Charger bullpup


PDA






tech30528
May 2, 2012, 12:19 PM
OK, here's the scenario:

I've ordered one of the ZK22 bullpup kits from Red Jacket. Yeah, I know, some people hate them but I think it will be a fun build. They specify on their website that you much use at least an 18.5 inch barrel or it will have to be classified as a SBR. OK, fine. I don't mind applying for the stamp if I decide to go that way. Right now I'm considering a threaded 1:9 twist barrel for the 60 grains and a suppressor.

After a little research (this site is awesome BTW, you guys really know your stuff) I found that the Charger receiver and the 10 22 receiver are the same except for the stamping and original registration. The Charger receiver is a pistol, the 10 22 receiver is a rifle, and BATFE looks at building one as the other is a big nono.

So what if I buy a charger and drop it in to the bullpup stock? Short barrel, pistol markings on the receiver, overall length fits below extended pistol parameters. Is it clear without a stamp?

If you enjoyed reading about "Charger bullpup" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
forindooruseonly
May 2, 2012, 12:31 PM
No, putting it into a stock which is designed to be fired from the shoulder will make it into a SBR and you'll need a stamp.

Girodin
May 2, 2012, 12:35 PM
No. If you put a charger in that bullpup stock you will have added a stock. You will have made a rifle by doing so. In as much as the resulting rifle would have a barrel shorter than 16" it would be an SBR. It also would be an SBR because it seems it would have an OAL less than 26". You would be well into felony territory.

Adding a stock to pistols makes them rifles. If they have shorter barrels or shorter OAL they are short barreled rifles and need a stamp.

tech30528
May 2, 2012, 01:44 PM
Absolutely correct, thank you. From BATFE website:



Assembly of Weapons from Parts Kits
The Thompson/Center Court viewed the parts within the conversion kit not only as a
Contender pistol, but also as an unassembled “rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(c). The
inclusion of the rifle stock in the package brought the Contender pistol and carbine kit
within the "intended to be fired from the shoulder" language in the definition of rifle at 26
U.S.C. 5845(c). Id. at 513 n.6. Thompson/Center did not address the subsequent assembly
of the parts. United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir. 1994). Based on the
definition of “firearm” in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), if parts are assembled into a rifle having a
barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, a regulated short-barreled rifle has been
made. See, e.g., United States v. Owens, 103 F.3d 953 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v.
One (1) Colt Ar-15, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (W.D.Tenn. 2004). Conversely, if the parts are
assembled into a rifle having a barrel or barrels 16 inches in length or more, a rifle not
subject to the NFA has been made.
Therefore, so long as a parts kit or collection of parts is not used to make a firearm
regulated under the NFA (e.g., a short-barreled rifle or “any other weapon” as defined by
26 U.S.C. 5845(e)), no NFA firearm is made when the same parts are assembled or re-
assembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a
barrel of 16 inches or more in length). Merely assembling and disassembling such a rifle
does not result in the making of a new weapon; rather, it is the same rifle in a knockdown
condition (i.e., complete as to all component parts). Likewise, because it is the same
weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no “weapon made from a rifle” subject to the NFA
has been made.
Nonetheless, if a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or
a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length is assembled or otherwise produced from
a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle, such a weapon is a “weapon
made from a rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4). Such a weapon would not be a
“pistol” because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile by one hand.
Held, a firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C.
5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way
that they:
(a) Serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of
less than 16 inches in length (e.g., a receiver, an attachable shoulder stock, and
barrel of less than 16 inches in length); or
(b) Convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm, including –
(1) A pistol and attachable shoulder stock; and
(2) A rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, and an attachable barrel
of less than 16 inches in length.
Such weapons must be registered and are subject to all requirements of the NFA.

NG VI
May 2, 2012, 01:56 PM
What if the bullpup stock was in some way modified to have no provision to fire from the shoulder? Modify it so it's more like a pistol stock that moves the balance much firther rearward?

tech30528
May 2, 2012, 03:17 PM
About the time I was posting this thread I placed a call to RJF to ask them the same question. Right after I posted the BATFE info here I got a call back from their legal guy and it seems we are all on the same page, so to speak. There was one point he and I agreed on as well, and that is if you find yourself in a gray area as far as a BATFE issue goes, lean toward their side. Much safer that way. I don't think there is a particular standard as far as pull length and how much constitutes a rifle stock, but if you think it might be, it probably is. I'd rather pay the $200 than do the time.

Girodin
May 2, 2012, 03:30 PM
What if the bullpup stock was in some way modified to have no provision to fire from the shoulder? Modify it so it's more like a pistol stock that moves the balance much firther rearward?

People have done this with the draco pistols. Personally, I would just pay $200 and be in the clear. Two hundred dollars is not very much money and is very cheap insurance against potential legal issues. At a minimum I would want a letter, addressed to me, from the ATF in a safe place before I proceeded.

Prince Yamato
May 2, 2012, 11:37 PM
You can build arm pistols like Bushmaster made in the 1980s. They're basically bullpup pistols. Kind of useless though.

Sam1911
May 3, 2012, 07:31 AM
Just a couple of points to throw in the mix:

1) 16" barrel is not the only thing you need to worry about. To avoid creating an NFA weapon (if you choose not to go that way) any time there's a shoulder stock on the gun you have to keep the overall length above 26" as well. Not sure if that's an issue with this bullpup kit, but keep it in mind.

2) As of last year, it is now considered legal to build a "Title I" rifle on a receiver that started life as a pistol, and then convert back to a pistol again (as often as you wish). Just keep the assembly steps in the right order so you don't temporarily build an SBR.

boricua9mm
May 3, 2012, 02:25 PM
I'm thinking that if you put a 10" barreled charger inside that bullpup stock the muzzle would wind up just before the exposed area above the forward grip. You'd have a bullet sailing through the bullpup stock and just above your hand every time you pulled the trigger. Seems like it wouldn't be the smartest bullpup arrangement...

Sam1911
May 3, 2012, 02:29 PM
Seems like it wouldn't be the smartest bullpup arrangement...


No...no point to it as you're just losing barrel length without shortening the OAL.

Unless you can fit a 'can down inside there! That's when it gets cool, and really does help with the length.

boricua9mm
May 3, 2012, 03:41 PM
Touche!

dogmush
May 3, 2012, 05:08 PM
Seems like an integrally suppressed 18" barrel would save you $200.

p2000sk
May 5, 2012, 05:15 PM
Save $200 because of needing only one stamp for the integrally suppressed barrel?

If you enjoyed reading about "Charger bullpup" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!