Jump to content
EngineerJet

Build guide for non-nfa?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, El Jefe said:

If you don't fold it and take your hand off of it you can still shoot in one hand. So that doesn't make any sense.

 

This is about what the law says, not "what ifs". 

The VFG establishes a design for two handed shooting. 

 

A folding VFG establishes a design for both one and two handed.

 

I have NO IDEA, how you can sit here and claim a folding and non folding VFG are substantially identical... 

would you say folding and non folding stocks identical? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 8:10 AM, EngineerJet said:

As for length barrels, see the chart (credit to u/saucenet on reddit). 10.5 will be the shortest you can go and still get up to 26"
 

nqumxm5dope31.png

Doesn't length of pull factor in when building a non NFA? Is so, wouldn't a longer buffer tube affect length of pull?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JAM3 said:

Doesn't length of pull factor in when building a non NFA? Is so, wouldn't a longer buffer tube affect length of pull?

Officially, there is no statute that has anything about length of pull and braces. But really... a brace wasn’t designed to be shouldered, so really LOP can not apply.

From the BS that the ATF has pulled with Q among other mentions of it... 13.5” seems to be their cut off of saying it is a magically a stock. If I remember correctly, the A5 adds 0.75” to the length of a standard carbine buffer tube. So, if your brace setup is less than 12.75” with the standard tube... you should be good.

Food for thought... the SBA3 gives you 12.5” LOP standard. The SBA4 is 13.25” standard. By basic logic, the SBA3 would be good to keep it under that mark with the A5... giving you roughly the same length as the SBA4. If ATF’s BS limit is correct (again that isn’t on any official document supplied to the public or private company that states as much), an A5 tube and SBA4 would be a Waco/Ruby Ridge type of problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JAM3 said:

Doesn't length of pull factor in when building a non NFA? Is so, wouldn't a longer buffer tube affect length of pull?

 

Not length of pull, just overall length. But yes, a longer buffer tube does factor in, hence its part of the decision tree you quoted

5 minutes ago, RUTGERS95 said:

we need a list, a breakdown of what exactly to buy

This has been discussed at nauseum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shooter28 said:

Not length of pull, just overall length. But yes, a longer buffer tube does factor in, hence its part of the decision tree you quoted

This has been discussed at nauseum. 

and yet here we are and still no true list with a concrete breakdown so............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, RUTGERS95 said:

and yet here we are and still no true list with a concrete breakdown so............

It’s been done in multiple threads. What are you looking for that hasn’t been answered or isn’t captured in that chart? It doesn’t get any easier than the decision chart above. If people can’t buy a receiver,  follow that chart and the simple rules of 1) must have a brace, 2) needs a VFG and 3) OAL > 26”, they shouldn’t even be considering this type of weapon. Stick with your basic P&W 14.5” or 16” rifle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Screwball said:

 If ATF’s BS limit is correct (again that isn’t on any official document supplied to the public or private company that states as much), an A5 tube and SBA4 would be a Waco/Ruby Ridge type of problem.

Okay, the reason I asked is....I have a Tromix extended Carbine buffer tube (9.25" total external length) with a SBA4 which gives me approximately a 15" length of pull. So, I guess I'm looking at a Waco/Ruby Ridge type problem?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JAM3 said:

Okay, the reason I asked is....I have a Tromix extended Carbine buffer tube (9.25" total external length) with a SBA4 which gives me approximately a 15" length of pull. So, I guess I'm looking at a Waco/Ruby Ridge type problem?

 

Can you identify where a statement has been made that LOP is considered when determining the legality of a brace? I have seen it discussed on a number of gun forums dating back years, but no ATF letter outlines such restrictions. 

The latest ATF ruling calls braces accessories, to be removed prior to any examinations. I would be weary of fixing one permanently to a reciever extension past the LOP suggested, becuase its no longer removable. But, LOP is not applicable to a brace, there is no LOP. Once you start modifying things you start getting into uncharted water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RUTGERS95 said:

and yet here we are and still no true list with a concrete breakdown so............

It all comes down to - How short do you want it and do you want to pin a muzzle device?

Everything else is standard AR15.  Upper/lower/bcg/parts/etc.  

The only other mandatory pieces are - barrel length (with or without pinned muzzle device - and it doesn't have to be a brake)/buffer length/VFG/Pistol Brace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can you identify where a statement has been made that LOP is considered when determining the legality of a brace?

The current situation with the Q Honey Badger... which the ATF incorrectly measured the brace and stated it is over 13.5” (there is a picture floating around of a tape measure angled to make the LOP over that number; correct measurements should be taken parallel to the bore... which Q supplied showing it is under that mark).

But it has been the issue with braces over the years... no actual specifications on what is legal, and ATF becomes the deciding factor in them (which an agency within the Executive Branch is not supposed to decide that... they are supposed to enforce the law).

Share this post


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

The current situation with the Q Honey Badger... which the ATF incorrectly measured the brace and stated it is over 13.5” (there is a picture floating around of a tape measure angled to make the LOP over that number; correct measurements should be taken parallel to the bore... which Q supplied showing it is under that mark).

But it has been the issue with braces over the years... no actual specifications on what is legal, and ATF becomes the deciding factor in them (which an agency within the Executive Branch is not supposed to decide that... they are supposed to enforce the law).

Have you read the ATF letter?? I posted the link in another thread about the honey Badger and the ATF letter. They did not mention LOP once in the entire letter. 

The ATF simply stated the brace was designed to be a stock, they didnt elelaborate a single detail beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Have you read the ATF letter?? I posted the link in another thread about the honey Badger and the ATF letter. They did not mention LOP once in the entire letter. 

The ATF simply stated the brace was designed to be a stock, they didnt elelaborate a single detail beyond that.

I have (not in the thread here, though)... have you seen the picture that the Q released, which isn’t directly said to be from an ATF opinion letter, but is definitely identical in format to other letters? I mean, ‘13 and 9/16”’ is a very odd number to be specified in this entire situation without some sort of reason behind it. And it’s funny that Q’s corrected measurement is like 13.33” (if I remember correctly; if not, is pretty close to that)... which hovers right around that 13.5” in a very convenient way.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/honey-badger-sbr-decision-put-on-pause-a-possible-reason-for-classification/

That being said, this is not just a simple back/forth between ATF and Q. Q does have lawyers guiding their release of material related to this situation. Just because one letter, which was topping two months old when it was finally released, came out... does not mean it is the only letter. I definitely suggest listening to the YouTube interview between the owner of Q and Tim from Military Arms Channel (the one with the owner from SB Tactical also gives a lot of background in what the industry was looking for over the years). He does a good job pointing out that there is a lot more behind the scenes info, and is being directed from his attorneys to not put it all out in the open. The August letter was likely released to give Honey Badger owners the info required for making their decision on how to move forward... not to mention it specifies the actual cease/desist (sort of important to get out to the owners).

ATF has been floating that 13.5” LOP for at least two or three years. I agree that there is not one statute in the CFR or USC related to 13.5” LOP... but which side of the fence do you want to be on when it is pretty clear on what they are trying to do? Even the 60 day pause on this decision is clearly being done to see where the chips will fall after the election.

Personally, I really don’t care that much about it (whether 13.5” is the limit for LOP). 12.5” is fine for me with my AR pistol. But I’m not going to give someone asking about it a partial answer, especially with everything going on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Screwball said:

I have (not in the thread here, though)... have you seen the picture that the Q released, which isn’t directly said to be from an ATF opinion letter, but is definitely identical in format to other letters? I mean, ‘13 and 9/16”’ is a very odd number to be specified in this entire situation without some sort of reason behind it. And it’s funny that Q’s corrected measurement is like 13.33” (if I remember correctly; if not, is pretty close to that)... which hovers right around that 13.5” in a very convenient way.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/honey-badger-sbr-decision-put-on-pause-a-possible-reason-for-classification/

That being said, this is not just a simple back/forth between ATF and Q. Q does have lawyers guiding their release of material related to this situation. Just because one letter, which was topping two months old when it was finally released, came out... does not mean it is the only letter. I definitely suggest listening to the YouTube interview between the owner of Q and Tim from Military Arms Channel (the one with the owner from SB Tactical also gives a lot of background in what the industry was looking for over the years). He does a good job pointing out that there is a lot more behind the scenes info, and is being directed from his attorneys to not put it all out in the open. The August letter was likely released to give Honey Badger owners the info required for making their decision on how to move forward... not to mention it specifies the actual cease/desist (sort of important to get out to the owners).

ATF has been floating that 13.5” LOP for at least two or three years. I agree that there is not one statute in the CFR or USC related to 13.5” LOP... but which side of the fence do you want to be on when it is pretty clear on what they are trying to do? Even the 60 day pause on this decision is clearly being done to see where the chips will fall after the election.

Personally, I really don’t care that much about it (whether 13.5” is the limit for LOP). 12.5” is fine for me with my AR pistol. But I’m not going to give someone asking about it a partial answer, especially with everything going on now.

Keeping an ATF letter secret accomplishes absolutely nothing. Especially if its information related to them selling what the ATF considered an illegal product. That is why this was released

The letters which come from regional offices are in a way legal documents, and describe how the ATF applies the law. It informs dealers of firearms and customers, and allows them to make legal decisions.

What we have here, is most likely an opinion from field agents, as before, who are attempting to make up bullshit without construction of legally binding opinions that we see in these letters. Maybe that's why they aren't saying anymore.

So maybe some asshat wrote them an email about LOP, as part of their decision, AFAIK, if its not in an ATF letter head opinion.. it means absolutely nothing. So maybe they had a back and forth with the ATF after the letter was received... but the letter itself should have any and all explanations. 

 

No ones is giving a partial answer. I simply said LOP has never been a measurement the ATF has outlined in an official opinion to anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a lot of back and forth about nothing. The diagram above explains everything. I have an "other" I built on my own. I have posted all the exact parts. If you need any more information PM me and I'll go back and look up what I posted if you're too lazy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, InFamous said:

This is a lot of back and forth about nothing. The diagram above explains everything. I have an "other" I built on my own. I have posted all the exact parts. If you need any more information PM me and I'll go back and look up what I posted if you're too lazy.

Ditto. The specs of my other are posted here too. Im not sure what is so complicated about picking a barrel length, a buffer length and then figuring out if you need to pin the muzzle device or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 9:08 PM, JAM3 said:

Doesn't length of pull factor in when building a non NFA? Is so, wouldn't a longer buffer tube affect length of pull?

 

The diagram needs to be fixed, there is a typo there, on the left green box it says  - under 26" - it should say over as with the pinned and welded device you are over 26" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

The diagram needs to be fixed, there is a typo there, on the left green box it says  - under 26" - it should say over as with the pinned and welded device you are over 26" 

I'm not sure why you're quoting a LOP question. 

Regardless, the diagram is fine... anyone with a brain can figure out what its outlining. Pin and and weld the damn thing if its under 26" OAL. 

 

People just routinely need to make this harder than it is... a) make sure its over 26" b) use a brace that is found in an ATF letter head, or even the SBA3 and SBA4 braces don't let you use position 6 for max LOP. 

Sooo many non issues...

Share this post


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

I'm not sure why you're quoting a LOP question. 

Regardless, the diagram is fine... anyone with a brain can figure out what its outlining. Pin and and weld the damn thing if its under 26" OAL. 

 

People just routinely need to make this harder than it is... a) make sure its over 26" b) use a brace that is found in an ATF letter head, or even the SBA3 and SBA4 braces don't let you use position 6 for max LOP. 

Sooo many non issues...

I quoted the last time the diagram was …

I have a non NFA and understand the rules, it just seems that with all these questions that people have, it is not as easy to understand for everyone....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2020 at 7:39 PM, Screwball said:

The current situation with the Q Honey Badger... which the ATF incorrectly measured the brace and stated it is over 13.5” (there is a picture floating around of a tape measure angled to make the LOP over that number; correct measurements should be taken parallel to the bore... which Q supplied showing it is under that mark).

But it has been the issue with braces over the years... no actual specifications on what is legal, and ATF becomes the deciding factor in them (which an agency within the Executive Branch is not supposed to decide that... they are supposed to enforce the law).

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-suffers-rare-court-loss-in-ohio-short-barrel-rifle-prosecution/

There is some good information in there. Specifically, 

 

First, the ATF has never issued an official public opinion letter stating that AR pistols with such accessories — cheek rests, pistol braces, etc. — must have a length of pull of no more than 13.5 inches to avoid being considered an SBR.

The ATF had communicated that fact to various manufacturers in private opinion letters concerning their specific products over the years (and some of those companies have chosen to make those letters public), but nothing has ever been communicated to the general gun-buying public by the agency.

As a result, the defense argued that Wright had no reasonable way of knowing about the 13.5-inch length of pull limit. There’s a Supreme Court precedent in Staples v. United States that found a gun owner has to know that his firearm has characteristics that bring it under NFA regulation to be guilty of a crime.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

how it should be

too much thought police going on with the laws now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 8:55 PM, 0Jeep4 said:

  I completely understand stand your points, but I’m pretty sure I can easily explain it’s a non nfa Firearm it’s overall length is over 26” it has a brace and a vfg as it’s designed to be fired with two hands. Should I still be in fear of running foul of the law? 

I overheard the counter guy at RSTP holding the Troy saying it’s a loophole gun it’s basically an “SBR” work around and that’s how it was being sold an advertised, by them inside an FFl. 

Should I really be afraid of using/owning a home built one ? 

that counter guy needs to use smarter words.  Saying 'loophole' in this environment is like saying 'n$*%%^%' in Atlanta!

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...