Pistol stock = SBR?!


PDA






Jath
October 23, 2011, 02:17 AM
What the heck? That doesn't make any sense to me...

I saw this awesome pistol stock for the Desert Eagle .50 cal, And it was pretty awesome. Only problem is that you have to have an SBR stamp to have it.

I would LOVE it if I could have a detachable stock and interchangeable longer barrel for a Taurus Judge, but that is apparently also a no no, even though both weapons are legal individually.

What do you think.

Also, check out this petition thread on the SBR ban:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=621100

If you enjoyed reading about "Pistol stock = SBR?!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skribs
October 23, 2011, 02:28 AM
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs) - this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Adding a buttstock to a pistol that has a barrel under 16" makes it fit this category.

Also, you can get an SBR legally. You just have to register with ATF and pay a $200 tax.

Jath
October 23, 2011, 02:31 AM
I'm well aware of that sir, but that is the problem. What about a short barreled rifle, or a stock on a pistol, makes me more dangerous? What about these restrictions keeps a criminal from sawing off their barrel anyway, or jerry rigging a stock for a pistol? They don't care about the laws... Why should I have to pay 200 bucks and get put on some registry as a law abiding citizen?

Skribs
October 23, 2011, 02:39 AM
I'm sorry, but your title was "Adding a stock to a pistol makes it an SBR?" And your first line was "It doesn't make sense to me."

The NFA entirely doesn't work for the reason you mentioned (criminals can get them anyway), you shouldn't just focus on SBRs. However, the stability of a stock on a short platform does make you more dangerous inside a building. If you were to carry an AR-15 with a 14.5" barrel in my house, even with a collapsed stock, you would have a problem turning around in the hallway. If you had something with a 9" barrel, you could turn just fine. You're also going to be vastly more accurate with a stock than without.
I'm not going to say that we shouldn't be able to have SBRs, but I am saying that in a situation where someone is likely to use a gun to commit a crime (home invasion or armed robbery), there is an advantage to an SBR.

Think about it - why do you want to put a stock on a pistol? Why not just get a .410 shotgun or a semi-automatic carbine? Why do you want an SBR?

ugaarguy
October 23, 2011, 05:33 AM
I'm not going to say that we shouldn't be able to have SBRs, but I am saying that in a situation where someone is likely to use a gun to commit a crime (home invasion or armed robbery), there is an advantage to an SBR.
The inverse is also true:

I'm going to say that we should be able to have SBRs, because I'm saying that in a situation where someone is likely to use a gun to lawfully resist a violent crime (home invasion or armed robbery), there is an advantage to an SBR.

Think about it - why do you want to put a stock on a pistol? Why not just get a .410 shotgun or a semi-automatic carbine? Why do you want an SBR?
The inverse of this is also true.

Think about it - why wouldn't you want to put a stock on a pistol? Why be forced to use a .410 or a semi-automatic carbine if you don't want to buy a $200 NFA permission slip to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights? Why wouldn't you want to be able to SBR without taxes, registration, and legal ramifications?

Zerodefect
October 23, 2011, 10:52 AM
I'm well aware of that sir, but that is the problem. What about a short barreled rifle, or a stock on a pistol, makes me more dangerous? What about these restrictions keeps a criminal from sawing off their barrel anyway, or jerry rigging a stock for a pistol? They don't care about the laws... Why should I have to pay 200 bucks and get put on some registry as a law abiding citizen?

The PD's are scared of them. They shake in thier boots at the idea of an SBR. That's why our rights are limited. Because lawmakers are cowards. But they allmost have sound logic in this case.

Putting a stock on regular auto pistol is lame. Deosn't really work very well for me at all. Generally I only see newbs running that setup. Most better shooters do better without it.

Taking a carbine and shortening it to subgun sizes can be very effective. A FN P90 or even a 16" PS90 is far faster to manuever indoors than a 14.5" AR15.

Rifles are far more powerful and can effectively get way more lead into a moving target than a pistol can. PD's are just afraid of a carbine that can be concealed. And they are afraid that if we have more SBR's available, then they may start showing up at gunshows.

The SBR license prevents these great rifles from showing up at shows and falling into the wrong hands. It's a compromise. We don't want the rifles to be illegal, but we don't want them to be sold to just anybody.

Rail Driver
October 23, 2011, 11:07 AM
Putting a stock on regular auto pistol is lame. Deosn't really work very well for me at all. Generally I only see newbs running that setup. Most better shooters do better without it.

Putting a proper, fitted stock on a hard recoiling auto pistol (or any pistol, including revolvers) will help just about anybody shoot faster and much more accurately than without a stock. That third point of contact with your body provides much more stability than your arms alone ever could unless you're the incredible hulk or superman.

Check this book for more information (it should come right up to information about stocks. This is an OLD book. Stocking a pistol is not a new idea by any means). http://books.google.com/books?id=vIffAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA425&lpg=PA425&dq=benefits+to+putting+a+stock+on+a+pistol&source=bl&ots=x4EoiMhasG&sig=Y7uQGHuuRQCkbgcd1yr-o7pm0DA&hl=en&ei=by6kTvO5JY66tgfgudn_DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CHYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The SBR license prevents these great rifles from showing up at shows and falling into the wrong hands. It's a compromise. We don't want the rifles to be illegal, but we don't want them to be sold to just anybody.

This is misinformation. There is no such thing as an "SBR license". You pay the ATF a tax one time for each regulated transfer. No license is involved and you have to file paperwork and pay for each new tax stamp. Also .... the whole gun show loophole you're referencing is a common anti-gun argument and also a myth.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how it is.

Zerodefect
October 23, 2011, 11:09 AM
Thankyou. It's not a license, just a one time registration "stamp".

It should also be noted that if you don't have an SBR friendly PD that'll sign off on such paperwork, you can set up a trust and take your paperwork straight to the ATF going around the local Fudds completely. This deosn't allways work. But when it deos it's easier.

TexasRifleman
October 23, 2011, 12:29 PM
The SBR license prevents these great rifles from showing up at shows and falling into the wrong hands.

That's sarcasm I assume. Since you can buy the parts to make an SBR over the counter with no problems at all then assemble an illegal SBR if you wanted to, that doesn't really make any sense otherwise.

Shockingly enough, criminals don't tend to worry much about gun laws.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
October 23, 2011, 12:36 PM
"Why should I have to pay 200 bucks and get put on some registry as a law abiding citizen? "


10 years in Leavenworth and being Bubba's girlfriend during that time.

How's that for a start?

michiganfan
October 23, 2011, 12:41 PM
"10 years in Leavenworth and being Bubba's girlfriend during that time."

LOL. That's the bottom line.

brickeyee
October 23, 2011, 12:47 PM
Malum prohibitum

It means wrong because it is illegal.

Sam1911
October 23, 2011, 03:30 PM
Putting a stock on regular auto pistol is lame. Doesn't really work very well for me at all. Generally I only see newbs running that setup. Most better shooters do better without it.

Absolutely true.

Putting a proper, fitted stock on a hard recoiling auto pistol (or any pistol, including revolvers) will help just about anybody shoot faster and much more accurately than without a stock. That third point of contact with your body provides much more stability than your arms alone ever could unless you're the incredible hulk or superman.Not so much. Handguns are designed with ergonomics and (most importantly) sighting systems that work correctly when the gun is held at arms' length. Adding a stock brings them in closer to the eye and changes the orientation of the body to the gun, which does not help you hit anything faster or more accurately.

A short barrel on a RIFLE may indeed have benefits, mostly of storage and maneuverability. Putting a stock on a handgun is almost completely useless. The old 19th century cavalry troops proved that point when they abandoned the idea of stocks for their revolvers completely, many years before the NFA put a damper on the idea.

As far as controlling recoil goes, the one exception I can think of is with tiny machine-pistols (Glock 18, etc.) which have very high rates of fire and may indeed be more controllable with a butt-stock.

But a 9mm, .40 S&W, .45ACP, etc. handgun can be fired very accurately at speeds of over five shots a second without a butt stock -- so what advantage are we really expecting to gain by adding one? Surely we aren't going to go any faster. Surely we aren't going to be more practically accurate, just because we've moved the sights too close to our face for a proper sight picture?

PO2Hammer
October 23, 2011, 08:21 PM
What about a short barreled rifle, or a stock on a pistol, makes me more dangerous? What about these restrictions keeps a criminal from sawing off their barrel anyway, or jerry rigging a stock for a pistol? They don't care about the laws... Why should I have to pay 200 bucks and get put on some registry as a law abiding citizen?

Unfortunately logic does not apply to gun laws. Add your name to the petition and vote, that's about all we can do.

jmorris
October 23, 2011, 10:06 PM
Putting a stock on regular auto pistol is lame. Doesn't really work very well for me at all. Generally I only see newbs running that setup. Most better shooters do better without it.




I think a stock is usefull for accurate full auto pistol fire.

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/qvideo/7409/HPIM0327.jpg

Zoogster
October 23, 2011, 10:36 PM
I hope that picture is not really the inside of the vehicle those guns are transported in and is instead some outdoor beat up vehicle that does not run or is a target.

This is because that beer can on the floor is an 'open container' and would give any officer that happened to see it the ability to cause you some trouble. I would hate to see you have your firearm confiscated and the trouble getting them back because you were cited for an open container or arrested for possible intoxicated driving (they will probably fail you on their discretionary field sobriety test if they think you just drank that beer.)

Sam Cade
October 23, 2011, 11:12 PM
This is because that beer can on the floor is an 'open container' and would give any officer that happened to see it the ability to cause you some trouble.

There are "open containers" and then there are "empty containers" and never the twain shall meet, to paraphrase Kipling.

Jath
October 24, 2011, 12:36 AM
First off, the first and foremost point of this thread is to get people to sign the petition. I only did it in a way that would ensure the thread was on topic for this section.

Secondly, anyone who doesn't think a stock on a pistol improves its accuracy and handling for multiple shots is simply an idiot. I don't care how good you are with any pistol, the right stock will improve your ability with that weapon.

I'm not going to debate that as opinion either, that is simply fact. Argue with it if you will, but until you go out and try it, you're simply delusional if you think you know better.

Sam Cade
October 24, 2011, 12:52 AM
First off, the first and foremost point of this thread is to get people to sign the petition.


If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.

In other words, the political efficacy of any petition submitted in this manner is nil.

The function of this particular social construct is twofold:
1.It dissipates the energy of the petitioners, allowing them to feel as if they are making change without actually having any effect on the status quo.
2.It makes nice neat lists of people that could be exploited for HUMINT.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism

Sam1911
October 24, 2011, 07:58 AM
Secondly, anyone who doesn't think a stock on a pistol improves its accuracy and handling for multiple shots is simply an idiot. I'm sure you didn't mean to issue a blanket insult to myself and other members of the forum. That would be quite rude and not acceptable for this community.

Also, it denigrates the informed, practiced experiences of those of us who actually do things, see things, record findings, and so forth. Certainly you didn't mean that experience = idiocy?

I don't care how good you are with any pistol, the right stock will improve your ability with that weapon.

Really? Many attempts have been made to prove that point and provide such improvements to soldiers, law enforcement, etc. As I pointed out, going back as far as Colt's model 1860 Army revolver and earlier, the concept was tried and abandoned.

Putting a true rifle/carbine, with rifle sights and ergonomics, in a shooter's hands generally does give him a boost in speed and accuracy -- at least out beyond 25 yds. or so. (Inside of 25 yards, its a toss-up.) Slap a buttstock on a handgun and you've just messed up a good thing.

But you are free to show us. If you have something set up this way, or know someone who does, run some accuracy-weighted tests against a shot timer -- handgun -vs.- handgun-with-buttstock. Prove your point. Otherwise, you're just expressing an opinion you cannot support, and the weight of the historic record bears against you.

Sam1911
October 24, 2011, 08:00 AM
First off, the first and foremost point of this thread is to get people to sign the petition. I only did it in a way that would ensure the thread was on topic for this section.

Generally that's frowned upon. We ask members to make ONE thread per subject, and not cross-post into multiple sub-forums. Creating "teaser" threads to funnel people into your main thread is rather in poor form, but I'll let this one run as it has sparked an interesting and possibly useful discussion.

dogtown tom
October 24, 2011, 10:28 AM
Jath First off, the first and foremost point of this thread is to get people to sign the petition.
Online petitions that purport to effect political or legislative change are the equivalent of writing on a gas stations restroom wall to demand lower gas prices.
Both are ignored.


Jath:...Secondly, anyone who doesn't think a stock on a pistol improves its accuracy and handling for multiple shots is simply an idiot. I don't care how good you are with any pistol, the right stock will improve your ability with that weapon.

I'm not going to debate that as opinion either, that is simply fact. Argue with it if you will, but until you go out and try it, you're simply delusional if you think you know better.

So......how many stocked handguns have you actually fired?

Stocked handguns have been around since before the Civil War and have never been accused of being much more than a wishful novelty.

I currently own one stocked handgun, a WWII Inglis Hi Power. To say that the stock improves handling and accuracy means you never used one.

jmorris
October 24, 2011, 11:05 AM
I hope that picture is not really the inside of the vehicle those guns are transported in and is instead some outdoor beat up vehicle that does not run or is a target.


This is because that beer can on the floor is an 'open container' and would give any officer that happened to see it the ability to cause you some trouble. I would hate to see you have your firearm confiscated and the trouble getting them back because you were cited for an open container or arrested for possible intoxicated driving (they will probably fail you on their discretionary field sobriety test if they think you just drank that beer.)


Back seat of a Kawasaki mule on private land.

backbencher
October 24, 2011, 06:26 PM
If the beer can on the floor is an open container, THAT is a crime, b/c someone has spilled beer! It should be remembered, however, that guns & beer do not mix. Hoppes #9 will ruin even the finest Belgian ales, which would be a waste of money better spent on more ammo. Or beer.

The 1934 NFA effectively terminated the development of effective pistol stocks, as America is one of the few countries that views the pistol as an offensive weapon, rather than a last resort - for that, we use our Bowie knives. Now that most American pistol owners, save those in the PRoK & other benighted states, can reasonably afford SBRs, we are starting again to see development of pistol stocks. This can only be a good thing for the Republic and the 2nd Amendment community.

The Roni & MechTech are two examples of modern pistol stocks that could, w/ proper components, measurably increase the accuracy of their host pistols.

In the example of the FN 5.7mms, it would be very interesting to compare an SBR bullpup w/ a red dot to an SBR'd pistol w/ the same length bbl & the same red dot. W/ an effective stock on the pistol, the bullpup would be slightly shorter, but heavier. I would imagine a SBS Rossi Judge would be a more stable platform than the same length bbl Taurus.

Farmers Fight!

backbencher

Sam Cade
October 24, 2011, 06:43 PM
The Roni & MechTech are two examples of modern pistol stocks that could, w/ proper components, measurably increase the accuracy of their host pistols.


I like the looks of the rather unfortunately named K.P.O.S myself.


http://www.fab-defense.com/en/id-206/pistol-to-pdw-convesrsion.html

jmorris
October 24, 2011, 07:52 PM
One other "fun fact" about conversions like the mechtech is that once you put it on a pistol frame you have now made a rifle and when you put the pistol topend back on you now have an SBR.

Sam Cade
October 24, 2011, 08:04 PM
One other "fun fact" about conversions like the mechtech is that once you put it on a pistol frame you have now made a rifle and when you put the pistol topend back on you now have an SBR.

Nah.

ATF says you are fine as long as the handgun is assembled into a legal configuration, and you can go back and forth at will.

Mechtech+pistol frame=Title one firearm.

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

Sam1911
October 24, 2011, 08:21 PM
Yes! That is wonderfully true! The ATF did indeed reverse themselves on that opinion (which is not uncommon, of course) and did so in favor of the gun owner (which IS uncommon)!

Who knows...the start of a kindler, gentler, more logical and reasonable ATF?


Ok, now that's just going too far! :D

Frogman
October 25, 2011, 11:01 PM
You know it would not be bad - the $200 tax stamp if they would throw in the use of a silencer to go with the SBR.

GLOOB
October 26, 2011, 03:03 AM
The old 19th century cavalry troops proved that point when they abandoned the idea of stocks for their revolvers completely, many years before the NFA put a damper on the idea.
Yeah, but red dots hadn't been invented, yet. And what's the rate of aimed fire on a SA revolver, anyway?

Sam1911
October 26, 2011, 06:44 AM
And what's the rate of aimed fire on a SA revolver, anyway?

Actually, that's a good point. A lot faster without a stock than with one, certainly, as the cocking motion is much easier to accomplish with the gun free to be rolled in the hand easily.

jmorris
October 26, 2011, 03:50 PM
ATF says you are fine as long as the handgun is assembled into a legal configuration, and you can go back and forth at will.

That's good news. Talked to them last year about this and at that time the only pistol you could convert back and forth was the contender.

HGUNHNTR
October 26, 2011, 04:40 PM
hope that picture is not really the inside of the vehicle those guns are transported in and is instead some outdoor beat up vehicle that does not run or is a target.

This is because that beer can on the floor is an 'open container' and would give any officer that happened to see it the ability to cause you some trouble. I would hate to see you have your firearm confiscated and the trouble getting them back because you were cited for an open container or arrested for possible intoxicated driving (they will probably fail you on their discretionary field sobriety test if they think you just drank that beer.)

And possibly the most heinous offense...drinking light beer. :neener: C'mon, whats that crap!

backbencher
October 27, 2011, 02:32 PM
Sam,

Had forgotten about the KPOS. If they'd make one for the M9, I'd pick one up for my next deployment. I doubt I'll get an M4 next time round.

Do they sell a holster for the KPOS?

FF!

backbencher

Sam Cade
October 27, 2011, 08:04 PM
Do they sell a holster for the KPOS?

Don't think so.

It would be WAY to long to carry holstered.

Zoogster
October 29, 2011, 09:03 PM
Who knows...the start of a kindler, gentler, more logical and reasonable ATF?

No they realized the Supreme Court decision applied to all such firearms based on the details of the actual legal challenges in the Thompson case.
The details of the end ruling are only part of the story, the arguments actually being addressed to bring it to the SCOTUS, combined with the SCOTUS ruling. They even spoke positively of the utility of such a firearm that could go back and forth between legal pistol and rifle configurations.
Absolutely it did not just apply to a single firearm, as was the ATF's crazy interpretation. That is like saying Brown v. Board of Education only applied to that one school, or one county. The Supreme Court rulings never have worked like that, they address the law behind the specific situation, the contested legal issue that took it from the lower courts to them, and so the ATF's conclusion was flipping the bird to the Supreme Court.
The ATF's contrary view would have meant they could readily lose in court if challenged.
For some reason they came to terms with the error of their ways, perhaps in light of the pro-gun momentum across the USA, and instead of sticking with an interpretation in direct opposition to the SCOTUS (by saying SCOTUS meant something else, so 'we are actually just doing what they said') changed their interpretations to comply with SCOTUS.


Now the irony is I think their interpretation which was in contradiction to the SCOTUS ruling kept things more simple across the board. They wanted things to stay simple. It meant less freedom, made no real sense as a restriction, but certainly made for easier enforcement. Assembling a long gun made a long gun, and anything made after was something made from a long gun, an NFA item no matter how it started out originally.
However in modern times with virtually all commercial guns papered and traceable to the manufacturer and/or 4473 to determine what they originally were, enforcement is still quite simple. It's not like someone can claim it was a pistol if it never was.

The SCOTUS may or may not have been right in their interpretation of the laws in question and Thompson sales perhaps shouldn't have been deemed acceptable, I don't know, but it was their clear decision. The ATF's interpretation was certainly in clear and direct violation of the ruling SCOTUS did make.
They didn't like the implications and chose to ignore the SCOTUS ruling by saying their loss in court actually meant what they were arguing in court all along, but only for every single other firearm. Essentially saying they won anyways, refusing to accept the loss.
I imagine SCOTUS would not be too happy dealing with them again on the same issue because the Agency decided to say that the SCOTUS actually meant what the ATF had wanted to be the case all along, lost their argument in court, and then essentially refused to lose by stating it just applied to one gun. I think such clear childish opposition and refusing to accept the SCOTUS decision would have pissed the SCOTUS off.


They came to their senses, ceased violating a SCOTUS ruling, and now we all have the freedom the Thompson case intended many years prior. I don't know if I would call that kinder and gentler or stemming from a more pro-gun attitude, but I am glad they made that decision.
Thanks ATF.

dogtown tom
October 29, 2011, 10:39 PM
Well said Zoogster.

I don't blame ATF entirely. The root problem is a poorly written National Firearms Act.

And THAT was the fault of Congress.:cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "Pistol stock = SBR?!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!