Shoulder stocked pistol, how are they classified?

[Malamute]

If one wished to add a shoulder stock to a pistol, what is the legal procedure, and could the pistol be taken interstate to a state that doesnt allow short barrel rifles or whatever the resultant gun is, if the shoulder stock was left at home? Does it get to be simply a handgun again and able to travel interstate without paperwork or complications if the stock isnt present? Does the original base gun need to be engraved with anything, or just have the paperwork on hand when out and about?

In this instance, the base gun would be either a Colt Single Action Army or Ruger single action. Would add a detachable shoulder stock, similar to what the original "carbine stocked" Colt SAA had in the 1880s, and later became known as "Buntline Specials"

This being the general idea.

https://jamesdjulia.com/wp-content/uploads/images/auctions/327/images/org/44690x1.jpg

I realize a 16" barrel would simplify things, but I really dont want a 16" barrel pistol. 7 1/2 or 9" seems OK for still being carryable out in the hills.

[BWT]

If one wished to add a shoulder stock to a pistol, what is the legal procedure, and could the pistol be taken interstate to a state that doesnt allow short barrel rifles or whatever the resultant gun is, if the shoulder stock was left at home? Does it get to be simply a handgun again and able to travel interstate without paperwork or complications if the stock isnt present? Does the original base gun need to be engraved with anything, or just have the paperwork on hand when out and about?

In this instance, the base gun would be either a Colt Single Action Army or Ruger single action. Would add a detachable shoulder stock, similar to what the original "carbine stocked" Colt SAA had in the 1880s, and later became known as "Buntline Specials"

This being the general idea.

https://jamesdjulia.com/wp-content/uploads/images/auctions/327/images/org/44690x1.jpg

I realize a 16" barrel would simplify things, but I really dont want a 16" barrel pistol. 7 1/2 or 9" seems OK for still being carryable out in the hills.

There are some a few weird grandfathered exemptions (like the game getter). However, what you're describing is an SBR.

But, just like you can put a 16" upper on a registered SBR and take it across the state lines without a Form 5320. I imagine this would be the same. Take the stock off and it's not an SBR anymore.

God Bless,

Brandon

[RevolverRob]

There are collectible exemptions for Curio and Relic arms (e.g., Mauser C96, old Lugers, Hi-Powers, etc). You can see a (incomplete) list of NFA exempted arms here - https://www.atf.gov/firearms/curios-relics As well as protocols for adding new ones to the list. Recognize a few things:

1) All guns must be genuine curios and relics, not modern replicas.
2) BATF(U) Tech Branch has decided on different occasions that only original shoulder stocks maybe attached to C&R Exempted guns and on separate occasions that replica "period correct" stocks would be allowed.

So...best case scenario - you should find a C&R Exempt gun with the original stock or an original stock from the same time period (not replica), to be legal.

The other thing you can do is black-powder (percussion fired) revolvers with stocks are perfectly legal. They are not technically firearms by ATF definition and therefore you can do whatever you want with them. At one point in time - I may have had a 1851 London Navy (Uberti) and a shoulder a stock attached as a defensive firearm...Cimarron has: http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/skeletal-shoulder-stock.html and http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/products/revolvers/percussion-revolvers-2/1851-1860-1861/1851-navy/1851-navy-london-1.html

[jandbj]

Or... go the non attached stock route. Like the webley "aim-brace" or the Ruger Mkii ones that mark white at Soundtech used to make.

18988

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114879

[Malamute]

Well, its unlikely id find an old original that may have immunity. As I understand it, there were around 20 or so original Colt pistol carbines. The one I borrowed the picture of in my post was estimated at $25k-$40K. This will be a current or recent period manufacture project.

I understand about the percussion guns. I enjoy shooting them, but dont consider them a practical field gun for my use, at least not as practical as a cartridge gun. I figured this would need to be papered, I'm just wondering if I can use the gun without the stock in states that dont allow SBRs or shoulder stocked pistols. The whole thing is probably more in the fun category than truly practical, but it would be something Id use in the hills.

Do SBRs have to be engraved with information related to the tax stamp? I see people discussing engraving info on them, I didnt know if it was required, or what they had engraved on them.

[RevolverRob]

Or... go the non attached stock route. Like the webley "aim-brace" or the Ruger Mkii ones that mark white at Soundtech used to make.

18988

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114879

Say now...that's an interesting idea. One could take a skeletal stock like the one above and cut off the upper clamp portion that allows the stock to attach to the revolver. Thereby, modifying it such that it could only be held in place by the firing hand like pictured above. Not sure of the legality, I guess one could cut up a Cimarron-Arms type stock and submit it to the ATF Tech Branch for approval.

[Malamute]

Do SBRs have to be engraved with information related to the tax stamp? I see people discussing engraving info on them, I didnt know if it was required, or what they had engraved on them.

Finally found the info on this.

The "not really a shoulder stock" things arent what I'm interested in. If I did it, it would be a detachable stock like the Colts came with in the 80s. Theres some reproduction skeleton type stocks floating around, I dont think theyve been made in some time. They seem to turn up on the gun selling sites now and then from what I can gather from google. Edit: I didnt read Robs links before, thanks for the tip on the stocks!

[Hambo]

Malamute, take a look at this as it may answer part of your question. I think this is the most recent ATF opinion on TC Contenders: https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download

[Malamute]

Thanks! I read it, but it didnt seem to specifically address my question. At least as far as I could tell with not being awake that long yet.




The question in the title of this thread was the result of reading something on the Thompson forum. Someone asked about putting a stock on a 1927 pistol, he was advised it was legally simpler to SBR a rifle. Not sure why that would be, but what Ive learned so far doesnt seem to support that idea. I now understand how this would be classified in any event.

[Rich@CCC]

Am I mistaken in that a pistol with a detachable shoulder stock is classified as "Any Other Weapon" rather than SBR?

[Malamute]

The info I read on the ATF site seemed to indicate it was an SBR. It just didnt address the question of if the base gun wasnt controlled/regulated in states that didnt allow SBRs/whatever if the stock was off.

The ATF site has a lot of info, though it isnt always quite where one expects it to be, or titled the way we may be looking for it. It did mentioned that a pistol with added shoulder stock was SBR. Not sure exactly where I read it.

[Toonces]

But, just like you can put a 16" upper on a registered SBR and take it across the state lines without a Form 5320. I imagine this would be the same. Take the stock off and it's not an SBR anymore.

God Bless,

Brandon

i would be very careful with this, as this is likely committing a felony.

Per the BATFE, putting a long barrel on an AR or SBS removes the "short" part of the equation, returning them to normal status. Taking the stock off an AR or SBS wouldn't, as they have been registered as long guns.

The BATFE has ruled in the past that "once a rifle, always a rifle". For example, you can register an XP-100 as an SBR. But you can't take a Model 7 or 700, and remove the shoulder stock/chop the barrel to make a pistol. To treat the XP-100 SBR as normal, you would have to install a 16"+ barrel. The same would go for that revolver, if it has been registered as a SBR.

[gtae07]

I could be wrong, but didn't ATF rule at one point that you could have a "standard" pistol AR-15 lower, and then tear it down and build it as a (16"+) rifle, then convert it back to a pistol at will, provided that at no time it was assembled with the short barrel and a shoulder stock?

[BWT]

i would be very careful with this, as this is likely committing a felony.

Per the BATFE, putting a long barrel on an AR or SBS removes the "short" part of the equation, returning them to normal status. Taking the stock off an AR or SBS wouldn't, as they have been registered as long guns.

The BATFE has ruled in the past that "once a rifle, always a rifle". For example, you can register an XP-100 as an SBR. But you can't take a Model 7 or 700, and remove the shoulder stock/chop the barrel to make a pistol. To treat the XP-100 SBR as normal, you would have to install a 16"+ barrel. The same would go for that revolver, if it has been registered as a SBR.

I know individuals have registered Glocks as SBR's and used the shoulder stock that goes in the grip channel. But then taken the stock off and not had any issues.

What I've always understood is current configuration was what mattered.

But, I'm also not the ATF. I had heard of that with AR pistols but not literal pistols before.

God Bless,

Brandon

[Toonces]

I know individuals have registered Glocks as SBR's and used the shoulder stock that goes in the grip channel. But then taken the stock off and not had any issues.

What I've always understood is current configuration was what mattered.

But, I'm also not the ATF. I had heard of that with AR pistols but not literal pistols before.

God Bless,

Brandon

My understanding is that a SBR without a stock is still a SBR, subject to all SBR regulations.

So I think it's a felony. I could be wrong. I would consult an NFA lawyer if I was going to go that route.

Also, there is a big difference between legal and not getting caught. I've never been asked to prove anything when out shooting with my registered and completely legal SBRs, suppressors, or SBS. They could have been unregistered for all anybody else knew.

[BWT]

My understanding is that a SBR without a stock is still a SBR, subject to all SBR regulations.

So I think it's a felony. I could be wrong. I would consult an NFA lawyer if I was going to go that route.

Also, there is a big difference between legal and not getting caught. I've never been asked to prove anything when out shooting with my registered and completely legal SBRs, suppressors, or SBS. They could have been unregistered for all anybody else knew.

Let me be 100% crystal clear on this; I am not nor have I ever advocated breaking the law.

Every post I've made has been in regard to this has been attempting to help understand what the law is.

So, the line above about it being a felony or someone getting away with something. I don't endorse or condone breaking the law.

He asked what we thought was legal.

Personally,

I'd call the ATF and find out.

They're always pretty helpful on the matter.

God Bless,

Brandon

[Toonces]

Take the stock off and it's not an SBR anymore.
I know individuals have registered Glocks as SBR's and used the shoulder stock that goes in the grip channel. But then taken the stock off and not had any issues.
Let me be 100% crystal clear on this; I am not nor have I ever advocated breaking the law.Every post I've made has been in regard to this has been attempting to help understand what the law is.So, the line above about it being a felony or someone getting away with something. I don't endorse or condone breaking the law.He asked what we thought was legal.Personally,I'd call the ATF and find out.They're always pretty helpful on the matter.God Bless,BrandonThe first quote of yours above is a factual statement. I would say the meaning is clear. The second quote is an anecdotal statement that is not fully defined as to the circumstance, but I took to mean that since they do it, it must be ok. I don't think either are right, but I'm not an NFA lawyer or BATFE official. I'm just some dude who was an avid reader of the NFA section of M4carbine when I was going through the process, but not so much now. Do you know what the law is? If not, I think your statements are reckless and contribute to the misunderstanding and confusion regarding a complex set of laws and rulings. I don't know, so I gave conservative advice and warnings that were meant to wave people off of committing what I suspect to be a felony. If I really wanted to know, I would ask on M4carbine and see what people like Renegade and scotryan say, or ask an NFA lawyer. The BATFE has a bad habit of giving different answers depending on who is asked, and individual agents may/probably don't know the past rulings/interpretations.

[Malamute]

Hadnt thought of M4C.

[HCM]

One a rifle always a rifle does not just apply to AR's.

When you file a form one for a pistol, you are "making" an SBR. Once you have made a pistol into a short barrel rifle the frame is legally a rifle. Taking off the stock does not Legally convert it back into a pistol. Pistol to rifle is a one way trip unless you remove it from the NFA registry.

Putting a 16" upper on an SBR lower is still going from one type of rifle to another.

[HCM]

I could be wrong, but didn't ATF rule at one point that you could have a "standard" pistol AR-15 lower, and then tear it down and build it as a (16"+) rifle, then convert it back to a pistol at will, provided that at no time it was assembled with the short barrel and a shoulder stock?

No. Once you build your AR pistol lower or AR "receiver" into a rifle by installing a stock, it technically stays a rifle even after you take off the stock.

Think of it as losing "rifle virginity."

[BWT]

Hadnt thought of M4C.

They have a pretty good sub forum.

Tony K. is a pretty sharp moderator on NFA items (and has been for over a decade) over on ar15.com's Armory subsection. Renegade used to be moderator in the NFA section before some internet drama that I don't know about or care to bring back to the surface he was banned from the AR15.com site.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_6/17_General-NFA-Questions.html

I might ask in the above.

Nfatalk.org is also a good site, Plunky runs a pretty good forum (been a member there for a few years).

Silencertalk.com is also a good site for NFA information; I was very active there for years before here.


The first quote of yours above is a factual statement. I would say the meaning is clear. The second quote is an anecdotal statement that is not fully defined as to the circumstance, but I took to mean that since they do it, it must be ok. I don't think either are right, but I'm not an NFA lawyer or BATFE official. I'm just some dude who was an avid reader of the NFA section of M4carbine when I was going through the process, but not so much now. Do you know what the law is? If not, I think your statements are reckless and contribute to the misunderstanding and confusion regarding a complex set of laws and rulings. I don't know, so I gave conservative advice and warnings that were meant to wave people off of committing what I suspect to be a felony. If I really wanted to know, I would ask on M4carbine and see what people like Renegade and scotryan say, or ask an NFA lawyer. The BATFE has a bad habit of giving different answers depending on who is asked, and individual agents may/probably don't know the past rulings/interpretations.

So, to clear it up. The only weapon that is always that has an NFA classification is MG's; even if you remove the auto sear from a registered MG receiver. If it's paperworked as a MG; it's a MG. Barrel length does not matter. If it's a side plate for an M2 or an RDIAS; it's an MG.

SBR's rely on condition of the weapon. Which is why about I don't know 4-5 years ago when BCM started selling SBR Lowers through G&R Tactical registered as SBR's; the ATF put a stop to that because the weapons had to be registered with a barrel length and the barrels were not present on the weapons thus nullifying the need for the registration.

Which kind of drives back to my point earlier in the thread about the condition of the weapon being the issue.

If you register an AR-15 as an SBR and place it in a configuration that no longer adheres to the requirements of being an SBR; the ATF no longer considers it an SBR.

Now, there is the of once a rifle always a rifle. But, here's a good .PDF from the ATF that applies to Pistols and weapons that were original designed and intended to be pistols being converted to rifles and parts.

But in this .PDF from the ATF (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2011-4-pistols-configured-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download).

As I read it The ATF indicates what I'm saying is correct in this statement on Thompson Contender's configuration being changed and going to the Supreme Court.

It is important to remember that Pistols are not regulated or considered firearms under the NFA which is true, but there are other provisions indicated that a pistol is indeed a firearm just the NFA deals with SBR's, SBS', MG's, AOW's, and DD's.


Therefore, so long as a parts kit or collection of parts is not used to make a firearm
regulated under the NFA (e.g., a short-barreled rifle or “any other weapon” as defined by
26 U.S.C. 5845(e)), no NFA firearm is made when the same parts are assembled or reassembled
in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a
barrel of 16 inches or more in length).


Specifically, the underlined part. It's not subject to NFA when it's returned to it's not NFA configuration.

Now, I would go to other sources such as NFATalk, silencertalk the NFA General FAQ under AR15.com, or the NFA forum in M4carbine.net. I've been to all of those areas and participated there for years.

But, to me. If you wanted to CYB, I'd check with the ATF. If you really want to Cover your Butt, write a letter and get a letter back.

Now Toonces, I may speak in generalities or waffle a bit in my statements, but I'm not new to NFA items.

Thanks and God Bless,

Brandon

[Johnny]

SCOTUS ruled on it, ATF wrote a nice little story about it..

It seems to be "common knowledge" among "AR people" that once a rifle always a rifle but if a receiver having never been a rifle and is first built as a pistol it can go back and forth as much as you like so long as said receiver is not configured with the short barrel and the stock at the same time.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2011-4-pistols-configured-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

[Malamute]

SCOTUS ruled on it, ATF wrote a nice little story about it..

It seems to be "common knowledge" among "AR people" that once a rifle always a rifle but if a receiver having never been a rifle and is first built as a pistol it can go back and forth as much as you like so long as said receiver is not configured with the short barrel and the stock at the same time.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2011-4-pistols-configured-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download


Yes, that is my understanding of the aspect of pistol to rifle, and back again if desired, but it still doesnt answer my original question. Does an NFA firearm (handgun with shoulder stock added) become "unrestricted" so to speak on where I can take, such as a state that doesnt allow short barreled rifles, it if the part making it NFA regulated (shoulder stock) is not present?

[Toonces]

BWT, I apologize for coming off as an ass. I re-read what I wrote. If we had been standing face to face, the in person conversation would not have made you want to punch me in the head. I hope.


Specifically, the underlined part. It's not subject to NFA when it's returned to it's not NFA configuration.

The sentences before the underlined part specifically say if no NFA item was made. This is about a registered SBR. It doesn't look like that applies.

Im tent camping. My iPad died. My phone is low. Have a good evening.

[BWT]

BWT, I apologize for coming off as an ass. I re-read what I wrote. If we had been standing face to face, the in person conversation would not have made you want to punch me in the head. I hope.



The sentences before the underlined part specifically say if no NFA item was made. This is about a registered SBR. It doesn't look like that applies.

Im tent camping. My iPad died. My phone is low. Have a good evening.

I forgive you. I'll be honest, my wife and I were out hiking at Triple Falls in our area and it was gorgeous. I put my phone in airplane mode. I checked it after going to the restroom on our way back and my wife was asking me why I looked so frustrated.

It's not worth flipping out or ruining an afternoon; this really is internet debate. It's really not worth time away form our families or impacting our relationships. I appreciate you saying something and honestly, I really respect you for doing so. If we lived closer; I'd think we'd need to get together sometime and go shooting, etc.


The sentences before the underlined part specifically say if no NFA item was made. This is about a registered SBR. It doesn't look like that applies.

So, let me break the paragraph and sentences in it a bit more. Before doing that, you referred to the sentence before this paragraph.


Conversely, if the parts are assembled into a rifle having a barrel or barrels 16 inches in length or more, a rifle not subject to the NFA has been made.

This is in regards to a rifle being put in a configuration with a barrel length greater than an SBR; makes the weapon not subject to NFA and therefore not subject to the From 5320.20 to cross state lines.

Let's get down to business on this part of the thread. My comments will be in italics and parentheses.


Therefore, so long as a parts kit or collection of parts (A handgun would be a perfect example - BWT) is not used to make a firearm
regulated under the NFA (emphasis *UNDER THE NFA* - BWT) (e.g., a short-barreled rifle or “any other weapon” as defined by
26 U.S.C. 5845(e) (pistols as I said in my previous post are *NOT* weapons subject to the NFA -BWT)), no NFA firearm (a pistol is *NOT* an NFA firearm - BWT) is made when the same parts are assembled or reassembled
in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a
barrel of 16 inches or more in length) (It specifically uses a pistol as an example; it also says pistols are not regulated under the NFA - BWT).


Merely assembling and disassembling such a rifle
does not result in the making of a new weapon; rather, it is the same rifle in a knockdown
condition (i.e., complete as to all component parts). Likewise, because it is the same
weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no “weapon made from a rifle” subject to the NFA
has been made.

A Form 1 is literally a is sometimes referred to as a "weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, etc." On the form 1 it literally is an application to make a weapon (https://www.atf.gov/file/11281/download).

When a "weapon made from a pistol/rifle/shotgun" reconfigured as a pistol/rifle/shotgun (in this example and the example in the Supreme Court case back in 1992); is no longer subject to the NFA when it no longer fits the dimensions that are regulated.

Further in the .PDF it states


(b) Convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm, including –
(1) A pistol and (This means don't bring your shoulder stock with you when it's in pistol configuration - BWT) attachable shoulder stock; and
- 4 -
(2) A rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, and an attachable barrel
of less than 16 inches in length.
Such weapons must be registered and are subject to all requirements of the NFA.

I hope this helps. From everything I've ever read and understood in regards to Short Barreled Rifles, and it's clear to me in this document from the ATF that if it's not in configuration and the parts aren't physically present with the weapon (ETA: to restore the weapon to it's NFA configuration); it is no longer purview to the NFA.

Now, crossing state lines; as I understand it the weapon is no longer federally regulated out of that registered configuration or the components are present to readily restore that weapon to it's registered condition (when an SBR/SBS).

You'll still be subject to all local/state legalities but as long as that pistol is not configured as an SBR; you would not be subject to the NFA and thus a Form 5320.20 would not need to be filed/approved before crossing state lines.

I hope this helps and I'm glad to be able to put our dispute aside Toonces. Man, you and I have had it out over this week, no?

God Bless,

Brandon

ETA: At this point, if you have any further concerns; I'd contact someone like Joshua Prince (Lawyer) or others and I can recommend those via PM. I apologize to Tom and any others if I did any of this incorrectly/disobeyed directions, etc.