Putting aside the fact that RRA isn’t thought very highly of, here’s my question. If you wanted the versatility of a pistol and a SBR on one gun, what if anything would prevent you from buying one of these and then doing the paperwork and getting a stock to SBR it? Could you then remove the stock after it’s registered (and the desire/need arose) to make it a really short SBR as far as the ATF was concerned? Seems you could have a really compact “pistol” with the ability to make it into a rifle when needed. Just a random thought.
Hmmm, a little confused here.
Your wanting to know if you sbr a gun, can you remove the stock on it? What would you achieve in that aspect? your not making it any shorter by doing so. You dont remove the receiver extension, so other than that not sure what the idea behind this is.
Also those half length extensions are a hack job and unstable as all hell, so thats not an option either.
The whole idea in doing an sbr is having a short barrel. You can run any short barreled upper you want when you have a stamp for the lower, so again, by removing the stock what are you achieving asides from losing a stock?
IMO it is just over complicating the ordeal. If you want a pistol, build a pistol, if you want to go the stamp route through the atf go that way. Seems pretty simple.
The RRA doesn’t have a receiver extension, it’s a piston system sitting on top of the barrel and receiver. The stock, when mounted, folds to the side. My thinking was being able to slim it down and shorten it by removal of the stock, but still be able to take advantage of having an SBR by re-attaching the stock. Like I said, just an idle thought. Don’t think their would be any ATF problems, at least none that I can anticipate unless I’m not thinking it all the way through.
Ah I see. My bad.
Only downside to that RRA is seeing it say proprietary lower receiver, thus imo sorta wasting a tax stamp.