ATF brace rule is out

someguy2800 said:

It states pretty clearly on page 162 that an AR with a functional carbine length buffer tube cannot be considered a stock.

One objective design feature ATF may consider is whether the attachment is required for the cycle of operations of the weapon, which could indicate the firearmis not designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. For example, an AR-type pistol with a standard 6- to 6-1/2-inch buffer tube may not be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder even if the buffer tube provides surface area that allows the firearm to be shoulder fired. On an AR-type pistol, the buffer tube encases a spring that drives the bolt forward when the bolt is driven into the buffer tube by the gas from the initial shot. The picture below displays the internal function of an AR-15 type rifle. The AR-type pistol is a variant of the rifle with the stock removed and has the same receiver and buffer tube function of the rifle version.

Click to expand...

I will try to clarify things a little for you. There are pistol buffer tubes and carbine (4 or 6 position) buffer tubes. Yes they both use the same exact buffer and spring, but the overall length of the tube itself may be different. This will depend on each manufacturer. And what most people consider a carbine buffer tube is more that 6 1/2 inches.

Part of the issue is that the ATF has not stated how they take their measurement of buffer tubes. Do they measure from the back of the receiver, from the back of the end plate, or from the back of the castle nut. And how they take their measurements can and will make a difference. The following photos will demonstrate this. And if they measure from the back of the receiver, then even my pistol buffer tube is too long.

Standard carbine buffer tube. Notice that measuring from either the end platte or castle nut is still over the maximum 6 1/2" stated by the ATF



Pistol buffer tube. Notice that measuring from the end plate puts it right at 6 1/2 inches or even a 1/16 of an inch over.


Edited for corrections.

So my question remains. 12Bravo20’s last photo where the buffer tube measures 6 3/16”, if it has a foam sleeve over it, will the ATF consider it a stock? Got a bad feeling they will.

Lennyjoe said:

So my question remains. 12Bravo20’s last photo where the buffer tube measures 6 3/16”, if it has a foam sleeve over it, will the ATF consider it a stock? Got a bad feeling they will.

View attachment 1129045

Click to expand...

Since the foam cover in your photo does cover the end of the buffer tube and it does add to the diameter, then it could. But none of us really know yet. I reread the Factoring Criteria document agin today and it mostly talks about foam covers on the RONI/ MCK type pistol chassis systems.

Maybe cut the end off and then slide the foam forward if you are concerned about it. Otherwise we need a definite answer one way or the other.

12Bravo20 said:

Since the foam cover in your photo does cover the end of the buffer tube and it does add to the diameter, then it could. Maybe cut the end off and then slide the foam forward if you are concerned about it. Otherwise we need a definite answer one way or the other.

Click to expand...

View from the back. Wondering if this would be considered a bearing surface…the ATF really created more questions than answers I swear.

12Bravo20 said:

I will try to clarify things a little for you. There are pistol buffer tubes and carbine (4 or 6 position) buffer tubes. Yes they both use the same exact buffer and spring, but the overall length of the tube itself is different. And what most people consider a carbine buffer tube is more that 6 1/2 inches.

Part of the issue is that the ATF has not stated how they take their measurement of buffer tubes. Do they measure from the back of the receiver, from the back of the end plate, or from the back of the castle nut. And how they take their measurements can and will make a difference. The following photos will demonstrate this. And if they measure from the back of the receiver, then even my pistol buffer tube is too long.

Standard carbine buffer tube. Notice that measuring from either the end platte or castle nut is still over the maximum 6 1/2" stated by the ATF

View attachment 1129039 View attachment 1129040

Pistol buffer tube. Notice that measuring from the end plate puts it right at 6 1/2 inches or even a 1/16 of an inch over.
View attachment 1129041 View attachment 1129042

Click to expand...

You're measuring from the buffer tube from different starting locations. That's why they're coming up as different lengths. In this case the difference is the width of the castle nut.

If I may, there are other designs to commercial pistol tubes? Such as, the wrong diameter to accept a traditional stock i.e. a 4 or 6 position collapsible stock.

browneu said:

You're measuring from the buffer tube from different starting locations. That's why they're coming up as different lengths. In this case the difference is the width of the castle nut.

Click to expand...

Yes I am well aware of that and measured them that way on purpose. And the reason for doing so is because we still do not know exactly how the ATF takes that measurement. And if they measure from the back of the receiver instead of from the end plate or castle nut, then a lot of smooth pistol buffers could be over the 6 1/2 inch maximum that the ATF is stating.

someguy2800 said:

A pistol and carbine buffer tube are the same length

Click to expand...

And that will be true depending on each manufacturer. Some make their smooth pistol buffer tubes the same length as their carbine buffer tubes. While there is a set specification for MIL-SPEC carbine buffer tubes, there is not any set standard for pistol buffer tubes. And we also need to take into account the allowed tolerances for each and every part involved. This is called tolerance stacking. So some buffer tubes might have to be screwed into one receiver farther than another receiver depending on the location of the buffer detent.

I have found that the buffer dent hole is not in the exact same position on most of my lowers even though they are all within specified tolerances. This along with the different specs for each manufacturer on their smooth buffer tubes will make the length that the tube stick out differ.

I would measure more pistol buffer tubes but I only have one. And with the variances between manufacturers and the tolerance stacking, it will be important to know exactly how the ATF takes their measurements to come up with the 6 to 6 1/2 inch requirement.

But in any case I still would not use any type of buffer tube on a pistol that can readily accept a shoulder stock.

Lennyjoe said:

View from the back. Wondering if this would be considered a bearing surface…the ATF really created more questions than answers I swear.

Click to expand...

None of us really have an answer to your question since the ATF did make things very vague and open to their interpretation.

The Strike Industries compact pistol buffer tube measures 5" from back of receiver to end of buffer tube. This is what I purchased to make my pistol compliant. It will work fine for my needs as I'm going to train utilizing a cheek weld and RDS on a high mount.

The ATF "clarification" letter states the 6 - 6-1/2" range, wonder if they would allow me to utilize a Law or Sylvan folder if I can stay under the above range with my 5" strike industries compact buffer tube? Their clarification reads like there cannot be anything added to add to the length making it easier to shoulder. But a folder is also not necessary for function which goes against what they are wanting to allow.

Ok, I posted this info elsewhere, but I will copy it below:

Their rule is specifically targeting the "stabilizing brace" for existing guns. They know about the foam pad. The rule has a photo of a pistol with a foam pad. I did not see anywhere in the rule that they say "remove the foam pad" from existing guns. They also made no mention of optics or bipods.

If a gun is not being fired "like a rifle" they probably do not care. If a buffer tube is in contact with your cheek but not your shoulder, they probably do not like it, but do not seem to have prohibited it.

If someone submits a foam pad gun to them and they declare it to be a SBR, then it would make more sense to get worried. Until then, it is probably very low risk to keep a gun with a foam pad.

On the flip side, if you have a foam pad or bare tube gun, I would recommend not posting any videos of shooting it with the end of the tube in contact with your shoulder. Given the discussion in the rule, using it like a rifle could be used to argue that your gun is a SBR.

Now for existing guns with installed braces, they have specifically said that it is ok to remove and toss (or render non-usable) the brace. They also say you do not need to replace the buffer tube. Quotes from the rule are provided below.

For all of those expressing "doom and gloom" messages, I really do not see it that way. They are responsible for enforcing the law. All the videos of folks using short barreled guns with braces like rifles were easy to find by the ATF, the POTUS, Congress and all the gun haters. They probably should have stepped in sooner.

The way I read the rule, they seem to be trying to "fix" the problem with the least impact to gun owners as they could get away with. They did not have to give us the "free SBR stamp" or the "convert to pistol" options.

The new rule really seems to be just doing what it takes to get to where guns with short (<16") barrels are not being used as rifles unless NFA rules are followed. I am confident that most gun enthusiasts that acquired braced guns to use "like a SBR" knew that there was a risk. How many can claim that they were unaware of past guidance changes by the ATF. We may not like it, but it looks like it may be time to "pay the price".

The biggest challenge will really be "fair treatment" of folks that get in trouble down the road. Some people will honestly "miss out" on the message that their gun is now illegal. If caught in "unfriendly territory" they will probably need to spend $$$ on legal fees and face potential felony consequences. All because their legal gun purchase was later determined to be "a mistake" that the ATF contributed to.

Pg 248:

With respect to the cost of replacing the buffer tube with a pistol tube, the rule does not require such a replacement.

Pg 271:

Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. The Department recognizes that the removal of a “stabilizing brace” from a firearm that was originally received as a “short-barreled rifle” results in the production of a “weapon made from a rifle,” as defined by the NFA. However, the Department in its enforcement discretion will allow persons to reconfigure the firearm to a pistol by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and will not require the registration of these firearms as a “weapon made from a rifle.”

12Bravo20 has used the word "maximum" in several posts referring to the EXAMPLE given in the ATF letter, when the word "maximum" is NOT used in the ATF letter in any context relative to that 6" - 6 1/2" length. If it were a maximum, they would give a maximum value and not a range. They go on to specifically show a picture of the Palmetto State Armory PS-15 pistol as being OK. Go to the PSA website and look up the parts for that pistol, the smooth buffer tube is 7.25" long. You can take what you wish from the terribly written ruling, I believe that the video of the ATF presentation from SHOT show reiterates several times use of a smooth buffer tube is OK with no further stipulation given regarding its length.

Navy_Guns said:

12Bravo20 has used the word "maximum" in several posts referring to the EXAMPLE given in the ATF letter, when the word "maximum" is NOT used in the ATF letter in any context relative to that 6" - 6 1/2" length.

Click to expand...

Schematics here. I guarantee if they find you with a buffer tube over 6 1/2" they can and will say it was intended to be shouldered.



But hey, go ahead and submit a letter asking about an extended buffer tube like the Kak Super Brace buffer tube, a rifle buffer tube or any other buffer tube that is clearly longer than 6 1/2" and see what the ATF tells you.

You do you.

Okay I did something I normally don't do but given the fact I plan on applying for an FFL soon I need to be aware of such rulings and laws. I visited the ATF's web sight and typed in pistol brace to the sites search engine and sure enough there is a mind numbing # of pages that cover the topic and is very clear as to what defines a pistol brace even going as far as to have color photos and youtube videos. Additionally a lengthy list of firearms past and present including antiques that can fall into the category of using a pistol brace. It encompasses pistols, rifles and shotguns.

The moral of the story is if you want to own one of these items it would behove you to visit the ATF's website yourself before buying or selling one. If thats what floats your boat then sail on.

Jeremy

I have read all this, watched videos from 2A lawyers and experts. Excuse me for saying so but his is a **** show! I don’t have anything that this would affect but it seems to be so vague that it might just crossover to other things. I read and watched today that some are worried about wording in this new regulation that it will effect things like the Shockwave. Not well thought out and far over reaching.

wcwhitey said:

I have read all this, watched videos from 2A lawyers and experts. Excuse me for saying so but his is a **** show! I don’t have anything that this would affect but it seems to be so vague that it might just crossover to other things. I read and watched today that some are worried about wording in this new regulation that it will effect things like the Shockwave. Not well thought out and far over reaching.

Click to expand...

It seems to be purposefully ambiguous and ill defined.

someguy2800 said:

I have to disagree. I read the entire document and I found it to be pretty clear. Some things are left purposely vague to give them room to argue for or against things that will come about in the future, but it is not difficult to figure out what is allowed and what isn't and the reasons for it if you actually read it. There has been a feeding frenzy of speculation by people trying to make it sound more complicated than it is.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. Overall, the Factoring Criteria document is easy to understand. Yet there are a few points that are definitely vague that I would like to see more clarification on. I have been watching this since the first brace rule was announced and then rescinded back in Dec 2020. I did the same with the frame/receiver rule was first announced until it was published in the federal register.

12Bravo20 said:

Varminterror you just love to be correct and to also to correct others no matter what. But that's okay. You be you.

And YES the factoring Criteria does state that a short eye relief scope indicates that a firearm is designed to be shouldered - which makes a pistol a SBR if a brace or anything else is present that gives enough surface area to shoulder. The way the Factoring Criteria is written, the ATF can say that a tennis ball or cane tip added to the end of a buffer tube along with a rifle scope makes it a SBR.

Same goes if you have a "rifle" scope AND a bare buffer tube that is over 6 1/2 inches long which can be considered a SBR.

Click to expand...

Generally yeah, when I’m right, I’m right. Kinda works that way. I don’t see much point in conceding to falsehoods just because someone doesn’t like it.

You’re attempting to assign that adding a riflescope to an otherwise legal AR pistol, which is now defined as not having any extension (implied as non-functional for any other purpose), will manufacture an SBR, but the factoring criteria specifically state that it will not.

If there is no extension which increases surface area to be fired from the shoulder, then the SECONDARY factoring criteria do not apply, as the assignment of these criteria require such extension with surface area to be shouldered.

As an example - all of us out here with Specialty Pistols like XP-100’s, Strikers, Chargers, Contenders, Encores, M48’s, etc which don’t have braces but do have rifle scopes have no change in our worlds here, as adding a riflescope to a pistol which does not have an extension with surface area to enable shoulder firing can not be an SBR.

Sp what you are saying is that you can use a rifle scope with 3-4 inches of eye box while holding the pistol at arms length?

And YES that is what the ATF is getting at when they talk about rifle scopes and shooting pistols. Even a AR pistol with a pistol buffer would have to have the end of the buffer against one's shoulder or really close in order to use a rifle scope.

[QUOTE="someguy2800, post: 12519601, member: 233956"
ATF brace rule is out
[/QUOTE]

Actually, the rule is in.

It is our rights that are out.

crstrode said:

[QUOTE="someguy2800, post: 12519601, member: 233956"
ATF brace rule is out

Click to expand...

Actually, the rule is in.

It is our rights that are out.[/QUOTE]

And it is still NOT been posted to the federal register yet. Rumor is Jan 31, but that is not set in stone either. The 120 grace period does not start until the rule is posted to the federal register.

https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau#documents

@Varminterror

One caveat is the ATF specified short eye relief optics are the optics they are essentially stating are only able to be utilized with a "pistol" that is being held in such a way that suggests it is a rifle needing to be held close (i.e. shouldered) to get one's eyes in correct alignment.

I don't know how this all will be "clarified," imposed, etc. Or whether or not a subsequent event to them stating the above about the optic nullifies their suggestion, but they did specify about eye relief as one of their criteria. This is why it wouldn't effect traditional pistol hunters (using xp100's, contenders, etc) that utilize long eye relief scopes.


This is government run amok, they don't have to make sense, don't have to follow their own rules. Just like the bumpstocks, it followed their strict criteria of "one pull, one bullet," and yet here we are having to litigate out of unrepresented (no vote from Congress to change machine gun descriptions) decrees.