RedBowTies88

But how does NJ law describe “stock”?

Exactly, it would still be a rifle, just without a stock... again in the real question is, does putting a brace onto a rifle convert that brace to a stock. Hard to believe it could be absolutely positively considered not to be a stock on a pistol but then immediately become a stock on a rifle. Actually, not that hard to believe with the way things are. Still curious about any legislature defining “stock”

Again, what you’re saying is that removing the stock from a rifle turns it into something other than a rifle. Correct? I’m not suggesting the possibility of changing a rifle into a pistol, a firearm, aow, or any of that stuff. I’m simply talking about replacing a stock with a brace on a RIFLE. If removing the stock from a rifle turns it into something else, then the argument is dead right there, but I don’t see how that would be possible assuming the barrel is 16” and the OAL is 26” the more realistic argument IMHO is the one stating that placing a “brace” on anything other than a pistol or “firearm” would immediately reclassify it as a stock. That’s why I’m curious if there’s any legal definition of a “stock” in NJ legislature.

You’re missing the point, I’m not arguing that it would be anything other than a rifle. It would just be a “stock-less” Rifle. According to that train of thought anyway. The argument remains that if a brace is used on something other than a pistol or “firearm” that it could then become considered a stock at either the state or federal level. I guess it would most likely depend on the definition of a stock, if one so exists.

So what you’re arguing is that a rifle without a stock is no longer a rifle?

Again, this is all just hypothetical. I made it a point to mention in the OP that I’m not concerned if doing something like this could/would land you in jail, because we all know the answer to that question. I’m just curious if it could be a legal work around, to have something on your rifle to provide a 3rd point of contact. Something that is not a stock, and could be adjusted for easy storage, transport, and different shooting positions. That is an excellent argument. This is why I’m curious if there’s any language in NJ law that defines a “stock”. I’m going to check out one of those ATF approval letters to see if there’s any reference to it being installed on a pistol only. Thanks.

Err, let me try again now that I’ve re read your post If it’s legal to completely remove the stock from an AR style rifle and leave only then receiver extension, assuming that the rifle is compliant in every other way (16” barrel, 26” OAL, only one evil feature, etc) in that configuration, then why couldn’t one simply add a part that is not a stock, onto the receiver extension?

I believe you’re missing the point. I’m not looking to transform it from a rifle to a pistol. Even if that were legal federally it would be nearly impossible to get the weight under 50oz with an adjustable brace. I want to keep it designinated a rifle, abide by the 26” and 16” barrel regulation, and simply run it without a stock. Forget the adding a brace aspect for a moment. Let me ask this, if I take the fixed stock off of my AK and leave just the pistol grip, have I changed it to something other than a rifle? Same as if I had a folding stock Ak with the stock fixed to the folded position.

A shotgun is still a shotgun without a stock, why should a rifle be any different? As long as it’s 26” OAL or more I don’t see them changing the definition to anything other than a rifle..

Yeah that’s basically the worst place to get legal advice.

Also, if you’re not familiar with these braces you should do some research and perhaps watch some videos. They are indeed quite useful.

Of course when I saw full size rifle I actually mean a legal size rifle, a carbine. And because it could collapse for more compactness and easy of transport/storage yet still give a 3rd point of contact.

Hey guys. Sorry if this is inr he wrong sub-forum, but the mobile site only gave me one posting option. Anyway, with the recent popularity of adjustable pistol braces from companies like SB Tatical, Gear Head Works, KAK, etc etc I’m wondering what the legalities (or illegalities, more likely) could be for using one not on a pistol build, but on a full size and otherwise compliant rifle? These braces come with ATF paperwork specially citing that they ARE NOT a stock, at least federally. I’m wondering if and if so how NJ defines a “stock”. I very much appreciate any thoughts/insight. P.s. This is not a question of “if a cop sees you with this will you be arrested” we all know the answer to that and that here in NJ we’re guilty until proven innocent.

I'm still acquiring parts. I'm working on both a DMR and lightweight race gun at the moment. Since the lightweight BC is so expensive I'm planning On sharing that between builds. Btw, I did finally pick up and install the polymer LPK from new frontier. Hard to believe that could even work consisting how cheesy and light it feels, but I'll be dammed if that trigger isn't excellent. Also EXTREMELY light. Like it doesn't feel like a LPK when you pick up the bag.

I'm not sure what you consider "south" but here in the Deep South the best actual shop around here that I've found is Seagear at the foot of the cape May bridge. As far as one man operations go I've had great luck with John Terelli (may of butchered his name). His business is Soutb jersey small arms gunsmithing in Millville.

The perfect solution. Another question: If I have a lower transferred to me on a permit, would it still be possible to use it for a rifle build should the pistol thing not work out?

I agree with that, but I think that because most FFL's will have the same mentality as the majority of those in this thread (that a legal AR pistol build is an impossibility) they will be hesitant.

I would have to make a call to my FFL and ask, I would imagine it may be kind of difficult to find someone willing.

That makes sense, because then it could be made illegal just by running a different magazine. That 58oz AR I mentioned earlier was WITH a slightly modified 10rd gi mag.

Does that thing make it under the 50oz requirement even with an empty magazine installed? I recently watched Forgotten Weapons video on one, pretty neat.

man, all this doubt on the possibility of it really has me wanting to do it just to see if I can prove everyone wrong. That isn't the point of this thread however, the point is that IF it could be done, would it be legal? If a full size 16" rifle can be built to be 58oz, (look up sub-60oz AR) then I do believe it would be possible to shave another 8-9oz with a barrel less than half the length and forgoing the handguard completely. Like I said, I'll have everything I need besides the barrel and pistol buffer tube once I'm done my rifle project. It will be easy to grab those and weight them.

I'm purchasing most of that for my rifle build, I believe it would be possible. I'm think the sub 60oz project guy ended up at something like 58oz with a 16" barrel and a 5-6oz handguard. The "unloaded weight" being with or without magazine would be a factor though.

But don't lower transfer as a "firearm" and not technically a rifle or pistol? I'm curious if any FFL's would actually transfer me a stripped lower as a "handgun". I do have permits to burn... "as manufactured" is an interesting point. The lower is certainly manufactured at well under 50oz...

So I'm working on an ultra-lightweight (4lbs~) NJ compliant rifle build, and that had me thinking; what if I could build a pistol to come in under 50oz unloaded? As far as I know, it would have to absolutely be under 50oz unloaded (does that mean empty mag or no mag?) it could not have a hand guard (barrel shroud) of any type, and the muzzle would have be thread-less. If all of that could be accomplished (seems possible, although difficult) is there any other legislation that would render one illegal? What about starting from a stripped lower that I didn't use a pistol permit to acquire? curious about everyone's thoughts.

P.s. I tried to post this in the current gun laws section, but with the mobile site it would only let me into the NICS sub section. Please move if appropriate.