PDA

View Full Version : SBR versus AR pistol question



Crusader8207
11-14-2017, 11:48 AM
I have a lower that has been engraved as an SBR but I want to be able to travel with it unencumbered by having to notify the ATF everytime I go out of state. Can I remove the adjustable buffer tube and replace it with a pistol buffer tube and add a brace, or should I purchase a new lower and add the pistol components to that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ragnar_d
11-14-2017, 12:04 PM
Others likely have more experience in this than me, but my understanding is that once that lower/firearm is in the NFA registry it's an SBR until its removed from the registry.

It would be cheaper and easier to just build up another lower with a brace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hansohn Brothers
11-14-2017, 12:41 PM
The better alternative is to put a 16”+ barrel on. Once the short barrel is removed, it is no longer an SBR and can be treated as a title 1 firearm. I don’t think you can convert a rifle to a handgun.

Mike C
11-14-2017, 01:19 PM
Advantage to what ragnar_d suggested is that if you have other short uppers floating around there are no issues with, "constructive possession" or whatever they call it if it's a pistol lower. Also it is the cheapest route and the configuration I'd leave the weapon in in my home, (if I only owned one SBR) shoot someone with it no one is taking your NFA item, (if that is a concern for you). Advantage to what Hansohn Brothers recommended is that a 16" upper is pretty useful, more so that a 10-12" one in 5.56mm. Other advantage is that you aren't leaving around a Title 1 for grabs when you are out of town, which is a huge bonus in my book, only downside I can see is cost and if it is stolen in transport in the even that you fly, having another set of holdovers depending on your zero, maybe added cost of optic?

LJP
11-14-2017, 01:24 PM
If you want an AR pistol, purchase a new lower for that purpose. If you want a rifle to travel with, go with the 16” upper on your SBR lower. You cannot legally make a rifle lower into a pistol lower unless it was initially configured as a pistol. That is my understanding of the legalities. Caveat, I’m not a lawyer. I do, however, have an AR pistol and a pending Form 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Crusader8207
11-14-2017, 01:54 PM
Ok thank you for the advice. I'll look into the 16" upper. I currently have 3 SBRs and no full size ARs. I appreciate the input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

voodoo_man
11-14-2017, 04:22 PM
As LJP stated, buy a new lower for a pistol build. It makes everything easier.

STI
11-14-2017, 09:20 PM
If you've bought a loose unassembled lower, do you have any way of knowing if it's listed as a pistol or rifle lower?

What makes a bare lower into one or the other?

RevolverRob
11-14-2017, 10:57 PM
If you've bought a loose unassembled lower, do you have any way of knowing if it's listed as a pistol or rifle lower?

There is a "Type" section the 4473 (Section D, Question 27) which is completed by the Transferer/Seller - The ATF says (from the instructions on form 4473):


Types of firearms include, but are not limited to: pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, receiver, frame and other firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns (rifles
or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell (pistol grip firearm) or NFA firearms (machinegun, silencer, short-barreled shotgun, short-barreled rifle, destructive device or "any other weapon").

So a bare AR15 receiver can be (SHOULD BE) listed as a "receiver" or "frame" on the 4473 (either was fine with my ATF inspector, when I sold guns). Note that if a lower receiver was assembled with a stock it was designated a rifle. If it had a pistol buffer tube installed it was designated a pistol. If there was no buffer tube, but there was an LPK installed it was still a receiver or frame.



What makes a bare lower into one or the other?

The installation of a stock, installation of a shoulder stock makes a lower receiver a "rifle" receiver. And generally according to the ATF removal of the stock does NOT convert the receiver back. But this is pretty damn gray, because according to the ATF, installing a 16" barrel in a pistol and then attaching a stock (in that order) is a legal rifle conversion. But converting "pistol" AR into a rifle AR and back again, is/is not legal? Depends on the damn time of day and the wind, it seems.

My opinion (IANAL) - If one has a receiver that is serialized and stamped SBR you avoid this problem. If you have a bare receiver, turn it into a rifle or a pistol. If you go rifle, it stays rifle, unless you SBR it. If you go pistol, it stays a pistol, unless you SBR it. - It's just easier that way.

ReverendMeat
11-14-2017, 11:04 PM
Note that if a lower receiver was assembled with a stock it was designated a rifle. If it had a pistol buffer tube installed it was designated a pistol.

FYI that's no longer the case as of a couple years ago. Now a lower receiver with a stock or pistol buffer tube installed is still to be considered a receiver.

RevolverRob
11-14-2017, 11:11 PM
FYI that's no longer the case as of a couple years ago. Now a lower receiver with a stock or pistol buffer tube installed is still to be considered a receiver.

Huh, I didn't realize there was a change, but I see there are apparently a few ATF Tech letters out now to that effect. It also implies that removing a stock and stock buffer tube from a lower allows it to be used as a pistol lower.

voodoo_man
11-15-2017, 12:21 AM
If you've bought a loose unassembled lower, do you have any way of knowing if it's listed as a pistol or rifle lower?

What makes a bare lower into one or the other?

You can still find "pistol" marked lowers and when you get them sent to your FFL / or when you buy an AR15 lower from an FFL just register it as a pistol.

A pistol marked lower is unnecessary but if thats your reasoning for purchasing it then it may work for you.

STI
11-15-2017, 12:40 AM
There is a "Type" section the 4473 (Section D, Question 27) which is completed by the Transferer/Seller - The ATF says (from the instructions on form 4473):

So a bare AR15 receiver can be (SHOULD BE) listed as a "receiver" or "frame" on the 4473 (either was fine with my ATF inspector, when I sold guns). Note that if a lower receiver was assembled with a stock it was designated a rifle. If it had a pistol buffer tube installed it was designated a pistol. If there was no buffer tube, but there was an LPK installed it was still a receiver or frame.


The installation of a stock, installation of a shoulder stock makes a lower receiver a "rifle" receiver. And generally according to the ATF removal of the stock does NOT convert the receiver back. But this is pretty damn gray, because according to the ATF, installing a 16" barrel in a pistol and then attaching a stock (in that order) is a legal rifle conversion. But converting "pistol" AR into a rifle AR and back again, is/is not legal? Depends on the damn time of day and the wind, it seems.

My opinion (IANAL) - If one has a receiver that is serialized and stamped SBR you avoid this problem. If you have a bare receiver, turn it into a rifle or a pistol. If you go rifle, it stays rifle, unless you SBR it. If you go pistol, it stays a pistol, unless you SBR it. - It's just easier that way.


You can still find "pistol" marked lowers and when you get them sent to your FFL / or when you buy an AR15 lower from an FFL just register it as a pistol.

A pistol marked lower is unnecessary but if thats your reasoning for purchasing it then it may work for you.

It's a bare Ballistic Advantage lower, no buffer tube or stock, came with no LPK. Now has LaRue MBT and mil spec pins and mag catch. I assume I could build it up to be either a rifle or pistol at this point so long as I don't waffle around after it's configuration is finalized.

Original plan, that I have barrel and bolt for, was hunting capable 18" 6.8SPC SPR-ish clone. Now indecisive me would rather have a Glock mag 9mm AR pistol.

ReverendMeat
11-15-2017, 02:00 AM
It's a bare Ballistic Advantage lower, no buffer tube or stock, came with no LPK. Now has LaRue MBT and mil spec pins and mag catch. I assume I could build it up to be either a rifle or pistol at this point so long as I don't waffle around after it's configuration is finalized.

Original plan, that I have barrel and bolt for, was hunting capable 18" 6.8SPC SPR-ish clone. Now indecisive me would rather have a Glock mag 9mm AR pistol.

You can do whatever you like with the receiver as it was sold to you as a "receiver" or "frame" (provided the FFL that transferred it to you isn't stupid and recorded it properly). If you configure it first as a pistol you can later turn it into a rifle and back to a pistol again if you wanted. However if you configure it first as a rifle it must stay a rifle. Obviously you could always say that you built the receiver into a pistol first regardless and I don't see any way anyone could prove otherwise. But that would, of course, be illegal.

RevolverRob
11-15-2017, 12:55 PM
Now indecisive me would rather have a Glock mag 9mm AR pistol.

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I'll share it, since you brought this up. Having done up a few 9mm ARs now (4 to be exact, including one 9mm Glock AR that never worked right). The Glock 9mm AR guns are a solution in search of a problem. That "problem" is cheap mags and laziness on the part of folks who want a 9mm AR, but don't want to buy Colt-pattern SMG magazines. The Glock receiver guns have come a long way from the initial ones, but still suffer from the worst problem a 9mm blowback "squirt gun" can suffer from - single-feed magazines.

Single-feed magazines in SMGs are generally a no-no, and especially in blowback operated guns (like the Colt pattern). The only exception to this I can think of appears to be the Kriss Vector, which was designed ground-up to use Glock mags, and is a locked-breech type operation, not a blowback gun. In the history of SMGs, single-feed mags were quickly replaced by double-feed magazines (true "double stack" magazines). For instance, the STEN is a simple gun and works okay(ish), but the single-feed magazines are a weakness that frequently fail. Refining that platform, with a double-feed magazine, and better made bolt in the form of the Sterling SMG makes it one of the most reliable SMGs on the planet.

Colt "solved" the problems of making a 9mm AR run as a blowback squirt gun in the 1980s. And in my opinion, it's best to not muck with their "solution". Which is a dedicated magazine block, a narrow hammer installed into a standard AR15 trigger group, a large ejector, a heavy buffer installed, and a proper double column stick magazine. When quality magazines (Metalform, Colt, ASC, C-Products - in that order) are used guns are generally 100% reliable and work very - very - well.

The Glock-mag fed guns, really need a ramped barrel and bolt, and sometimes fitting between the upper and lower to work well. If you have a non-dedicated lower, you're going to spend A LOT of time fiddling with the magazine block to get it to run properly. The dedicated lowers are angling the magazine well now to get a "straighter" shot in terms of feeding from the Glock magazine. By contrast if you drop in a Colt or Hahn Precision (my personal choice) dedicated magazine block, throw in a 9mm hammer and BCG, and a heavy buffer, you'll be shooting reliably in an hour.

In short, if you want to do a 9mm AR on a non-dedicated lower - built a Colt-Pattern gun. If you want to do a 9mm Glock AR - buy a dedicated lower, ramped barrel, ramped bolt, and build it up in that way.

STI
11-15-2017, 02:51 PM
In short, if you want to do a 9mm AR on a non-dedicated lower - built a Colt-Pattern gun. If you want to do a 9mm Glock AR - buy a dedicated lower, ramped barrel, ramped bolt, and build it up in that way.

You're right. After more research I agree, and shouldn't have mentioned using my standard AR15 lower potentially being a home for a Glock mag gun. There's lots of issues beyond what you mentioned as well.

Sorry all for the diversion from the OP.

ReverendMeat
11-15-2017, 03:07 PM
Single-feed magazines in SMGs are generally a no-no, and especially in blowback operated guns (like the Colt pattern). The only exception to this I can think of appears to be the Kriss Vector, which was designed ground-up to use Glock mags, and is a locked-breech type operation, not a blowback gun.

The Kriss is blowback, not locked breech. I'm not tracking how either method of operation would make a difference when it comes to magazine reliability?

RevolverRob
11-15-2017, 03:39 PM
The Kriss is blowback, not locked breech. I'm not tracking how either method of operation would make a difference when it comes to magazine reliability?

By technical definition the Kriss is a lever-type action delayed blowback vs. closed bolt blowback of the Colt (which is driven strictly by spring pressure).

The original challenge the double-feed (true double column) mag, overcame was two-fold. 1) A weaker magazine spring (easier to load) could push bullets up to be chambered by an open bolt gun, 2) Magazine feed "lips" of double-column guns are less precise and allow for sloppier feeding that a high-rate of fire gun wants/needs. - This in turn allows guns to be built to a cruder set of specifications.

The Colt SMG fires from a closed bolt and on fully automatic uses that "sloppier feed" provided by a double column mag to keep things running well. It turns out, with a double-feed magazine you simply get a larger feed ramp area which tends to result in less feed-related malfunctions (unless the mag spring/follower is no good).

The Kriss was designed around the Glock magazine, including the feed angle and with the action mechanism that is more precisely fitted into the chassis of the gun. The Colt was designed around an almost straight shot feed with a wide feed ramp, in this scenario a double column magazine simply works better.

There are several open bolt designs out there that feed fine from single-feed mags, but again they were designed around those magazines.

DMF13
04-28-2018, 12:18 AM
The Glock 9mm AR guns are a solution in search of a problem. That "problem" is cheap mags and laziness on the part of folks who want a 9mm AR, but don't want to buy Colt-pattern SMG magazines. Well, to be fair, some folks, like friends in Colorado, can't buy "Colt" 9mm mags, since they aren't allowed to buy any mags with a capacity of more than 15 rounds, after June of 2013. It's my understanding that all the "Colt" 9mm AR mags hold more than 15 rounds. So if they want a 9mm AR, then they can't run out and start buying a "Colt" pattern AR.

However, I want a "Glock" 9mm AR, because of laziness, and the plethora of 9mm Glock mags I have lying around.

CleverNickname
04-28-2018, 01:01 AM
I have a lower that has been engraved as an SBR but I want to be able to travel with it unencumbered by having to notify the ATF everytime I go out of state. Can I remove the adjustable buffer tube and replace it with a pistol buffer tube and add a brace, or should I purchase a new lower and add the pistol components to that?

You could do that, but you wouldn't accomplish what you're trying to do. SBRs don't have to have stocks.

Crusader8207
04-28-2018, 05:30 PM
You could do that, but you wouldn't accomplish what you're trying to do. SBRs don't have to have stocks.

I built a pistol lower and solved the problem. Thanks.

MistWolf
05-01-2018, 08:05 PM
Good call. If you haven't already, get the SB Tactical SBA3 Adjustable Arm Brace for it. Brownell's is accepting preorders for about $116.

Hansohn Brothers
05-02-2018, 07:47 AM
SBRs don't have to have stocks.
Can you explain further?

CleverNickname
05-02-2018, 07:54 AM
The definition for a short-barreled rifle in 26 USC 5845(a) includes "a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length." If you make a rifle into an SBR, it doesn't have to have a stock. If having a stock was a prerequisite for a firearm being an SBR, then it wouldn't be illegal to make a rifle into a handgun. But it is.

Hansohn Brothers
05-03-2018, 05:01 PM
The definition for a short-barreled rifle in 26 USC 5845(a) includes "a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length." If you make a rifle into an SBR, it doesn't have to have a stock. If having a stock was a prerequisite for a firearm being an SBR, then it wouldn't be illegal to make a rifle into a handgun. But it is.
Having a stock is part of the definition of a rifle. So, by not having a stock, you have a handgun. Another myth is you can go back and forth between an SBR and handgun. Once you register and make an SBR, it cannot go back to a handgun. This is due to the registration as a rifle, a short barreled rifle (form 1 or form 2), but a rifle nonetheless.

CleverNickname
05-03-2018, 07:11 PM
Having a stock is part of the definition of a rifle. So, by not having a stock, you have a handgun. Another myth is you can go back and forth between an SBR and handgun. Once you register and make an SBR, it cannot go back to a handgun. This is due to the registration as a rifle, a short barreled rifle (form 1 or form 2), but a rifle nonetheless.

Having a stock is part of the definition of a title I rifle. A stock is not required for an SBR. Read 18 USC 921(a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a), or the section of the NFA I quoted in my previous post.


(7) The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
(8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.


There's no shoulder stock requirement in the bolded part.

Hansohn Brothers
05-03-2018, 08:40 PM
We'll just have to disagree i think.

DMF13
05-05-2018, 02:56 AM
Clevernickname is correct, and it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The definitions in 26USC5845, clearly defines which firearms must be registered, which includes, "a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length. ". Which means if it was a rifle, and you later it to have an overall length less than 26", or barrel length less than 16", you have made an NFA firearm, which is only legal to make, possess, transfer if properly registered and the tax is paid.

Here is a link to the portion of the US Code with the definitions. The relevant portion is 26USC5845(a)(4). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

Hansohn Brothers
05-05-2018, 12:38 PM
I see y'all's point. Thank you for the clarification.

Jim Watson
05-07-2018, 10:41 PM
I saw an AR "pistol" with "brace" in use at a USPSA ish shoot yesterday.
Any difference from a SBR is purely in the mind of a gullible BATF clerk.

Glock specific receiver and those transparent magazines in a DIY parts gun shot well.