Dusty84
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2022
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
M&p 15 pistol 5.56 buffer tube must go as well
- Thread starter Dusty84
- Start date
hemiram
Well-known member
I would and am holding off to see what happens with this insane rule before trashing my one gun with a blade on it. I don't even understand the logic behind it. But then again, I don't understand a lot of the ATF's thinking on guns.
Dusty84
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2022
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
Same. But I’ve been seeking clarity on the tube as far as it needing to be like the smooth ones we used to be limited to. That’s an official word and just wanted to spread it. I sent it to S&W to ask what tube they recommend or if they would make one if the rule stays what it is.
I don’t consider a screenshot of a email from a unknown BATF person to be the final determination.
This email directly contradicts information the BATF has published that states “This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with a disabilities, not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle”.
This email directly contradicts information the BATF has published that states “This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with a disabilities, not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle”.
Last edited:
I think if you check the preliminary release of the new rule it said Pistol Buffer Tube with Adjustment Notches are not allowed.
This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered no later than May 31, 2023.
This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered no later than May 31, 2023.
Pisgah
Well-known member
Wanting to remain in full compliance with federal law, I removed both the brace and the "adjustable" buffer tube from my AR pistol and replaced them with a plain ol' smooth pistol buffer tube I had laying around. I fully intended to destroy the tube-and-brace combo but, alas, somehow they have been irretrievably lost or stolen in the meantime...
Dusty84
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2022
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
@BSA1 even the tubes with the divots for set screw of blade style brace would allow for attachment. Could anyone figure out a way to add a stock or brace to a smooth buffer? Of course they could but just like pre brace days that would give you sbr. I remember back then when foam was being put over the tubes. Unless something clearly states that’s not an attachment I won’t even do that.
Elsewhere and prob here there’s people who think I’m an idiot for contacting them. But I wanted clarity and my email is the first I’ve seen of that clarity for tube. If this was for a rifle or similar I’d be losing my s***. But let me be real, I don’t care to have or not have a brace. Did it help? Yes with stability from shoulder. But I have a plethora of other guns that I’d grab in prob every type of scenario over a 7.5” barrel 5.56. For my particular ar pistol it’s just the cool factor of it being a pistol and the allowing of concealment.
And just for the sake of saying so. A ukulele softcase with backpack style straps is a great fit!!!
Elsewhere and prob here there’s people who think I’m an idiot for contacting them. But I wanted clarity and my email is the first I’ve seen of that clarity for tube. If this was for a rifle or similar I’d be losing my s***. But let me be real, I don’t care to have or not have a brace. Did it help? Yes with stability from shoulder. But I have a plethora of other guns that I’d grab in prob every type of scenario over a 7.5” barrel 5.56. For my particular ar pistol it’s just the cool factor of it being a pistol and the allowing of concealment.
And just for the sake of saying so. A ukulele softcase with backpack style straps is a great fit!!!
Braces are no longer legal on a pistol or a SBR unless you register them as a SBR. You can have a buffer tube with notches on a rifle, of course there would really be no need to do that.
CAJUNLAWYER
Well-known member
Playing up to the edge can be dangerous. DO so at your own peril.
Being a test case can get REAL EXPENSIVE quickly. I'll let someone else take point on this one.
Being a test case can get REAL EXPENSIVE quickly. I'll let someone else take point on this one.
Not sure of that. Reread the BATF statement in post #4.
What does their statement that this rule does not affect stabilizing brace use by individuals with disabilities mean? Their rule could be contrary to the ADA (Americans Disability Act) and discrimination without exemption of the tax stamp fee. (The fee waiver is only a temporary one-time deal).
Last edited:
Post #4 didn't post the entire statement. I posted it in post #5. Those with a disability can use a brace, but if it’s a SBR it’s going to need to be registered to be legal.
They also address the claim about the Americans Disability Act in the document.
Last edited:
STORMINORMAN
Well-known member
Yes, it's probably statistically sane to presume that any enforcement action might just be directed to ANOTHER ONE of the estimated 10-40 MILLION such newly defined "short barreled rifles"...?
They'll no doubt start with all the completed weapons sold over the last decade, or so...? Low hanging fruit, so to speak!
CHEERS!
P.S. When does an upper (or a BCG) somehow become a machine gun?
Last edited:
Yes, it's probably statistically sane to presume that any enforcement action might just be directed to ANOTHER ONE of the estimated 10-40 MILLION such newly defined "short barreled rifles"...?
They'll no doubt start with all the completed weapons sold over the last decade, or so...? Low hanging fruit, so to speak!
CHEERS!
P.S. When does an upper (or a BCG) somehow become a machine gun?
That 10-40 million number is a joke. Even the liberal news sites use the estimated number of AR Type rifles at 20 million. Pistols with braces will be a fraction of that.
Most people bought a lower or a firearm from an FFL, so a record already exists. They can turn that record into an NFA SBR for free right now. Is that a good thing? No, but its better than telling them they have to destroy it or turn it in.
They probably won’t go looking for them and we won’t hear about them when they take down those that choose to not follow the law.
Anyone that thinks they have a way around the latest ban, should probably read that 280 page plus document very closely. They have pretty much covered all bases.
I am struggling to understand this. If it is registered as a SBR I can either use a brace or stock legally correct? It doesn’t matter if I have a disability.
A brace on firearm with a 16”+ length barrel is NFA exempt. So why does the regulation say “not for shouldering as a rifle” (post #4 and 5)?
Since you are well informed as to the contents of the new regulation would you post either what the regulation says or post a link to the specific page(s)?
Because they are telling you that if you want a stabilizing brace, whether you are disabled or not, you can have one if you register it has a SBR.
You sound like your confusion comes from thinking there is some way a disabled person can have a brace on a pistol without having to have it registered; there is not. A disabled person can get their SBR with a brace registered for free provided they do it in the time frame allotted.
16+ inch barrel, 26” minimum overall length and you could have a brace that functions as such when used as a brace. No registration required.
No. The document is 98 pages long and not broken down by page. Below is a link to the ATF page. There is a link that says READ THE FINAL RULE, it will take you to the PDF or allow you to download it.
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
shawn mccarver
SWCA Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,984
- Reaction score
- 7,025
During ATF training they said several times removal of the brace IS enough as long as the brace is sufficiently separated from the pistol.
This is the first and only thing I have seen from the BATF that only smooth buffer tubes are legal. @Dave686 have you read anything in the regulations about this?
I don’t pretend to be an expert on this ruling, and I didn’t sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.
But I have read it, and if you are looking for some way around this without registering your SBR, I don’t see one. It’s obvious to me people who are knowledgeable on the AR and this application have been involved in writing this and covered all bases.I don’t see how you use it matters as much as the gun itself. Throughout the document they talk about Shoulder fired and definitions and intent, and the mistakes and assumptions they made.
This might help you.....
Accordingly, the Department amends the definition of ‘‘rifle’’ under 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 to expressly state that the term ‘‘designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder’’ includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward
attachment (e.g., a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the amended regulations and described in this preamble, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
The other factors are:
(1) Whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;
(2) Whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method), that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
(3) Whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;
(4) Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;
(5) The manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(6) Information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.
All of the objective design features and factors listed in the rule that indicate the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder are derived from the NPRM and proposed Worksheet 4999. The revised definition in this final rule clarifies, consistent with the best interpretation of the statutory provision, that firearms with an attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ can possess objective design features that make them ‘‘rifles,’’ as that term is defined under the NFA and GCA. If a firearm with an attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ meets the definition of a ‘‘rifle’’ based on the factors indicated in this final rule, then that firearm could also be a short-barreled rifle depending on the length of the attached barrel, thus subjecting it to additional requirements under the NFA and GCA. However, a firearm with an attached ‘‘brace’’ device is not a ‘‘rifle’’ as defined in the relevant statutes if the weapon is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The rule, as proposed and finalized, does not ban ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ or prohibit firearms with an attached ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ regardless of the firearm’s classification. This revised definition reflects the Department’s understanding of the best interpretation of the statute, and it is immediately effective.
Similar threads
