Adding a stock to a Firearm
- Thread starter Oolong
- Start date
- Status
Theohazard
Member
By "firearm", I assume you're talking about handguns that have an overall length of greater than 26" and also a vertical foregrip? This makes them no longer handguns in the eyes of the ATF since they're no longer "designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand". Normally, adding a vertical foregrip to a handgun makes it an AOW, but the ATF has decided that only counts for pistols under 26" in overall length, since they can't be concealed easily at that point.Oolong said:
So -- to answer your question -- it depends. If your firearm has a barrel longer than 16", then you can add a stock to it and it becomes a rifle. But if you add a stock to it and it has a barrel shorter than 16", then it becomes an NFA-regulated short barrel rifle and you'd better have a tax stamp for it. And if your firearm fires shotgun shells and has a barrel longer than 18", then you can add a stock to it and it becomes a shotgun. But if it fires shotgun shells and has a barrel shorter than 18" and you add a stock to it, then it becomes an NFA-regulated short barrel shotgun and you'd better have a tax stamp for it.
Sure you can add a stock to it later. Just file the paperwork and pay your $200 for and SBR or SBS, depending.
OP needs to specify exactly what it is he owns. Advice given over the internet is quite likely to be entirely useless when submitted at trial - I know that's an extreme view of it but the reality is we all toe the line of legality because of the consequences.
As for adding a stock-like point of stabilization to a firearm that didn't have one - explain why it's needed. If it's a handgun like device it's not intended for long range use, 50 m is the max effective range. If it's a rifle caliber weapon with no stock it's meant for high capacity and elevated power levels for a max effective range of 100m. The short version of a much longer explanation is that if the user can't aim a 2MOA weapon at 100m and get hits, it's not the stock that is the problem. They aren't a very good shooter. Spend the money on ammo and think about how it's going to be used.
I do own an AR pistol - no stock or brace - and can hit targets at 100m with it. So can a lot of others and a trip over to the nearest video website has dozens of people doing it. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of learning how to stabilize the weapon. With an AR you can fire it nose to the charging handle and the recoil is so minimal no injury will happen, which is exactly what Drill Sergeants demonstrate in Basic Training holding the stock against their chin and firing full auto.
Stocks are just an aiming aid - in the smaller rifle calibers they aren't needed for recoil absorption as much as the owner thinks. Most who add them to pistols are doing it for fashion and a sense of thumbing their nose at the ATF. For the most part I think they are money wasted - and if it changes the classification of the weapon to something other than "Pistol" it usually turns it into a "rifle" under the State laws regulating their transportation and use. Being a pistol is the whole point of it - they can frequently be transported loaded ready for use, where a rifle must be unloaded cased out of reach.
If we would stop trying to treat pistols like mid range sniper rifles and accept the small limitation of no stock then shooters could move down the road to becoming more proficient instead of throwing money at them and ignoring the real issue - how to use them exactly how they are. Slapping on a bandaid to promote higher accuracy when the actual purpose of the weapon is to get hits not nine rings isn't sound reasoning.
For the record I post this on an AR Pistol forum with frightening frequency. There seems to be a widespread attitude that the absence of a stock somehow defeats the purpose of a rifle caliber pistol when in point of fact - and law - it's better off without it. As testimony read how many SBR owners keep a pistol lower just to cross state lines or participate in shooting in non-SBR states. Nobody much complains the gun turns into a horrible piece of junk incapable of hitting the broad side of a barn. Nope, those guys know without a doubt the results are entirely on them and their skill level. And when some do declare it makes a difference - they will not upload targets demonstrating it, even tho they have the tools and skills to do so. I can only conclude the targets will demonstrate exactly what I contend - it makes very little difference. A stock (and for that, a $200 stamp to install one) doesn't make it suddenly pin point accurate - put the money to a red dot optic and you will get better results.
As for adding a stock-like point of stabilization to a firearm that didn't have one - explain why it's needed. If it's a handgun like device it's not intended for long range use, 50 m is the max effective range. If it's a rifle caliber weapon with no stock it's meant for high capacity and elevated power levels for a max effective range of 100m. The short version of a much longer explanation is that if the user can't aim a 2MOA weapon at 100m and get hits, it's not the stock that is the problem. They aren't a very good shooter. Spend the money on ammo and think about how it's going to be used.
I do own an AR pistol - no stock or brace - and can hit targets at 100m with it. So can a lot of others and a trip over to the nearest video website has dozens of people doing it. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of learning how to stabilize the weapon. With an AR you can fire it nose to the charging handle and the recoil is so minimal no injury will happen, which is exactly what Drill Sergeants demonstrate in Basic Training holding the stock against their chin and firing full auto.
Stocks are just an aiming aid - in the smaller rifle calibers they aren't needed for recoil absorption as much as the owner thinks. Most who add them to pistols are doing it for fashion and a sense of thumbing their nose at the ATF. For the most part I think they are money wasted - and if it changes the classification of the weapon to something other than "Pistol" it usually turns it into a "rifle" under the State laws regulating their transportation and use. Being a pistol is the whole point of it - they can frequently be transported loaded ready for use, where a rifle must be unloaded cased out of reach.
If we would stop trying to treat pistols like mid range sniper rifles and accept the small limitation of no stock then shooters could move down the road to becoming more proficient instead of throwing money at them and ignoring the real issue - how to use them exactly how they are. Slapping on a bandaid to promote higher accuracy when the actual purpose of the weapon is to get hits not nine rings isn't sound reasoning.
For the record I post this on an AR Pistol forum with frightening frequency. There seems to be a widespread attitude that the absence of a stock somehow defeats the purpose of a rifle caliber pistol when in point of fact - and law - it's better off without it. As testimony read how many SBR owners keep a pistol lower just to cross state lines or participate in shooting in non-SBR states. Nobody much complains the gun turns into a horrible piece of junk incapable of hitting the broad side of a barn. Nope, those guys know without a doubt the results are entirely on them and their skill level. And when some do declare it makes a difference - they will not upload targets demonstrating it, even tho they have the tools and skills to do so. I can only conclude the targets will demonstrate exactly what I contend - it makes very little difference. A stock (and for that, a $200 stamp to install one) doesn't make it suddenly pin point accurate - put the money to a red dot optic and you will get better results.
MedWheeler
Member
(redacted, off-thread-topic..)
Last edited:
- Status