PDA

View Full Version : A2 Receiver Extension for AR-15 Pistol


nrakid88
08-16-2011, 3:51 PM
I have googled the matter, and in this thread Bwiese advises us not to use an A2 extension on a AR-15 pistol, as we don't know how Cali Courts will rule on the issue.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=320808

To me, that advice makes me weary of AR-15 pistols. If a A2 extension (with stock attaching threads removed) may be ruled as a butt stock, what is to stop the courts from saying a pistol extension tube is a butt stock? (Bold parts are edits)

The ATF doesn't care, and there are letters confirming it.

Has anyone written the CA DOJ asking for an opinion?

How many people here have a AR pistol with the A2 extension?

Who here is avoiding AR pistols because they seem to be a grey area?


Thanks for the feed back, just trying to decide if I, with no money for legal defense, have the courage to buy what I want.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 3:55 PM
Also, would there be a difference between owning an AR-15 pistol that has a carbine receiver extension, and not owning any stocks that can attach to it, compared to owning a pistol receiver extension, and not owning any stocks that can attach to it?

(I ask because if I went with an A2 extension, I wouldn't want to have to destroy the threads in the extension if I didn't have to, because then that part would have no resale value)

djleisure
08-16-2011, 3:58 PM
I think any buffer extension that can readily accept a stock would be in question. I thought A2 was good to go if you modified (drilled out? plugged?) the rear threads area... but I haven't read all the threads pertaining to this exact issue.

I personally use the GSE buffer tube, because I wanted the smallest thing possible...

stix213
08-16-2011, 4:00 PM
Don't most people use pistol buffer tubes that can't take a stock?

edit: OP has been changed, so disregard.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:04 PM
Don't most people use pistol buffer tubes that can't take a stock?

True, I wrote my OP a little off, let me edit it.

Edits are bold

Connor P Price
08-16-2011, 4:14 PM
I wouldn't be concerned with a pistol buffer, but I certainly wouldn't want something with threads for a buttstock.

If one were to concerned they could go with the rock river arms bufferless design.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

djleisure
08-16-2011, 4:14 PM
Okay, I just read through a bit of that thread and to me it looks like you are "advised against doing it" by one of the "right people." So, I'm not sure what you're asking, do you want someone new to try and justify it? I don't think anything has changed since that thread. (And I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to figure out what you're looking for here.)

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:16 PM
I am just hoping someone would have new information, since that thread is about a year old.

Has anyone contacted the DOJ and asked for an opinion?

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:18 PM
I also wanted to point out my level of comfort (or lack there of) with a threadless A2 extension being called a buttstock, when a pistol buffer can just as easily, yet not as comfortably, be mounted for shoulder firing.

I just feel like they are both legal, or both not. And if the A2 extension is not advised, I don't see why the pistol extension would be advised.

But then again, I am not a lawyer (by choice).

djleisure
08-16-2011, 4:22 PM
It comes down to semantics, just like CA requiring pistol lowers to never have been built into rifles, even though they are the EXACT same thing. The fact that the pistol buffer is purpose-built to be a pistol buffer keeps it in the clear.

You can feel one way or another, but the $62,000 question is, "Do you feel like defending yourself in a CA court over it?"

bwiese
08-16-2011, 4:28 PM
I am just hoping someone would have new information, since that thread is about a year old.

Has anyone contacted the DOJ and asked for an opinion?

Um, what makes you think...
(1) that DOJ BoF gives out opinions [they don't.]
(2) they have actually thought about this issue?

Verbal crap given out by a DOJ phone clerk may well be wrong in either direction.

The best we can do is make demonstrable efforts to not be shoulderable/ cheekable to stay away from 'intended to be fired from shoulder' rifle definition

Having something short, uncomfortable and not padded will suffice.

The longer it is the more shoulderable it is. I would NOT want an AR pistol with A2-length receiver extension.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:30 PM
Well, I am going to write the DOJ for an opinion before I abandon hope of using an A2 extension tube for a AR-15 pistol...

I am just not looking forward to reading;

"Dear Mr. ____, there are 52 DA's, and thus 52 different ways they will decide to dice your ***, or not, in court. Your welcome for our complete inability to provide helpful service, leadership, or any sign of intelligence.

Sicerely,
DOJ

P.S. Your excise taxes collected at the FFL's is funding our operation. Your welcome."

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:35 PM
The best we can do is make demonstrable efforts to not be shoulderable/ cheekable to stay away from 'intended to be fired from shoulder' rifle definition.

I would NOT want an AR pistol with A2-length receiver extension.

It never hurts to try and get a written opinion, which could be shown to a officer who is interested in your firearms legal status.

Your take on this subject makes me think that a video of me shouldering an AR of any buffer length would be heavy evidence against me in court.

And I would love to have a AR pistol with an A2 extension. More so I would like it to be an SBR, with a suppressor, and a happy switch. But hey, my forefathers were free men, I am not. Life sucks, and then you die.

bwiese
08-16-2011, 4:37 PM
Well, I am going to write the DOJ for an opinion

Remember that we had to sue DOJ in Fed Court to - just a few weeks ago - finally get admission on paper that the BulletButton indeed allows a rifle to be configured legally.

You likely will not get a reasonable answer based on the architecture.

You won't get a letter from Kim Graham (new lawyer).

It at best will be signed by a phone clerk, and probably will just quote the 12020 law back to you. Hell, they may think you're talking about AW laws and not SBR matters.

djleisure
08-16-2011, 4:39 PM
You'd look a little silly shouldering this one... hmmm... kinda want to see that now. :D

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af189/dj_leisure/AR%20pistol/IMG_9152.jpg

bwiese
08-16-2011, 4:41 PM
It never hurts to try and get a written opinion, which could be shown to a officer who is interested in your firearms legal status.

Your take on this subject makes me think that a video of me shouldering an AR of any buffer length would be heavy evidence against me in court.


Um, there's a difference between 'intended to be shoulder fired' and "I managed to scrinch myself up into a contorted position" - I can do that with a Smith 686 revolver.

Having no comfort items installed is a big help.

These guns also have been in general circulation now for 2 years - and have been subject to aggresive audit/inspections by agents so there's an element of passive DOJ approval.


And I would love to have a AR pistol with an A2 extension.


Please avoid. To me at least, it's just too close, and there's not a real good reason.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:49 PM
Um, there's a difference between 'intended to be shoulder fired' and "I managed to scrinch myself up into a contorted position" - I can do that with a Smith 686 revolver.

I am 6'2", and with my AR-15 rifle, with the Magpul stock removed so that its just the carbine extension tube, I would not say I am in a contorted position. Sure, its not comfortable, but I have never been firing a gun and thought "This is just as comfortable as lying in bed".

Eugene Stoner intended the A1 extension tube to store the spring and buffer, and allow the weapon to cycle. He then included a butt stock, so that it could be shoulder fired.



These guns also have been in general circulation now for 2 years - and have been subject to aggresive audit/inspections by agents so there's an element of passive DOJ approval.




Please avoid. To me at least, it's just too close, and there's not a real good reason.


Sorry if I come off as fighting with you, or anyone else. But hey, your a lawyer and I am sure your used to it. plus without controversy we would still be using sealed magwell AR's.

But, I will follow your advice, as you are much more informed and intuitive to this legal **** storm I was unfortunately born into.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:51 PM
Two good reasons for A2.

1) It is less uncomfortable to shoulder fire than when you are shoulder firing using a pistol extension.

2) A2's are more reliable.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:52 PM
You'd look a little silly shouldering this one... hmmm... kinda want to see that now. :D

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af189/dj_leisure/AR%20pistol/IMG_9152.jpg

Honestly, if I could move that red dot sight to the end of the forearm rail, it wouldn't be too bad to shoulder fire that gun. Even if I didn't move it, it would just be like NTRD (Nose To Red Dot).

Either way it would be a sight to see, since I am 6'2". Haha.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 4:54 PM
If I am coming off as stubborn, an idiot, or a jerk... It is probably a combination of the fact that I am, mixed with how sick of this state I have become.

djleisure
08-16-2011, 4:55 PM
Two good reasons for A2.

1) It is less uncomfortable to shoulder fire than when you are shoulder firing using a pistol extension.

Hey, you can throw a cane tip on the end of it while you're at it - it will be like shooting a Lincoln Towncar! :)

(Sorry these images are so big :()

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4001/batfeletterarpistols1.jpg
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2101/batfeletterarpistols2.jpg

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 5:04 PM
DJLeisure... is that impressively large attachment a sign of over compensation? :D

From what I have gathered, mostly from Bwiese, is that the ATF really doesn't care. Even if they did, as I gathered from my Con Law teacher, the feds have people with trucks LOADED with marijuana, who they choose not to prosecute because they aren't big enough fish.

The issue here seems to be Cali DOJ, and there completely inacceptable approach of letting US be the test case, instead of throwing a dog a bone and telling us whats cool and what is not...


That gets me thinking... what if I filed for a advisory ruling (opinion? i forget what the term for it is) from my local court house? I would really have to work on the structure, spelling, grammar etc... so they don't throw it out... But that could likely be more helpful than the DOJ.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 5:08 PM
I think I am going to either go A2 AR pistol (which now seems out of the picture), or DRACO AK pistol.

wash
08-16-2011, 5:33 PM
Or you could use a two hand grip and shoot it pistol style...

Playing chicken with CA DOJ over SBR issues is pretty foolish.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 5:40 PM
Or you could use a two hand grip and shoot it pistol style...

Playing chicken with CA DOJ over SBR issues is pretty foolish.

If I am going to shoot it like a pistol, then I am going to get a DRACO.

wildhawker
08-16-2011, 5:44 PM
Please don't start writing DOJ with random, ill-considered (or inadvisable) requests.

They are currently facing severe budget cuts, and the time it takes for them to properly research and/or respond to correspondence takes away from the time they can be working on real issues.

-Brandon

aklover_91
08-16-2011, 6:02 PM
If I am going to shoot it like a pistol, then I am going to get a DRACO.
If you AREN'T going to shoot it like a pistol, you should get a rifle.

Purposefully putting it together in a way specifically to make it easier to shoulder, when it's allegedly supposed to be a pistol, could lead to some seriously bad hoodoo down the road.

wash
08-16-2011, 6:05 PM
If I am going to shoot it like a pistol, then I am going to get a DRACO.
I'm pretty sure that is going to be a lot more front heavy than the AR pistol unless the AR has a pretty long barrel, rails and or a heavy muzzle device.

nrakid88
08-16-2011, 6:11 PM
If you AREN'T going to shoot it like a pistol, you should get a rifle.

Purposefully putting it together in a way specifically to make it easier to shoulder, when it's allegedly supposed to be a pistol, could lead to some seriously bad hoodoo down the road.

Wish I lived in a free state where they DGAF

djleisure
08-16-2011, 8:18 PM
DJLeisure... is that impressively large attachment a sign of over compensation? :D

No, nothing like that. You know what a large attachment means, right? Right?!

Go with the Draco. ;)

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af189/dj_leisure/IMG_8387.jpg

franklinarmory
08-17-2011, 4:17 AM
Please avoid. To me at least, it's just too close, and there's not a real good reason.

+1

NRAKID88, I would encourage you to learn to cheek an AR pistol. That is how they are designed to be used. When you index off the cheekbone, your sights are fully lined up, your head is in neutral position, and your body isn't scrunched up. Adding a longer buffer tube doesn't really aid anything when using this technique. However, using a mini buffer tube, or no tube at all, makes it impossible to use this firing option. Fortier wrote an article about this very topic a couple weeks ago. His conclusion was that the third point of contact was an aid to the platform stability.

Here's a video showing what we mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34qA_B_dN2Q

Quiet
08-17-2011, 5:48 AM
Hey, you can throw a cane tip on the end of it while you're at it - it will be like shooting a Lincoln Towncar! :)

You do know that the BATFE NFA letter was addressing the addition of a 5mm rubber cane tip for use to aid in storage in a gun safe and to help keep residue/gunk from entering the rear of the buffer tube.

rbetts
08-17-2011, 6:34 AM
or just buy one of these
http://www.littlebeargunshop.com/include/images/products/medium/D/F/0/1266462426178_rpps10%20111111.gif

or this


http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/gallery/108/2020SW_MP1522_b.jpg


We sell them here at Golden State Tactical without Buttstocks.

Then there is no argument about if it has a buttstock at all.

djleisure
08-17-2011, 8:34 AM
You do know that the BATFE NFA letter was addressing the addition of a 5mm rubber cane tip for use to aid in storage in a gun safe and to help keep residue/gunk from entering the rear of the buffer tube.
Well, I was mostly just messing around, but it seems to me you're reading an awful lot into their response. Regardless of how the question was originally asked by the person corresponding with them, their response does not mention or re-iterated the fact that it is legal for storage purposes only and must be 5mm - unless that's not the entire response letter?

nrakid88
08-17-2011, 2:26 PM
Thanks for the feedback guys...

The cheek mount seems hokey to me. Sure it appears to work fine, but I would much rather be working with an a2 extension on my shoulder. The muzzle climb seems pretty bad.

Those AR pistols, the ZM and the .22, yeah thats cool that they avoid this legal problem... but definately not my cup of tea.

For now I guess I will just use my cash to get more reloading components. When I get out of this state, I will submit for about 5 or 6 NFA stamps and go to town. SBR, SBS, Suppressors galore.