grips.
It doesn't seem that it would stop californians from getting their pistols into CA, AW rules apply, and California re-interprets everything.

IncVoid
04-22-2011, 11:39 PM
From what I read or how I read it is that they(fed/atf) don't consider a pistol with a 2nd grip a "pistol" anymore. They detail that pistols/revolvers with rifling, shoulder fired firearms. Almost as if that

But the argument against that is that it was still "designed" to be shot with one hand, even tho it isn't "used" that way.

When is it no longer a pistol etc.

Just to try to argue. I hope this is correct.

Even though it has a rifled barrel, it isn't a "pistol with rifling". It is "something" else with rifling. Exempt "rifled bores" means that having two barrels like a derringer isn't considered an AOW, or all barrels must be rifled to be exempt.. Shoulder fired rifles exempt, but the XO-26 isn't shoulder fired.
Since the XO-26 isn't a pistol, or shoulder fired, it would be an AOW, if it was concealable(<26 inches).

The XO-26's non ability to be concealed is what "pops" it out of the AOW Category.
The 2nd grip is what "pops" it out of the pistol category.
The lack of a shoulder fired design and shoulder stock "pops" it out of the rifle category.
Non-shoulder fired, Non-concealable, 2 handed Firearm. It is a "Title 1 OTHER firearm" if I read the other forum correctly.

If that is how the tech branch is looking at it.

*edit*
removed my "I wish" "why can't they" stuff.

But in any case I guess we wait to see what the XO-26 can do legally. Pop in and out of the pistol category(concealable), while staying out of the rifle and AOW category.

ke6guj
04-23-2011, 10:41 AM
The big deal about U.S. vs. Fix is only smoothbores can be AOWs. Anything with a rifled barrel is specifically exempt from being an AOW, so adding a front grip to a handgun should NOT trigger AOW status.

Its not a fight that needs to be fought now, but someday...

Tim

I don't think tht is entirely correct. Pen guns, cane guns, etc, have rifled bores and are AOWs, because they aren't considered pistols.

If it isn't designed to be fired with one hand, with a stock at an angle to the bore, then it doesn't meet the definition of a pistol. I think the court was wrong to say that "anything with a rifled bore can't be an AOW", but did they actually say that. I've never seen the official opinion, I've only seen 3rd hand reports about it. Does anybody have a link to the official opinion?

timdps
04-23-2011, 12:43 PM
I have not been able to find the whole opinion, but below is a quote from the opinion. It seems pretty straightforward. I'm not a legal guy, but it appears to me that this needs to be at least looked into and explored.

Tim

"Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in §§ 5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore. We assume that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons. A sawed off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun. The Government's witness stated that the Calico Liberty III had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered "any other weapon."

Accordingly, the conviction on Count V must be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence. "


I don't think tht is entirely correct. Pen guns, cane guns, etc, have rifled bores and are AOWs, because they aren't considered pistols.

If it isn't designed to be fired with one hand, with a stock at an angle to the bore, then it doesn't meet the definition of a pistol. I think the court was wrong to say that "anything with a rifled bore can't be an AOW", but did they actually say that. I've never seen the official opinion, I've only seen 3rd hand reports about it. Does anybody have a link to the official opinion?

ke6guj
04-23-2011, 2:45 PM
"Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in §§ 5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore. We assume that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons. A sawed off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun. The Government's witness stated that the Calico Liberty III had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered "any other weapon."

Accordingly, the conviction on Count V must be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence. "But the defintion of an AOW does not say that. It says that all concealable firearms are AOWs, with a few defined exemptions. The definition exempts pistols and revolvers with rifled bores. It does not say that all firearms with rifled bores are excluded. that is why pen guns and other gadget guns, even if rifled bore, are considered AOWs, because they don't meet the definition of a pistol or revolver.

El Gato
04-25-2011, 4:47 PM
Shot one... last week...7.62 cal....

Ummmmm interesting....

was able to fire very accurate double taps at 7 yards virtually on top of each other...the gun didn't like tula... probably a magazine issue... FO says it's fine with brass american ammo...it hated tula...wouldn't feed reliably... they say they are working on it and have improved the whole system and optimized it for 7.62x39...me... hmm... I could shoot it well... and fast... and maybe with an eotech on it which it had ... I could shoot it really good and fast... maybe not hit the A zone at 300 meters fast like my colt 6940... but maybe good enough for home defense.. if it had ammo it liked... like maybe corbon's disintegratin' 7.62 load... if it worked... and I had the money... the cool factor is an extra ten points for sure...really... really easy to manipulate... and unlike pistol grip shotguns.. you put the foam covered extension up to the cheek and fire... nice... really interesting and nice and expensive and it hates tula....

that's about it...:D

ONE more thing... I think maybe... with like a light on it.. and maybe like an aimpoint/eotech etc... it would make a really good home defense gun cause most people who think they can shoot a handgun can't really shoot as well as they think and this baby can be shot well ... like a rifle and it's short like a handgun.. sort of and if you are going to use it for self defense... keep a set of earmuffs handy... but it's only 10 rounds...?.... if you have a fight in your house that lasts longer than 10 well aimed rounds... that's a big fight... and do the math please... every shot you miss with has a lawyer attached to it.. and sometimes a baby mama lawyer to boot...

franklinarmory
04-25-2011, 6:00 PM
Shot one... last week...7.62 cal....

Ummmmm interesting....

was able to fire very accurate double taps at 7 yards virtually on top of each other...the gun didn't like tula... probably a magazine issue... FO says it's fine with brass american ammo...it hated tula...wouldn't feed reliably... they say they are working on it and have improved the whole system and optimized it for 7.62x39...

I have to admit that I was surprised that the XO-26 was sputtering with the Tula 7.62x39. The biggest problem was EXTREMELY hard primers. The primer was hit and simply didn't ignite. We use the MGI Reliability Enhancement System on the 7.62x39 XO-26s. Even so, Wolf ignition rates have been 95%+. That's not good enough to bet your life on, but with quality American ammo, ignition rates are absolutely reliable. The Tula ammo used during this demo only ignited an unacceptable 70% of the time. :( It is obviously harder than the Wolf product and not recommended.

My advice would be to stick with good American fodder, or quality foreign stuff like S&B, Norma, etc. We have been sure to tell every Franklin Armory dealer this as well.

El Gato
04-25-2011, 11:38 PM
I have to admit that I was surprised that the XO-26 was sputtering with the Tula 7.62x39. The biggest problem was EXTREMELY hard primers. The primer was hit and simply didn't ignite. We use the MGI Reliability Enhancement System on the 7.62x39 XO-26s. Even so, Wolf ignition rates have been 95%+. That's not good enough to bet your life on, but with quality American ammo, ignition rates are absolutely reliable. The Tula ammo used during this demo only ignited an unacceptable 70% of the time. :( It is obviously harder than the Wolf product and not recommended.

My advice would be to stick with good American fodder, or quality foreign stuff like S&B, Norma, etc. We have been sure to tell every Franklin Armory dealer this as well.

Which is the point really... I'm not generally going to rely on wolf/tula/sb for home defense in a compressed environment... I don't live in a trailer park but I can't imagine fmj in a trailer park and corbon makes a really cool round I would definately try for sd for any rifle or whatever in compressed home owner self defense environments...

http://www.shopcorbon.com/Multi-Purpose-Green-Ammunition/7.62x39-108gr-MPG/MPG76239108-20/7100/Productf


so the mpg bullet might not give me more miles per gallon... but I'm reasonably certain it will give me more reliable non overpenetrating ammo....in a 7.62 rifle in my home... where I have people I care about and I actually like my neighbors...

franklinarmory
04-26-2011, 6:51 AM
I'll order some from corbon today and report back after I test it.

tenpercentfirearms
04-26-2011, 8:32 AM
I'll order some from corbon today and report back after I test it.

I have ordered and shot a bit of Corbon DPX since the lead ban. In my limited use I like it a lot. I shot a hell of a group out my Stag Model 7 using Corbon 6.8 SPC. Like a 1" 10 shot group. Seriously awesome.

The Corbon .380 DPX shoots great out of my Diamondback DB380 and I have actually killed a couple of squirrels with the 135 grain .40 S&W DPX.

I would recommend at least trying Corbon DPX in any gun you want to shoot if you have a need for non-lead ammo.

edit: Also I was just cruising through some of the threads. What is the talk about not concealing your AOW about? Is there a reason I can't put an AOW on a CCW permit?

Blackhawk556
04-26-2011, 5:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpFxiUSd8c
can we get better quality video? :)

12voltguy
04-26-2011, 7:35 PM
Which is the point really... I'm not generally going to rely on wolf/tula/sb for home defense in a compressed environment... I don't live in a trailer park but I can't imagine fmj in a trailer park and corbon makes a really cool round I would definately try for sd for any rifle or whatever in compressed home owner self defense environments...

http://www.shopcorbon.com/Multi-Purpose-Green-Ammunition/7.62x39-108gr-MPG/MPG76239108-20/7100/Productf


so the mpg bullet might not give me more miles per gallon... but I'm reasonably certain it will give me more reliable non overpenetrating ammo....in a 7.62 rifle in my home... where I have people I care about and I actually like my neighbors...

is this the gun you want to explain to a jury why you used for home defence?:43:
I wouldn't
I don't sleep with my mac 10, I have a glock & Kahr & a few others for HD work

El Gato
04-26-2011, 8:04 PM
I have ordered and shot a bit of Corbon DPX since the lead ban. In my limited use I like it a lot. I shot a hell of a group out my Stag Model 7 using Corbon 6.8 SPC. Like a 1" 10 shot group. Seriously awesome.

The Corbon .380 DPX shoots great out of my Diamondback DB380 and I have actually killed a couple of squirrels with the 135 grain .40 S&W DPX.

I would recommend at least trying Corbon DPX in any gun you want to shoot if you have a need for non-lead ammo.

edit: Also I was just cruising through some of the threads. What is the talk about not concealing your AOW about? Is there a reason I can't put an AOW on a CCW permit?


Not sure I would use dpx 7.62 in my home... but the mpg is like a varmit bullet which should work pretty well on the two legged varmits along with the other coyotes...

Oh... yeah....not a problem... umm... you might have to wear long pants though...or carry it in a really big man bag


:cool2:

El Gato
04-26-2011, 8:08 PM
is this the gun you want to explain to a jury why you used for home defence?:43:
I wouldn't
I don't sleep with my mac 10, I have a glock & Kahr & a few others for HD work

as long as it isn't classified as a machine gun.. I don't have any issues with explaining it for a client... call me ... dueces tecum and away we go... I've been on the stand and had to skin the rabbit... and there is more than one way to do that... and it's got a frieakin' bullet button... so... geez a fixed magazine fixed round count can't reload it for squat gun that I can hit what I'm aim'n at and am less likely to miss and the bullets are less likely to penetrate into my neighbors and their livin' space and it ain't likely to go bang if I drop it with an operating system almost exactly like the current US military issue only made light for civie and with a really good "safety" as if a gun was safe..any gun...and that's the point really... it isn't supposed to be safe and that's why I would buy it... but I won't personally because I don't have that sort of cash right now.. so I've got a couple of AK's etc.and am happy with the benelli right now ... I'm thinkin' I wouldn't have have alot of trouble explaining the choice...

12voltguy
04-26-2011, 8:28 PM
as long as it isn't classified as a machine gun.. I don't have any issues with explaining it for a client... call me ... dueces tecum and away we go... I've been on the stand and had to skin the rabbit... and there is more than one way to do that... and it's got a frieakin' bullet button... so... geez a fixed magazine fixed round count can't reload it for squat gun that I can hit what I'm aim'n at and am less likely to miss and the bullets are less likely to penetrate into my neighbors and their livin' space and it ain't likely to go bang if I drop it with an operating system almost exactly like the current US military issue only made light for civie and with a really good "safety" as if a gun was safe..any gun...and that's the point really... it isn't supposed to be safe and that's why I would buy it... but I won't personally because I don't have that sort of cash right now.. so I've got a couple of AK's etc.and am happy with the benelli right now ... I'm thinkin' I wouldn't have have alot of trouble explaining the choice...

I think the DA would paint a very different picture:eek::(
I have several AR pistols & these look way evil compared to a handgun:D

Not saying I don't like these, I do...I just wouldn't use one for HD, not that I have every had a breakin, but it could happen

El Gato
04-26-2011, 8:35 PM
I think the DA would paint a very different picture:eek::(
I have several AR pistols & these look way evil compared to a handgun:D

Not saying I don't like these, I do...I just wouldn't use one for HD, not that I have every had a breakin, but it could happen

Well....that would depend upon if SHE had one like it...and was jealous...:eek:....if not she wouldn't really care WHAT I shot 'em with but weather or not the the goblin had the ability to kill/cripple - a victim was in danger of being killed or crippled - and if the goblin had the opportunity as to space and time to complete the heinous act... which is what mattered and not what I "felt" about it but what the facts and evidence is/was as John Adams said a few years ago...

o “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. – John Adams, 1773 (summation of the Boston Massacre Case)


but we is talkin' Kern county here...not like San Fran or some such...:rolleyes:

tenpercentfirearms
04-26-2011, 11:20 PM
If someone breaks into my home, I don't care what I shoot them with. I am just going to shoot them. If the bullet travels through, it travels though. I am not going to have time nor care, I just want them to stop their actions and the sooner the better.

MAILMAN187
07-18-2011, 5:48 PM
so, i can put my fwd pistol grip back on my amd-65 pistol! awesome! now it will look right.

wash
07-18-2011, 6:01 PM
First you need to get a letter from the BATFe tech branch and make sure it is over 26" long.

In theory you are right but in practice you need that letter until this is a common non-AOW configuration.

MAILMAN187
07-18-2011, 6:12 PM
OK! thanks. thats what i wanted someone to say....

timdps
07-20-2011, 10:37 AM
Trying to figure out how this would work (hypothetically) from the AK side, starting with a Draco pistol. Draco is 20 3/8" long without a muzzle device, there is no buffer tube length to play with and adding anything to the rear of the gun will probably invoke SBR status.

This means that the required 5 5/8"+ of length will need to be added to the front end. The barrel of my Draco is 11 3/8" (Fed measurement), so permanently attaching a muzzle device or barrel extension 5 5/8" long takes the barrel to 17", which is too long for this (CA pistol) project.

Other than adding a bayonet, The only thing I see that will work is adding a non-permanently attached muzzle device that adds the required 5 5/8"+ to the length. Do the Feds measure OAL with non-permanent muzzle devices attached? I would assume so.

This will get into the issue of whether a pistol can be converted to "other" and then back to pistol again, since either state can be achieved by simply removing/adding non-permanent parts.

Thoughts?

Tim

wash
07-20-2011, 11:04 AM
Since it is not a rifle, there is no requirement to have a fixed barrel, there is no minimum length.

Theoretically, you could use a clamp on fake can if you wanted but you still need that BATFe Tech branch letter before you go out and do it.

CHS
07-20-2011, 12:41 PM
Other than adding a bayonet, The only thing I see that will work is adding a non-permanently attached muzzle device that adds the required 5 5/8"+ to the length. Do the Feds measure OAL with non-permanent muzzle devices attached? I would assume so.


OAL takes into account non-permanently attached devices, yes.


This will get into the issue of whether a pistol can be converted to "other" and then back to pistol again, since either state can be achieved by simply removing/adding non-permanent parts.


An other can be converted into a pistol legally, so I don't see why a pistol can't go to an "other", legally. In fact, many AR pistols are ACTUALLY already technically "others" rather than pistols since they hit the 26" OAL so easily with the receiver extensions.

morrcarr67
07-20-2011, 2:20 PM
An other can be converted into a pistol legally, so I don't see why a pistol can't go to an "other", legally. In fact, many AR pistols are ACTUALLY already technically "others" rather than pistols since they hit the 26" OAL so easily with the receiver extensions.

Right so if you already have a legal AR pistol of >26" with a barrel of <16" you now are able to put on a VFG thanks to the work of FA.

Thanks again FA for all your work.

wash
07-20-2011, 2:32 PM
I would still urge AR15 pistol owners to exercise caution. The fact that an item is theoretically legal does not mean it can't cause a whole lot of headaches for you later.

My personal opinion is that no one should push this boundary until they get that BATFe Tech Branch letter unless they buy an XO-26 or they get a copy of Franklin's BATFe letter and make an exact copy of an XO-26.

We don't want a bunch of people arrested for guns that should be legal and then have BATFe change their mind on the topic.

They have already don't that once, with Thompson Contenders and SBR constructive possession.

ptoguy2002
07-20-2011, 2:46 PM
Trying to figure out how this would work (hypothetically) from the AK side, starting with a Draco pistol. Draco is 20 3/8" long without a muzzle device, there is no buffer tube length to play with and adding anything to the rear of the gun will probably invoke SBR status.

This means that the required 5 5/8"+ of length will need to be added to the front end. The barrel of my Draco is 11 3/8" (Fed measurement), so permanently attaching a muzzle device or barrel extension 5 5/8" long takes the barrel to 17", which is too long for this (CA pistol) project.

Other than adding a bayonet, The only thing I see that will work is adding a non-permanently attached muzzle device that adds the required 5 5/8"+ to the length. Do the Feds measure OAL with non-permanent muzzle devices attached? I would assume so.

This will get into the issue of whether a pistol can be converted to "other" and then back to pistol again, since either state can be achieved by simply removing/adding non-permanent parts.

Thoughts?

Tim

HUM, I wonder if an AMD-65 will fit the dimensions???

timdps
07-20-2011, 2:49 PM
Theoretically, you could use a clamp on fake can if you wanted but you still need that BATFe Tech branch letter before you go out and do it.

Absolutely! Will have a letter before building anything.

Was "planning out a route, we (might) take real soon."

Wanted to get the easy questions sorted out before sending a letter.

762.DEFENSE
07-20-2011, 4:42 PM
Sorry for my concern. I guess I have just been taught that if it looks like it is something I would want, it is likely illegal or one step away from illegal.

I'll get over it, I'm learning. Thanks.

So this transfers as an "other" on the federal form, does it transfer as a pistol on the state form?

Sadly that's the CA mentality. :pinch:

walmart_ar15
07-20-2011, 7:11 PM
They have already don't that once, with Thompson Contenders and SBR constructive possession.

Didn't US Supreme Court ruled in TC case, no constructive possession?

wash
07-20-2011, 7:27 PM
For the Contender, yes but if you have a <16" AR upper with a rifle AR lower and no pistol AR lower, they consider that SBR constructive possession.

So in a Conterder's case; no, in an AR's case; yes.

walmart_ar15
07-20-2011, 11:32 PM
In the TC case, Supreme Court just affirmed the lower courts ruling, and the lower courts ruling suggests that "make" of a SBR needs to be physically put together. Just possession of parts does not meet the NFA requirement unlike MG and silencers? See "924 F.2d 1041"

CHS
07-20-2011, 11:35 PM
In the TC case, Supreme Court just affirmed the lower courts ruling, and the lower courts ruling suggests that "make" of a SBR needs to be physically put together. Just possession of parts does not meet the NFA requirement unlike MG and silencers? See "924 F.2d 1041"

Correct. Unfortunately I think that precedent is only binding to that circuit.

But yeah, the court said that constructive possession was stupid regarding SBR's. They said that you would have to look at the actual physical configuration of the firearm at the time of determination.

Wish we could get that as law :(

tacticalcity
07-21-2011, 11:32 AM
I had to read all the posts a few times then pull up the Franklin Armory website to get a grasp on the definitions.

The key part of this discussion is that the "pistol" is a single shot, ie the model Self Extracting - SINGLE SHOT PISTOL or SE-SSP.

I kept assuming that it was a semi auto center fire, the pistols are not! They are single shot.

Which does NOT mean what you think it means.

That is just for the purposes of processing the DROS under the single shot exemption rule here in California. If they were not single shot during the transfer period then they would need be listed on the Safe Handgun Roster. Getting on the roster requires the manufacturer to send in a sample to the California DOJ and paying them to evaluate it. The way around that roster is the single shot exemption. The dealer temporarily modifies the weapon to be single shot. Those modifcations can be legally undone by the owner once the transfer is complete.

Usually they make it single shot by putting a bullet button on it and then providing a magazine that holds only 1 round. Once your 10 day waiting period is over you replace the single shot magazine with a 10 round magazine. The action itself is still semi-auto. So it will function like any other bullet button equiped AR from that point on.

tacticalcity
07-21-2011, 11:38 AM
While I truly appriciate the leg work on this, posting your comments WITHOUT posting the letter is NOT doing anybody a favor. 90% of the bickering and back and forth here would NOT be happening if you had simply posted the letter. What's the hold up?

If the had a smilie that read: USELESS WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION it would go here.

Not trying to be rude, but post the darn ATF letter already!

(Pretty please.) ;)

franklinarmory
07-21-2011, 11:56 AM
While I truly appriciate the leg work on this, posting your comments WITHOUT posting the letter is NOT doing anybody a favor. 90% of the bickering and back and forth here would NOT be happening if you had simply posted the letter. What's the hold up?

If the had a smilie that read: USELESS WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION it would go here.

Not trying to be rude, but post the darn ATF letter already!

(Pretty please.) ;)

Our letter has been on the website for about two months. Go to the "products" page. www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html Just click on the link that is underlined and says "ATF LETTER" BTW, we have sent a follow up letter to ATF, and we are still waiting to hear back. It has been about 2 months now. I'm sure it's coming any day now. We also introduced a lesser expensive variant that retails for $1149.99.

Thank you for pointing out the transfer regulations and the fact that the end user is able to install a ten round magazine. Some people have held off buying one of these because of the concern about installing a legal mag after the fact. The other challenge has been to show people how to shoot it, so we added some videos on the website to demonstrate that it is best to index the firearm off the cheekbone instead of scrunching up and shooting from the shoulder. Some people don't like the buffer tube, but it really provides a good third point of contact when shooting. It also makes it easier to get to +26" OAL.

dfletcher
07-21-2011, 12:11 PM
In the TC case, Supreme Court just affirmed the lower courts ruling, and the lower courts ruling suggests that "make" of a SBR needs to be physically put together. Just possession of parts does not meet the NFA requirement unlike MG and silencers? See "924 F.2d 1041"

The Court stated that because a legally configured firearm other than an SBR could be assembled from the parts present a tax stamp was not required to possess the unassmbled parts. The analogy the court used was that of a bicycle. If all one had were the disassembled parts of a bicycle, and a bicycle is prohibited, it is reasonable to conclude that only a bicycle can be the end result. However if the parts present allow for the final result of a bicycle, a tricycle and a unicycle, the tricycle and unicycle being legal, then a violation does not exist so long as the parts are unassembled.

ptoguy2002
07-21-2011, 12:12 PM
Not trying to be rude, but post the darn ATF letter already!

(Pretty please.) ;)

Letter is here: http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf

ke6guj
07-21-2011, 12:19 PM
The Court stated that because a legally configured firearm other than an SBR could be assembled from the parts present a tax stamp was not required to possess the unassmbled parts. The analogy the court used was that of a bicycle. If all one had were the disassembled parts of a bicycle, and a bicycle is prohibited, it is reasonable to conclude that only a bicycle can be the end result. However if the parts present allow for the final result of a bicycle, a tricycle and a unicycle, the tricycle and unicycle being legal, then a violation does not exist so long as the parts are unassembled.

exactly, and they did not rule that you could convert back and forth between a unicycle (pistol) and a tricycle (rifle), just that the kit was legal.

tacticalcity
07-21-2011, 12:21 PM
Letter is here: http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf

Thank you!

dfletcher
07-21-2011, 12:23 PM
For the Contender, yes but if you have a <16" AR upper with a rifle AR lower and no pistol AR lower, they consider that SBR constructive possession.

So in a Contender's case; no, in an AR's case; yes.

I'll leave some wiggle room by saying I could be out of date, I hope I'm not reading interchangeability into something that allows for a one time configuration only.

If one has only a shoulder stocked Contender with a +16" barrel attached and a barrel fewer than 16" (not attached) that would be constructive possession of an SBR, same as with an AR.

ATF recently issued a letter, it's been posted here but I keep losing the damn thing, stating "kits" containing all the parts required to assemble a legally configured long gun and handgun are legal, no stamp. That a kit containing a single receiver, a shoulder stock, a handgun stock, a +16" bbl and and a -16" bbl would allow for configuration from handgun to long gun and back and no SBR. This is not unique to T/C, ATF says it can be done with other kits too.

beebenorwalk
07-21-2011, 2:32 PM
what are the laws of adding a buttstock to this gun.

ke6guj
07-21-2011, 2:35 PM
what are the laws of adding a buttstock to this gun.

it turns it into an illegal SBR and probably an illegal AW as well.

walmart_ar15
07-21-2011, 3:08 PM
If one has only a shoulder stocked Contender with a +16" barrel attached and a barrel fewer than 16" (not attached) that would be constructive possession of an SBR, same as with an AR.



If the shoulder stocked Contender was "orginally" a rifle. Prob not true if the say Contender is "orginally" a pistol.

NFA defines clearly what is a "rifle" and was is a "pistol". And if "924 F.2d 1041" is binding, then final assembled weapon defines what cataglory it is in.

"924 F.2d 1041" was sent to the Supreme Court because it caused a circuit split frm the 9th. SC affirmed the ruling for "924 F.2d 1041" based on leniency due to the conflict language in NFA and the penality for NFA (a tax clause) is felony. Nevertheless, SC affirmed the ruling for the definition of "make" in the NFA "SBR" language.

Since SC affirmed the ruling, shouldn't it be now apply to all 50 states and circuits?

Not advocating to push the envelope here, just interesting discussion.

dfletcher
07-21-2011, 4:11 PM
If the shoulder stocked Contender was "orginally" a rifle. Prob not true if the say Contender is "orginally" a pistol.

NFA defines clearly what is a "rifle" and was is a "pistol". And if "924 F.2d 1041" is binding, then final assembled weapon defines what cataglory it is in.

"924 F.2d 1041" was sent to the Supreme Court because it caused a circuit split frm the 9th. SC affirmed the ruling for "924 F.2d 1041" based on leniency due to the conflict language in NFA and the penality for NFA (a tax clause) is felony. Nevertheless, SC affirmed the ruling for the definition of "make" in the NFA "SBR" language.

Since SC affirmed the ruling, shouldn't it be now apply to all 50 states and circuits?

Not advocating to push the envelope here, just interesting discussion.

Makes no difference. If a handgun subsequently has a shoulder stock and barrel attached it becomes and must remain a long gun. That it may have been originally configured as a handgun has no effect. I'd suspect there are several thousand Contenders and Encores that have been switched about.

I believe the act of reconfiguring violates law, that the firearm is in its handgun state supports that the reconfiguration occured.

walmart_ar15
07-21-2011, 6:20 PM
What's the difference between

ATF recently issued a letter, it's been posted here but I keep losing the damn thing, stating "kits" containing all the parts required to assemble a legally configured long gun and handgun are legal, no stamp. That a kit containing a single receiver, a shoulder stock, a handgun stock, a +16" bbl and and a -16" bbl would allow for configuration from handgun to long gun and back and no SBR. This is not unique to T/C, ATF says it can be done with other kits too.

And

Makes no difference. If a handgun subsequently has a shoulder stock and barrel attached it becomes and must remain a long gun. That it may have been originally configured as a handgun has no effect. I'd suspect there are several thousand Contenders and Encores that have been switched about.

I believe the act of reconfiguring violates law, that the firearm is in its handgun state supports that the reconfiguration occured.

and do you know of a court case where the ruling states that one cannot return a pistol from its rifle configuration back to a pistol? Or is it just something from ATF interpretation? (which are known to be not exactly adhere to the letter of the law from time to time) Kinda hard to suggest it is ok for T/C pistol but not for other pistol.

Court cases can be interesting reading to pass freetime.:sleeping:

dfletcher
07-21-2011, 6:42 PM
^^^
I agree, end result - no difference. But for whatever reason ATF issued their letter stating that if one buys a kit they can do the reconfigurations. ATF's letter from about 2009 asserted only those T/C kits from about 1992 were eligible, I think that position was untenable and ATF now states any such kit has that reconfiguration ability. But, if you buy parts over a period of years you can not reconfigure. I don't follow the logic, I think technology has outpaced the law on this subject because unlike years ago when reconfiguring meant a hacksaw or a gunsmith now you or I can do it with a screwdriver.

Here it is from another Calguns thread - note ATF's detailed answer to question #3:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=227314

I don't know of a court case and I know some view ATF letters as unimportant, but it seems to me they're all we have to go on.

Again, I think technology has thrown a kink into the old rules and that there are nationwide many, many thousands of AR, AK and T/C "long guns" configured as handguns.

franklinarmory
08-08-2011, 4:54 PM
Last week, ATF-FTB Chief Spencer told me in person that it would be completely legal under Federal law to convert an XO-26 from "other" to "pistol" and back again if one so chooses. He said that his office is currently processing my letter though.

morrcarr67
08-08-2011, 5:45 PM
Last week, ATF-FTB Chief Spencer told me in person that it would be completely legal under Federal law to convert an XO-26 from "other" to "pistol" and back again if one so chooses. He said that his office is currently processing my letter though.

Very Nice :cool:

Thank you again for all you have done with these.

Anchors
08-08-2011, 7:32 PM
So theoretically. You could take a NORMAL bullet-buttoned AR style rifle.
Replace the buttstock with a pistol buffer tube.
And remove your bullet button (and add a forward grip if you really feel like it).

If the barrel is over 16" and it has no shoulder stock, then it is good?

Very interesting. Makes perfect sense really.

morrcarr67
08-08-2011, 8:39 PM
So theoretically. You could take a NORMAL bullet-buttoned AR style rifle.
Replace the buttstock with a pistol buffer tube.
And remove your bullet button (and add a forward grip if you really feel like it).

If the barrel is over 16" and it has no shoulder stock, then it is good?

Very interesting. Makes perfect sense really.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure you'll still need a BB.

franklinarmory
08-09-2011, 9:07 AM
So theoretically. You could take a NORMAL bullet-buttoned AR style rifle.
Replace the buttstock with a pistol buffer tube.
And remove your bullet button (and add a forward grip if you really feel like it).

If the barrel is over 16" and it has no shoulder stock, then it is good?

Very interesting. Makes perfect sense really.
I would not start with a rifle. Given ATF Ruling 2011-4, you are more confined in what you can ultimately do. Starting with a pistol gives you the most flexibility. With a pistol, you can modify to an XO-26 "other," a Title I "other" (as per your description above,) or a rifle.

I have seen people make Title 1 firearms with standard magazine releases because they have a 16" barrel without a stock. The Title I should be AW compliant because it is not defined as a rifle nor a pistol. It also does not fall under the 12001PC definition of a handgun. However, I would hate to try to explain it during a traffic stop.

Spaceghost
08-09-2011, 11:07 AM
Extreme difficulty in talking yourself out of trouble with a weapon configured as you described is exactly the reason I have not built one myself. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean I want to risk imprisonment and thousands of dollars in legal fees just to prove it is....


I would not start with a rifle. Given ATF Ruling 2011-4, you are more confined in what you can ultimately do. Starting with a pistol gives you the most flexibility. With a pistol, you can modify to an XO-26 "other," a Title I "other" (as per your description above,) or a rifle.

I have seen people make Title 1 firearms with standard magazine releases because they have a 16" barrel without a stock. The Title I should be AW compliant because it is not defined as a rifle nor a pistol. It also does not fall under the 12001PC definition of a handgun. However, I would hate to try to explain it during a traffic stop.

franklinarmory
08-09-2011, 11:20 AM
Extreme difficulty in talking yourself out of trouble with a weapon configured as you described is exactly the reason I have not built one myself. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean I want to risk imprisonment and thousands of dollars in legal fees just to prove it is....

Unlike the XO-26, there's not a concise letter to show that a T1 is legal. So I'm with you. It is not worth the trouble.

CHS
08-10-2011, 10:24 PM
So theoretically. You could take a NORMAL bullet-buttoned AR style rifle.
Replace the buttstock with a pistol buffer tube.
And remove your bullet button (and add a forward grip if you really feel like it).

If the barrel is over 16" and it has no shoulder stock, then it is good?

Very interesting. Makes perfect sense really.

Yeah that would be legal since it would no longer be an AW under SB23. It would be a semi-automatic centerfire firearm.

Reductio
08-11-2011, 1:06 AM
So theoretically. You could take a NORMAL bullet-buttoned AR style rifle.
Replace the buttstock with a pistol buffer tube.
And remove your bullet button (and add a forward grip if you really feel like it).

If the barrel is over 16" and it has no shoulder stock, then it is good?

Very interesting. Makes perfect sense really.

There was a thread over a year ago where somebody actually DID this, but was able and willing to fund his own legal expenses: the right people told him he'd be out on his own.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Spaceghost
08-11-2011, 10:32 AM
Yup, go to post #27 in this thread and there is a link.


There was a thread over a year ago where somebody actually DID this, but was able and willing to fund his own legal expenses: the right people told him he'd be out on his own.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Reductio
08-11-2011, 10:52 AM
Yup, go to post #27 in this thread and there is a link.

Haha, there we go. Figured it must have come up here already.