Jump to content
Underdog

Foregrips

Recommended Posts

I assume that foregrips are legal unless they are vertical handgrips?  Do they attach to the rail directly, or do you have to have a Picatinny Rail screwed in to attach them to?  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No restrictions on vertical grips at the moment.

You can select one with the attachment method you need for the rail/tube/handguard you have on your carbine.

They make some to attach to 1913 rails, others are direct attach for MLOK, Keymod, or Troy Alpha type tubes.

What kind of handguards do you have on there now?

What kind of shooting are you planning this for?

Have you shot with one before and already have a preference for a type?

More and accurate info will help us help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rail is not M lok or Key Mod.  It has a Picatinny Rail on top of the rail and threaded smallish screws on the sides.  What attaches to them.  I want to attach a Picatinny rail to them.  

I don't know the brand of the rail.  It looks like a quad, but with the Picatinny rail only on the top.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 8:16 PM, JackDaWack said:

If they are over 26" i believe they are gtg

Saw this during the conversation, and being I just watched a video that made mention to it... was going to follow up for everyone to make their own decision.

Just was watching this, and Tim got into the differences between it and AR pistols. Mentioned being able to put a vertical grip on a “firearm” without issue. Same reason why they are ok on TAC-14s, yet people argued it made an AOW (incorrect, as it isn’t a pistol).

He then mentioned that people argue that you can do the same with a pistol over 26”. At around the 6:00 mark, he speaks of this... ATF has issued conflicting letters on this subject. That means it hasn’t been established which is correct, and if it comes to question, might become a test subject for it.

Might not be a huge point for NJ shooters, but rather have both sides clearly put out. When I go up to Maine, I likely will be following a similar practice to Tim, and not put a foregrip on a pistol of any overall length... for the same reasons, not wanting to screw up my career by being sent to Federal prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to ATF letters you usually go with the most recent opinion, as they can change. But I don't believe it can get anymore clear then from their last statement regarding the issues. 

https://johnpierceesq.com/can-you-add-a-vertical-fore-grip-to-an-ar-pistol/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

When it comes to ATF letters you usually go with the most recent opinion, as they can change. But I don't believe it can get anymore clear then from their last statement regarding the issues. 

https://johnpierceesq.com/can-you-add-a-vertical-fore-grip-to-an-ar-pistol/

Sorry, but I actually disagree completely with the lawyer who wrote that...

That is going under the premise that a pistol can go to “firearm” status, without issue. Show me the ATF’s opinion on that... because I’ve never seen it.

What I have seen is the letter on the firearms like the TAC-14 and Shockwave. These are firearms that never had a stock installed on them... which is why you can’t make your own from a currently owned shotgun. That creates a SBS... because it is a shotgun (going to not bring up NJ’s laws, because they lump SBRs and SBSs together under one definition). It has been very clear that the receiver never had a stock attached... and for someone not to attach a stock without going for a tax stamp. You actually can toss a stock on a Shockwave without any NFA issue... judging you put an 18” barrel. Can’t go back after the stock is installed... being you technically are creating a SBS at that point (the stock made it a shotgun). If that wasn’t correct, there would be no problem building Shockwaves off the millions of Mossbergs already out there.

The one exception, which the ATF does have letters out on, is going from pistol to rifle... as long as said pistol has a 16” barrel installed prior to the stock going on/left on until the stock is removed (and certain exceptions for C&R SBRs, which are still SBRs, but the tax stamp is waved; Lugers with detachable shoulder stocks). It isn’t transforming back to a “firearm,” but going from one type to another.

How I read that letter you linked, and a few people I know have interpreted it similarly, you would have to construct the “firearm” from a receiver, much like an AR pistol (which that can be under 26”). That part of the equation is your $1,000,000 question... because like the previous question, I’ve yet to see ATF acknowledge it. It isn’t a pistol because it was designed to be fired with two hands (when Franklin Armory, or whoever builds it... from ATF’s own words). But putting a vertical grip on a Glock makes AOW...

Making it clear would be a letter that states a Glock with an overall length of 26” is considered a “firearm,” and that there is no issue putting a vertical grip on it in such a configuration. When I see that, I’ll withdraw my concern.

Now, does that defy logic? Absolutely! The entire NFA and GCA are like that. For an 870 to be a SBS if it has a 14” barrel and stock (requiring the background, wait, and tax... not to mention stricter control on transportation), but an identically produced one (14” barrel) to be non-applicable to the NFA because it has a brace... which has been cleared to be shouldered like a stock... is completely idiotic. However... that is the law.

Hey, you can listen to a Virginia lawyer about it. That is definitely your prerogative, as well as your right. I prefer to listen to people that have a lot better knowledge of US Code, and considering those previously mentioned points have yet to be explained clearly enough, my view is that 26” exemption does not work on a pistol. It works on a “firearm.” But unless a person is in Virginia when they get jammed up over it for that lawyer to fight it (no guarantee he will win, either)... I’ll air on the side of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Screwball said:

Sorry, but I actually disagree completely with the lawyer who wrote that...

 

Sorry, Need to clarify. I agree with your statements. The "firearm" would have to be one not originating as a pistol or rifle... Pretty much it would start life as a receiver. 

Seems retarded, but It's an opinion in regards to the laws banning the principle use of turning a rifle or pistol into an SBR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 7:31 PM, SgtToadette said:

Are able to take a photo?

It is an Anderson Rail that appears to use "proprietary" Picatinny rails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...