PDA

View Full Version : Just some thoughts on homebuilt handguns


NeoWeird
01-26-2007, 1:56 AM
Ok, so I just woke up here at 2:20am and I have been up since 5:30am yesterday outside of this nice little ~30 minute nap just now. Throw on the top that I am horribly sick and I hope this all makes sense.

So as people may or may not know, I tend to be a tad bit cautious when it comes to firearms. I never do anything illegal (especially in regards to firearms), I always try to warn people when they tread close to grey areas, I don't push the envelope, etc.

Well earlier today I was in a '**** it' type of mood (it's a legal term, look it up. It's between '****ing A' and '****ing ****'; if you've hit '**** this...' you've gone too far.) and I was thinking of ways to push the envelope. So I am driving home from work, sick and tired in Riverside rush hour traffic on the 10 freeway when I get an epiphany.

We already know that altering an owned firearm, even handguns, is legal as long as it does not violate any current laws (ie: SBR). So let's focus on handguns for a minute. We know that it is perfctly ok to change calibers on a handguns, in essence changing a firearm to an 'unsafe/tested' state. We also know that changing the action of a weapon is ok as well. The Desert Eagle is a GREAT example of these because not only does it change the caliber to an 'unsafe/tested' variant, it also (when going to the .357 variant) requires a new bolt which is essence means a new action to the weapon, even if they are similiar it IS a different action. There is also the ability to change a single action revolver, by means of a trigger job, replaced or altered trigger, etc. to a double action revolver; which grants the ability to change from an exempt pistol over to a nonexempt pistol. There is even the extreme that was posted a short while ago where the DOJ gave the thumbs up to cutting down a pistol and welding it back up to a uber custom design, as long as the serial and marking were intact, which lets face it gives EVERYONE the opportunity to buy a the cheapest pistol on the market and chop it down and weld it back up as anything they want as long as the 'serial plate' is welded back on (but that's a story for a different day).

We know that we can not manufacture unsafe handguns. We can't. Follow this next part VERY carefully and it will hit you too. However, we know that we can manufacture handguns that are exempt from the safety test, like single shot handguns. Did it hit you? Let me explain...

What is stopping someone from, say, making a single shot AR pistol. You give it a serial, you register it with the DOJ, and you have a homebuilt firearm. It's nice. You feel warm and fuzzy inside. Then you have a falling out with the love of your new single shot. You decide you want to modify it and you convert it over to take a fixed 10 round magazine. You obey all laws, both state and Federal, and you are happy with your newly modified pistol. How is this illegal?

People have been DYING to get AR and AK pistols, and this could possibly be it. It also doesn't end there. A 1911 frame with the grip retaining screws timed in a way that allows you to install a length of threaded rod and weld over the openings (of course if you ever wanted to modify anything, there would be nothing stopping you from grinding off the weld and removing that threaded rod).

So what am I missing here. Is there ANYTHING that is preventing us from doing something like this outside of the fear that a DA might prosecute (which let's face it, only holds the masses off for so long as the OLL situation showed).

I am now sleepy and feeling even more sick so I am going to bed again. My new work schedule keeps from the internet (and everything else for that matter) for a good portion of the day so don't expect me to respond right away, but I am interested in what you all have to say or think on this subject. As always I am not planning anything or going to try anything; just another thought on how to **** with those who would **** with us.

CalNRA
01-26-2007, 9:34 AM
i thought SB-23 defines a AW as a semi pistol that

(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

so I your idea would not violate the magazine part.

but, most if not all AR-style pistols I have seen have a part around the barrel that can be defined as a shroud:

(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.

so you have to have a pistol that has nothing encircling the barrel outside forward of the action.

as far as making a single shot and rever it back to semi, I have no idea

AYEAREFIFTEEN
01-26-2007, 9:52 AM
i thought SB-23 defines a AW as a semi pistol that

(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

so I your idea would not violate the magazine part.

but, most if not all AR-style pistols I have seen have a part around the barrel that can be defined as a shroud:

(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.

so you have to have a pistol that has nothing encircling the barrel outside forward of the action.

as far as making a single shot and rever it back to semi, I have no idea

If the mag is not detachable and under 10 rounds you can have all the "evil" features you want.

(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.

EDIT: I think what neowierd is trying to say is, buy an OLL receiver, build it into a single shot pistol and register it. Once it is registered you can modify it however you like. Only think I don't understand is the legality of DROSing a receiver as a rifle then registering as a pistol later on. Or perhaps he is talking about starting with an 80% receiver. That seems WAY too grey an area. What's to say you didn't just build it semiauto in the first place and just register is as single shot?

leelaw
01-26-2007, 9:52 AM
I like the suggestion of getting an 80% frame (1911 or similar style, not getting into AR/AK pistols), taking it out of state and cutting it past 80% (make it a firearm) then bring it back into CA, register it with CA DOJ and finish it up to 100%.

I'd like to get their take on this.

You should draft up a letter about this and submit it to CA DOJ and see what they say. Don't specifically mention AR/AK pistols, since when they see those letters they get a huge brainfart and all reasoning and logical thought processes cease and will likely result in a response not desired.

AYEAREFIFTEEN
01-26-2007, 10:00 AM
I like the suggestion of getting an 80% frame (1911 or similar style, not getting into AR/AK pistols), taking it out of state and cutting it past 80% (make it a firearm) then bring it back into CA, register it with CA DOJ and finish it up to 100%.

I'd like to get their take on this.

You should draft up a letter about this and submit it to CA DOJ and see what they say. Don't specifically mention AR/AK pistols, since when they see those letters they get a huge brainfart and all reasoning and logical thought processes cease and will likely result in a response not desired.

They will probably send back the standard "its up to the DA's office" response.

"You COULD do it, but it depends on the judge's mood that day."

hoffmang
01-26-2007, 10:23 AM
Note that you would have to start with a hunk of metal. The 80% receiver stuff may get messy sooner rather than later. Also, should you build it into something that shoots more than 1 shot, you would have to pin the magazines to avoid AW pistol issues.

-Gene

bwiese
01-26-2007, 10:26 AM
Things are moving forward in some of the 'unsafe handgun' elements you have discussed, aside from SB23 issues.

When I know more y'all will know more :)

leelaw
01-26-2007, 11:27 AM
Note that you would have to start with a hunk of metal. The 80% receiver stuff may get messy sooner rather than later. Also, should you build it into something that shoots more than 1 shot, you would have to pin the magazines to avoid AW pistol issues.

-Gene

Or put a bar through the magazine well so a magazine can't be loaded. Hmm.. have a set of cheap plastic grips? Got a pop-riveter?

s281c
01-26-2007, 12:05 PM
Or put a bar through the magazine well so a magazine can't be loaded. Hmm.. have a set of cheap plastic grips? Got a pop-riveter?

Why even waste the time, find a Springfield SASS or Pachmayr Dominator, get it attached to whatever 1911 frame you want................You now have a single shot gun and can have it transfered into the state.

leelaw
01-26-2007, 12:16 PM
Why even waste the time, find a Springfield SASS or Pachmayr Dominator, get it attached to whatever 1911 frame you want................You now have a single shot gun and can have it transfered into the state.

Grips: $15
Pop rivets: $.50

Sounds less than whatever a full slide conversion costs, to me.

s281c
01-26-2007, 12:20 PM
Grips: $15
Pop rivets: $.50

Sounds less than whatever a full slide conversion costs, to me.

Not if you use it more then once..............;)

tgriffin
01-26-2007, 12:25 PM
Ive been having very similar thoughts lately. Posted a thread about this a couple days back (wasnt as organized as yours, nice write up).

This might take you in an interesting direction with your thoughts. Get rid of the gas system :) bolt action convertable back to semi after you fix the internal mag.

NeoWeird
01-26-2007, 2:08 PM
Wow. I checked this a short time ago and there was nothing. Wake up with stomach pains and find this thing exploded.

I think we are getting some confussion between posters because people seem to be drawing lines between this model and that model or this method and that method and that is irrelevant at this point (let's also leave 80%ers out of it for the theoretical side of things to also keep it simple).

Ok, AR/AK pistols. Let's take the AK pistol since it has been touched. Let's say you get a sheet of steel and throw it into your metal break and/or AK benders jig + press and you form yourself the AK shell. You then assemble it using Krink parts and an AK pistol trunion. Everything is fine as you left the magazine well close and you would HAVE to load it a single round at a time. This is 100% legal as of right now. It is registered as a pistol as per California law and everything is ok. Now let's say you want to put 'speed holes' in your gun and one of those just so happens to be a magazine well, well that is ok as we know modification of legally owned firearms is ok as long as their original markings stay intact. Now the AR and AK firearms get a LITTLE tricky in this area because once the mag well is open you completed an AW becase it has a detachable mag well outside the pistol grip....unless you molded some epoxy, plastic, rubber, molding, etc around a magazine to make IT the pistol grip and you remove the previous pistol grip before installing (I TOLD you I was in a '**** it' type of mood). You fix the magazine to be permanent and then you reinstall the pistol grip and you have a fixed mag AK pistol.

Now for 1911s and other similar pistols it is the SAME thing, except you don't have to worry about those pesky magazines outside the pistol grip. I realized something great last night that makes these types of pistol easier. The 1911 design is such that the ones I have seen, read about, heard of, etc. (and I would assume all) have a special threaded bushing that acts as a clamp that holds the grips the frame. You simply do not install this and push a pin through to the opposite side. A small bit of tack well and you are done. You can then use Houge wrap around grips and have the grips held on with the one set of scres only. There is also the option of drilling an extra hole between both grip holes and putting a tack weld on it and then putting a small dimple on the reverse of the grips (if it's not already clearanced). Either way, your pistol is good to go at this point, you register, sometime later you legally modify it to any configuration you want.

Now we can also venture on to OTHER pistols. Sigs and the likes can take on the same form as the 1911s. There are even MORE pistols as well. Now the home gunsmith can get creative because they are not limited by strict designs anymore. For example, a Ruger 10/22 does not have it's pistol grip or magazine well as part of the receiver; the grip is part of the stock and the magazine well is part of the stock, receiver, and trigger housing but in all regards the trigger housing IS the magazine well as it holds the magazine release and it's placement dictacts whether .22lr or .22mag magazine can be used. So you could build a Ruger 10/22 pistol receiver and do NOTHING to it. Take an extra factory stock and chop it down and glue a block in the way of the magazine well and viola a single shot Ruger 10/22 pistol. Then when it is not your style anymore, take off the stock, pin the magazine release from being depressed, install a 10 round magazine and install back in new stock. Loading will be a pain, but imagine the fun out of state.

We can also venture out into SP89, Tec-9, Macs, Sigs, HKs, etc. The sky is the limit as long as you can figure a legal way to make it semi-auto and reactivate the magazine well without breaking any laws.

And if this idea doesn't suit you, buy one of those <$100 surplus pistol and chop that thing to bits and rebuild it up as anything you want without damaging or altering any serial number or identification mark.

leelaw
01-26-2007, 2:23 PM
Not if you use it more then once..............;)


What, you don't have a slotted screw driver that fits your 1911 grip screws?

tgriffin
01-26-2007, 2:47 PM
...a Ruger 10/22 does not have it's pistol grip or magazine well as part of the receiver; the grip is part of the stock and the magazine well is part of the stock, receiver, and trigger housing but in all regards the trigger housing IS the magazine well as it holds the magazine release and it's placement dictacts whether .22lr ...


Um correct me someone if im wrong, but couple things with the Ruger example: in order to build the pistol, you would have to use a recieve that had never been assembled into a rifle...and that means youd have to use a Volquartsen 10/22 reciever. Next, doesnt the rimfire status negate SB23?

AYEAREFIFTEEN
01-26-2007, 2:55 PM
Next, doesnt the rimfire status negate SB23?

Not for a pistol. It just says "semiauto" under the pistol section of the penal code, not "centerfire semiauto" like the rifle section.

NeoWeird
01-26-2007, 3:44 PM
PLEASE look PAST DROSed receivers as I am talking about HOMEBUILT pistols here.

AJAX22
01-26-2007, 3:57 PM
If cutting a pistol and welding it back into a different configuration is legal, what keeps us from taking a lorcin and cutting the serial number off of it and welding that onto the completed 80%?

It's just kind of the ultimate rebuild...

383green
01-26-2007, 4:41 PM
Um correct me someone if im wrong, but couple things with the Ruger example: in order to build the pistol, you would have to use a recieve that had never been assembled into a rifle...and that means youd have to use a Volquartsen 10/22 reciever.
Somebody else correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you've missed the point just a little bit. NeoWeird is talking about ways to build a pistol without running afoul of the handgun safety testing laws. You might buy all of the other pieces, but you would make the receiver out of an appropriate hunk of raw metal.

Next, doesnt the rimfire status negate SB23?
I think this discussion is more concerned with the handgun safety testing laws than with SB23.

Hmm, this is an interesting thread. I'll need to think a bit before I have more to add, though.

Get well soon, NeoWeird!

s281c
01-26-2007, 5:02 PM
What, you don't have a slotted screw driver that fits your 1911 grip screws?

ummm.......

I'm talking about re-using the SASS/Dominator, you know the single shot conversion top half that goes on a 1911 frame.

dragonbait1a
01-27-2007, 12:08 AM
Since there is a precident for "manufacture" to be a modification of an existing gun (NFA most specificly) To me it seems that as soon as you modify/remove the "Exempt" features, you've "manufactured" an "Unsafe Handgun" at least in the eyes of the prosecutor. As far as taking a 80% or whatever piece of metal out of state, making a pistol and bringing it back, it seems that you'd then be "importing" an "Unsafe handgun". Unless you make the out of state as a single shot etc.

Now, I could be wrong, and baybe the law doesn't allow the prosecutor to see "manufacturing" as modifying an existing firearm. I was thinking of this when I had the urge to make something akin to a "Shopkeepers" SAA by replacing the 5" bbl with a 3" bbl and decided it wasn't worth the grey issues.

RGB

hoffmang
01-27-2007, 12:16 AM
California law doesn't take the same approach to "manufacture" mainly because constructive possession only applies to Machineguns, SBRs and SBSs in California.

-Gene

TheMan
01-27-2007, 7:53 AM
California law doesn't take the same approach to "manufacture" mainly because constructive possession only applies to Machineguns, SBRs and SBSs in California.

-Gene

This CA version of constructive possession might make owning an AR pistol, homebuilt or not, problematic, if you also own an AR rifle. The federal law on constructive possession seems to have been clarified that you can own both, as long as you don't have spare uppers for the pistol. I haven't seen/heard any clarification like this for CA constructive possession laws.

hoffmang
01-27-2007, 10:14 AM
TheMan,

If you don't have automatic fire parts for either the pistol or the rifle you are a long way from constructive possession. In fact, having the pistol and a pistol length barrel should have a prophylactic effect on constructive possession vis-a-vis your rifle.

-Gene

TheMan
01-27-2007, 6:45 PM
TheMan,

If you don't have automatic fire parts for either the pistol or the rifle you are a long way from constructive possession.


I was referring to constructive possession of a SBR, not a machine gun. Automatic fire parts aren't the issue.



In fact, having the pistol and a pistol length barrel should have a prophylactic effect on constructive possession vis-a-vis your rifle.

-Gene

What SHOULD be, and what the status quo is, are usually two completely different things when it comes to gun laws. Tell me where in this code section, having a pistol would protect you from anything?


12020(c) (2) As used in this section, a "short-barreled rifle" means any of
the following:
(A) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in
length.
(B) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(C) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration,
modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an
overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less
than 16 inches in length.
(D) Any device which may be readily restored to fire a fixed
cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in
subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive.
(E) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to
convert a device into a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C),
inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in
subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, may be readily assembled if
those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same
person

hoffmang
01-27-2007, 7:45 PM
It is certainly a gray area, but there is not a lot of guidance either way on an uninstalled short barrel that would fit both a legal and an illegal firearm in your possession. My point was that the rule of lenity is where you would find comfort if you did have an AR pistol receiver at the same time you had a barrel for it and an AR rifle.

-Gene

tman
01-27-2007, 9:17 PM
I would rather have a 12 gauge caliber single-shot pistol.

TheMan
01-27-2007, 9:21 PM
It is certainly a gray area, but there is not a lot of guidance either way on an uninstalled short barrel that would fit both a legal and an illegal firearm in your possession. My point was that the rule of lenity is where you would find comfort if you did have an AR pistol receiver at the same time you had a barrel for it and an AR rifle.

-Gene

Doesn't it have to be ambigious for the rule of lenity to apply? The way that section of code is written, there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity regarding that.

Can those parts be readily assembled into a SBR?
____Yes
____No

Check one.

The first part of that 12020(c)(2)(E) talks about intent. The second part(the part I highlighted for you) talks about mere physical possession, and intent is NOT mentioned there.

If you have an AR pistol, a spare upper for it, and an AR rifle, like you mention, even the ATF says that would meet federal SBR constructive possession definitions. You can only have as many pistol uppers as you have pistol lowers, if you have AR rifles as well.

The only question is whether or not having an ASSEMBLED AR pistol, and ASSEMBLED AR rifle, would be illegal according to CA law. The ATF has declared that to be legal in their letters, IIRC. But CA law talks about "any combination of parts... may be readily assembled". If you have the AR pistol, and AR rifle, could you readily assemble an SBR from it? If you had done something to the uppers and lowers so they weren't compatible, then you couldn't readily assemble an SBR. But otherwise, you would have a legal battle in front of you to convince a jury of that. 2 pushpins would meet most peoples definition of "readily".

At least on the federal level, there is an ATF opinion that may help protect you. But AFAIK, there have been no CADOJ guidelines posted regarding the interpretation of this CA law with respect to owning both AR rifles and pistols.

hoffmang
01-27-2007, 9:23 PM
It is not at all impossible to have an AR pistol from before the ban.

Do you think that those people who have AR pistols, who certainly have short barrels that would also fit their AR rifles, are committing a felony?

I did not say that it was obvious either way above.

-Gene

TheMan
01-27-2007, 9:28 PM
I would rather have a 12 gauge caliber single-shot pistol.

That is spelled out unfortunately


12020 (c) (1) As used in this section, a "short-barreled shotgun" means
any of the following:
(A) A firearm which is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed
shotgun shell and having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches
in length.


Unless you find a way to play with the definition of fixed shotgun shell...

Sometimes, the presence or lack of rifling in the bore changes what law applies to it. But in this case, its the shell that defines it.

TheMan
01-27-2007, 9:44 PM
It is not at all impossible to have an AR pistol from before the ban.

Do you think that those people who have AR pistols, who certainly have short barrels that would also fit their AR rifles, are committing a felony?

I did not say that it was obvious either way above.


You said it was a gray area. I don't see anything gray about that section of code, other than what constitutes "readily assembled". Now if you had the barrel removed, so it required tools that you weren't in possession of, I could see an argument that it wasn't readily assembled. But saying that having to spend 10 seconds to swap out uppers isn't "readily assembled" would be a hard sell. And unless the DOJ has given some sort of opinion on it, it would be hard and $$$ to fight that one out in court.

hoffmang
01-27-2007, 9:47 PM
Then you are asserting that there are no pre Roberti Roos AR pistols in California or that they are all illegal if someone also owns an AR rifle.

I don't disagree with you on the face of the code, but I'm pointing out that the practical reality likely doesn't match your interpretation. I tend to define that as gray.

-Gene

TheMan
01-27-2007, 10:04 PM
I don't disagree with you on the face of the code, but I'm pointing out that the practical reality likely doesn't match your interpretation. I tend to define that as gray.

-Gene

You could call it gray, or just unenforced. Is "everyone else is doing it" a valid legal defense though? If so, I will try that the next time I get a speeding ticket;)

Don't get me wrong, I hope that isn't the reality. I have AR pistols out of state, and would like to bring some of them in at some point. But this seems to be something people are just glossing over. I don't think this section of code should be dismissed so lightly, or someone is going wind up in serious trouble.


To show you how serious people are taking that section, I have posted this at least 3 other times in AR pistol threads, and you are the first person that has even commented on it. I haven't yet heard anyone say that there has been any sort of DOJ issued declaration on owning AR pistols and rifles being OK, or anything similar to that.

hoffmang
01-27-2007, 10:17 PM
No, but the California Supreme Court has said that scienter matters on firearms related charges. If I remember the test is "a person of reasonable intelligence knew or should have known."

The current main problem with AR pistols is that they aren't on the safe handgun list. The other problems are SB-23's restriction on a magazine outside the pistol grip and barrel shrouds.

-Gene

TheMan
01-27-2007, 11:59 PM
No, but the California Supreme Court has said that scienter matters on firearms related charges. If I remember the test is "a person of reasonable intelligence knew or should have known."


As clearly as it is spelled out in 12020(c)(2), that may be a hard argument to make. There is a relatively small section of CA penal code on SBRs. A person of reasonable intelligence probably should have read that to see how it differs from Fed. laws on SBRs, before buying or making an AR pistol.



The current main problem with AR pistols is that they aren't on the safe handgun list. The other problems are SB-23's restriction on a magazine outside the pistol grip and barrel shrouds.

-Gene

Both of the problems you are mentioning can be worked around easily enough. PPT and fixed mag, problem solved.

leelaw
01-28-2007, 12:14 AM
ummm.......

I'm talking about re-using the SASS/Dominator, you know the single shot conversion top half that goes on a 1911 frame.

And I'm talking about installing pop rivets into a set of grips and installing them onto your pistol - ala, mag-less, and thus a single-shot pistol.... You said it'd be cheaper to get one of the slide conversions, and I'm saying that $15 grips + $.50 pop rivets are cheaper.

RANGER295
01-28-2007, 4:48 PM
Here is how you do this with an AR pistol without having to make the receiver from an 80%. Find someone out of state who will buy an AR pistol receiver. Then take an aluminum block with a top that is like the floor in single shot bolt action rifles where you just drop the round in and close the bolt. You would take this bock and put it in the mag well and then TIG weld it in a couple of spots on the bottom of the mag well. Then it is beyond question a single shot. No way to put more than one round in it. Then you have it shipped to your FFL of choice, DROS it as a single shot pistol, and there you have it. Later on you could do whatever you want. Am I off base here?

EDIT: To deal with the open mag well issue when making the modification, just take a shooting trip to NV and bring the Dermal and a mag lock kit. You come home with a fixed mag pistol.

NeoWeird
01-30-2007, 4:43 PM
Ok, I'll admit I kind of phased out for a second during the arguement but I want to say something:

The law states that if it can be assembled into an SBR then it is grounds for intent, so having a pistol upper off your weapon could put you in dangerous water. However, the law doesn't go into detail about disassembling and reaseembling into an SBR, so if you have a pistol upper on a pistol lower than you would have to 'assemble' onto it to manufacture a rifle; so if you use a pistol buffer tube it would be IN MY OPINION that it would be impossible to add a buttstock without major modification to the parts and it would be impossible to assemble it into a SBR. Of course, as stated, just having a pistol upper laying around is bound to get you in trouble sooner or later, but we are not talking about having spare uppers.

Second, I was thinking of that too Ranger, the only problem is finding someone willing to do ALL that without putting you over the coals.

I REALLY want an AR pistol, and when the OLL thing started I got really excited, but shortly after laid my hopes to rest. Now this is new line of thinking has sparked my interest again and I am wondering if an AR pistol is in my near future. I'm somewhat giddy....if only I had the money to experiment...

ETA: Oh yeah, and as for the 'barrel shroud' problem; there is an easy solution. Houge's aluminum free float tubes. Throw it up in a mill with a ball point end mill and take the top majority off down to the threads. It leaves the threads to lock the barrel to the receiver and the 'tube' no longer attached to the barrel or partially/fully encircles the barrel as it would all be below it. Problem solved.

TheMan
01-30-2007, 5:11 PM
I REALLY want an AR pistol, and when the OLL thing started I got really excited, but shortly after laid my hopes to rest. Now this is new line of thinking has sparked my interest again and I am wondering if an AR pistol is in my near future. I'm somewhat giddy....if only I had the money to experiment...


If it makes you feel any better, they really aren't that great. There is a reason why so many get put together, and sold fairly quickly. It's more of a novelty than anything else. Without being able to shoulder it, you just don't get much accuracy, it's just entertaining as a bullet hose.


ETA: Oh yeah, and as for the 'barrel shroud' problem; there is an easy solution. Houge's aluminum free float tubes. Throw it up in a mill with a ball point end mill and take the top majority off down to the threads. It leaves the threads to lock the barrel to the receiver and the 'tube' no longer attached to the barrel or partially/fully encircles the barrel as it would all be below it. Problem solved.

Good idea, unfortunately the problem was solved before it ever was a problem. SB23 makes it a non issue, because of the location of the magazine. You can not build it in detachable mag style. And if it doesn't have a detachable mag, it can have a shroud.

The only way having a shroud would be illegal, was if you had a detachable mag, and are already illegal. At that point, the pistol can't be DOUBLE illegal, so it doesn't really matter.

The only way you'd have to remove the shroud to make it legal would be if you somehow figured out how to make it feed from a detachable mag inside the pistol grip. But that would be quite a neat trick on an AR pistol.

RANGER295
01-30-2007, 6:11 PM
If it makes you feel any better, they really aren't that great. There is a reason why so many get put together, and sold fairly quickly. It's more of a novelty than anything else. Without being able to shoulder it, you just don't get much accuracy, it's just entertaining as a bullet hose.
They arenít that great in terms of accuracy, but they are fun to shoot. I have a friend that has a registered one that I have shot. He has a green laser on it and at 25 yards it isnít that bad accuracy wise. But I would agree it is more of a novelty. Sort of like my 10/22 or my AK-22 that I removed the stock from. They arenít that practical but they are fun and they turn heads at the range. I have been really wanting one along with an M-11 type pistol. That isnít that practical either but I have some mags for one and they look cool.