1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pistol stock = SBR?!

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Jath, Oct 23, 2011.

  1. Jath

    Jath Well-Known Member

    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:

  2. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

    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.
  3. Jath

    Jath Well-Known Member

    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?
  4. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    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?
  5. ugaarguy

    ugaarguy Moderator Staff Member

    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.

    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?
  6. Zerodefect

    Zerodefect Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Well-Known Member

    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=vI...&resnum=9&ved=0CHYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2011
  8. Zerodefect

    Zerodefect Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    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.
  10. Omaha-BeenGlockin

    Omaha-BeenGlockin Well-Known Member

    "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?
  11. michiganfan

    michiganfan Well-Known Member

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

    LOL. That's the bottom line.
  12. brickeyee

    brickeyee Well-Known Member

    Malum prohibitum

    It means wrong because it is illegal.
  13. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Absolutely true.

    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?
  14. PO2Hammer

    PO2Hammer Well-Known Member

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

    jmorris Well-Known Member

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

  16. Zoogster

    Zoogster Well-Known Member

    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.)
  17. Sam Cade

    Sam Cade Member

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

    Jath Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. Sam Cade

    Sam Cade Member

    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:
  20. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    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?

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2011

Share This Page