Ok so I have a CIA mini Draco on the way. It has a listed overall length of 16-3/8" with the muzzle device attached. I would like to put a side folding pistol stabilizing brace and a FUG on it without dealing with the ATF or SBR’ing it. I also do not want to permanently attach my muzzle device in case I want to switch it out or go through the process of getting a silencer. So the question is: I am looking at the SB15 and the KAK tube but that will only give me 8.5" from what information I am getting… Assuming I have a total length of about 15" w/o the muzzle device I would still need about 2.5" to put a FUG on it. What AK to AR tube adapter and locking folding mechanism would give me the desired overall length of 26" without the muzzle device?
You are confusing ATF definitions of rifle, pistol, SBR and AOW. SB47 can be installed on a pistol and remain a pistol. Regardless of how you use it. VFG on a pistol is a No-No without going NFA and being stamped.
What is the fixation on 26"?
Also for a muzzle device to count as barrel length, it must be permanently attached.
I also don’t think a “folding” stabilizing brace is going to be seen as any other than a SBR.
To do what you want to do, without creating a SBR you need to create a carbine which as a minimum 16" barrel length. So your choices are perm attaching something like a 6" barrel device OR creating a SBR.
At 26" it is no longer a pistol and is allowed to have a FUG. No stamp required.
http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf
I am working off of this thread.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?118998-New-Stabilizing-Brace-for-AR15-Pistol-quot-SB15-quot
Personally I agree with the viewpoint that a folding stabilizer brace is just that, a folding stabilizer brace. Kinda like a stabilizing brace that looks like a stock, can be shouldered like one, and still not be considered a stock. It is a stabilizer brace that someone has put on their shoulder according to the ATF, and it is legal to use that way. It doesn’t change what the weapon is just because I put a folding the stabilizer on it, but making the length go out to 26" does change it to “other” from a pistol
I just found this while answering your questions.
http://www.cncwarrior.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=26561
“The arm brace is timed and pinned in place with a removeable screw through the bottom.”
Since the brace is “pinned with a removeable screw” does it count toward OAL?
I am talking 26" w/o the muzzle device. I need about 11.5" I was hoping someone already had a setup going.
The stock is pinned on, so that should count toward the total length,correct?
Please don’t take that as anything other than the friendly advice it is intended to be, but I think you are making more than a few “very gray area” assumptions and are getting way out on a thin limb. And IMO it just isn’t worth saving $200 to have a “goofy sorta SBR” setup that may or may not be in full compliance with the current regs and laws.
And just because you are “of the opinion” and “truly believe” that your proposed setup should be in compliance doesn’t mean ATF will agree with you.
Throwing a “arm brace” on a pistol is FINE with ATF. having it fold (which means stock hardware is involved) and then trying to satisfy an OAL requirement so you can then throw a forward grip on it is quite another matter.
You really need to decide between:
A: a “pistol” with a stabilizing brace
B: a “pistol” which is now a carbine because you have a 16" barrel
C: a registered SBR
I wouldn’t screw around with any other option. If ATF decides to be jerky about it, it’s not small time. Unregistered SBRs are exactly the same kind of felony as unregistered machine guns.
If you want to hit 26"; sell the Mini Draco and buy a regular one. You’re going to spend more money and time trying to turn the Mini into a regular Draco but would likely end up with an Pseudo AK abortion
You can’t make a Title 1 Handgun (CAI Mini-Draco) into a Title 1 Other.
You can configure it to resemble a Title 1 Other, but it will still be considered a Title 1 Handgun.
In order to legally make a Title 1 Handgun (CAI Mini-Draco) into a Title 1 Other (less than 16" rifled barrel + greater than 16" overall length + no shoulder stock), then you will need to destroy the Title 1 Handgun and use a new stripped receiver with the parts from the Mini-Draco to make it into a Title 1 Other.
Franklin Armory is a 07-FFL and makes the XO-26 as a Title 1 Other. They are not made from or have ever been Title 1 Handguns.
That’s what I’ve been gathering, It would be easier to get the 10" barrel model, or permanently attaching a FH. I’ve found the parts to do it but the abortion it will turn into might not be worth the trouble.
So it’s legal to take a pistol AR lower and turn it into a rifle by adding a 16" barrel and stock but not to make it into an “other”? What about the other way around. All the stripped lowers I have have been registered as “other”, is it then illegal for me to turn those into a rifle or pistol?
I was planning to add the parts at my FFL’s before I took possession so I can have it registered as an “other”. At this point I think I’m going to have to write a letter to the ATF with my intent just to make sure my ass is covered.
FWIW, what is written on the 4473 has no bearing on what a receiver actually is… it’s not ‘registering’ it as a pistol or rifle.
Correct. A 4473 doesn’t REGISTER anything. I cannot receive a Colt 6920, book it in as a “handgun” and have the designation change.
01 FFLs only RECORD information, they can’t change or register anything. And if they record the information incorrectly they put their license in jeopardy and are at risk of fines and jail time.
Manufacturers are the only ones who can change legal designation. Individuals do this with Form 1s by registering as SBRs, etc. and 07 SOTs do this with a Form 2.
Please DO NOT write a request for a clarification letter. This will just give ATF the opportunity to adopt a new position on something that is already well established and potentially screw it up for everyone else. People writing clarification letters are why SBRs are now subject to 922r compliance when they previously were NOT.
Several people (including myself) have explained to you at length why your desired idea is not going to work and we’ve tried to correct many misconceptions you have. Your wish and desire for things to be different has no bearing on the way things are and ATF isn’t going to change their minds in a more “favorable” way because you wrote a letter. At BEST you will get a letter stating what we have already told you.
Your stated intent to “manufacturer” a new firearm prior to taking possession of it then requesting that the FFL incorrectly record the firearm indicate that you simply have no idea what you are doing. There is nothing wrong with not knowing what you are doing, nobody knows everything. But you need to take a moment and understand everything we are trying to tell you.