AK Pistol SBR (Advice)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trent

Trent

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
25,151
Location
Illinois
Thinking of applying for an SBR, and I think the first one I want to do is an AK pistol. I have a couple of old Century Arms pistols. They're about as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker the way they are built.

Is there any legal reason why I couldn't do a pistol to SBR? Or does it has to start life as a rifle?

Does 922(r) parts count still matter on an SBR?

(I know the rear trunion needs to get replaced with a new one to mount the stock. Was thinking of doing a Yugo underfolder but parts count could be an issue if 922(r) applies still.)

Pistol in question is pictured;

gPyNKHt.jpg
 
The parts count question is tricky. There have been conflicting letters about it from what I understand.

The long and the short of it, as I understood it a year or so back, was that since you are by definition MAKING a rifle, then it IS a rifle, and is so then subject to the provisions of 925d3 and so 922r.

However, since first clause of 925d3 says the gun in question must be, "is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986..." that would seem to indicate that the section DOESN'T cover NFA Title II weapons.

Very confusing.
 
Thanks Aaron, I figured you could, but wanted to double check.

Now I need clarification for 922(r). No sense in spending the money on it if I can't go with the config I want. :)

Basically want a shorter form of this (My Yugo underfolder).

Dsx7HeC.jpg

I don't think I'll need to do anything special other than the rear trunion; the sides of the Yugo front trunion that stick out to serve as a positive "stop" are kind of redundant, considering the foregrip also works as a stop. (Besides, there's a mechanical stop in the rear trunion mechanism).
 
Sam1911 said:
The parts count question is tricky. There have been conflicting letters about it from what I understand.

The long and the short of it, as I understood it a year or so back, was that since you are by definition MAKING a rifle, then it IS a rifle, and is so then subject to the provisions of 925d3 and so 922r.

However, since first clause of 925d3 says the gun in question must be, "is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986..." that would seem to indicate that the section DOESN'T cover NFA Title II weapons.

Very confusing.
Click to expand...

Sam, do you think it'd be advisable to write a letter to tech branch explaining what I'd like to do, and ask for a clarification (in writing)?

I don't like having questionable guns, at all, everything I have which is 'unusual', I have letters on (semi auto DSHK, for instance).
 
Even without the Yugo stock, I need to know the 922(r) question /answer as I have *no* idea how many of the parts of this particular Century Arms build are US manufacture. Since pistols don't have the same criteria, I would assume .. not many, if any, parts are US made.

Push comes to shove, I have a Yugo M72AB1 receiver in the white sitting in my safe, I could start a brand new build off of.

That's a LOT more work than swapping the rear trunion, though. :)
 
You certainly could.

Here is one discussion about the issue on another forum, but there are many out there: http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/13427-few-nfa-sbr-questions.html

The crazy thing is that, while the various letters/opinions seem to contradict each other, it very well may be that they say it depends HOW you make the SBR. In other words, if you shortened the barrel of an AK rifle, that would not need to follow 922r, but if you added a stock to an AK pistol you WOULD. Which seems totally counter-intuitive.

But that's them for ya.
 
Hmm. I'll err on the side of caution and write a letter.

Rather be safe than sorry, when dealing with the Feds.
 
Trent, have done one up in the Badger State, and so observe: I started off with a PAP Pistol. These have the correct Krink hinged top cover, etc. If you want a true to life Krink, grab one, and if not... well the following still applies to your pistol.

Grab one of the US machinegun adapters that slip between the pistol grip and the receiver and which put a plate up behind the receiver, and add a Galil-style ARMS stock to it. Stick in a Tapco fire control set, count up enough other 922 parts just to make sure, and you're good to go. Result? A very nice Krink with no gunsmithing. Far better stock than the underfolder, and it's closer to the original anyhow. There's no need to avoid the 922 "problem", since changing out enough parts is a cheap and simple thing to do. The Century pistols don't have any US parts in them, which makes them "nice", but at the same time offers the ambiguity that you recite. Just end the ambiguity by spending a few bucks to 922 it and forget about it.


Here's your no-gunsmithing solution:

http://www.usmachinegun.com/proddetail.php?prod=BGLL-YGO92

Buy a big-bag-o-Tapco fire control parts for $69, and enjoy.



Willie

.
 
Last edited:
Willie,

If I interpret the picture and description correctly the fastener for that adapter is the pistol grip bolt, right?
 
I have a question with the parts being in compliant... who the h3ll is checking this anyway? I see this discussion on forums all the time and I always think that not only have I never been asked if my AK is compliant by ANYONE, but who would know what to look for anyway?
 
"If I interpret the picture and description correctly the fastener for that adapter is the pistol grip bolt, right?"

Yes, the adapter is precision machined from aluminum, is black anodized, and fits between the pistol grip and the receiver. A slightly longer pistol grip bolt is provided and is used to secure the entire assembly to the receiver. It's a very precise fit, and once installed there is no wobble at all. I've done two SBR's with these and am very well satisfied with the result. It's literally a two minute job to add it and the stock and the result is excellent. It's a very high quality part. No permanent modifications to the receiver are required, and if later sale is contemplated you can simply remove it, have the SBR removed from the registry, and sell as a pistol.



"I never been asked if my AK is compliant by ANYONE, but who would know what to look for anyway?"

Realistically? Nobody is going to check you. If you run afoul of the BATFE and have the thing confiscated and sent to the tech branch, they will figure it out and screw you, but other than that... well.... chances are pretty good it's not going to be a problem. Illegal is illegal though, and it's your liberty at stake. Complying is so cheap and easy that it's a no brainer.




Willie

.
 
Realistically? Nobody is going to check you. If you run afoul of the BATFE and have the thing confiscated and sent to the tech branch, they will figure it out and screw you, but other than that... well.... chances are pretty good it's not going to be a problem. Illegal is illegal though, and it's your liberty at stake. Complying is so cheap and easy that it's a no brainer.

Well yeah, but if you are at the point where your firearms are being sent to the alphabet soup's lab, you're probably already screwed anyway - and who's to say that all those Tapco parts you bought and assumed put you in compliance would even check out.
 
^ Doing a tech analysis and figuring out who made the parts is childs play to anyone in the business. An optical comparator and some sample parts are all you need to start with. Past that you can do materials analysis and figure out who made the steel, etc. No challenge at all.


Willie
 
Anmut said:
Well yeah, but if you are at the point where your firearms are being sent to the alphabet soup's lab, you're probably already screwed anyway - and who's to say that all those Tapco parts you bought and assumed put you in compliance would even check out.
Click to expand...

I'm an FFL holder, and open to inspection on demand.

Would it ever be an issue? Not likely.

If it is ever an issue do I want to be on the "safe side of well prepared"? Bet your behind...
 
"If it is ever an issue do I want to be on the "safe side of well prepared"? Bet your behind..."


^ This.

Especially when compliance is so easy and cheap to do.


Willie

.
 
Being is started as a pistol, can't you use the AOW route to give it a stock?
Click to expand...

Nope. No matter whether it starts life as a pistol or starts life as a rifle, if it has a stock and a short rifled barrel, it's an SBR.

A pistol may become an AOW by adding a vertical forward grip. (According to the ATF and their stupid interpretations of the relevant statutes.) But if you're gonna pay the tax stamp, may as well make it an SBR.

Aaron
 
jerkface11 said:
How long is the barrel? And is it short enough to be worth the hassle?
Click to expand...

Don't have it handy to take an exact measurement right now but I'm thinking it was around 10".

As far as being worth the hassle, with SBR's that's very much in the eye of the beholder. :)

I don't want a rifle that has such a ridiculously short barrel that it costs a great deal of power or accuracy. I shot a very short Krink once (full auto) and it was stupidly difficult to control. Would rather have something that lends itself better towards shot to shot followup.

Note the difference in stability; granted these are full auto but that better demonstrates the effect. :)

Full size AK:
[YOUTUBE]Li5EcyksD2I[/YOUTUBE]

Krink:
[YOUTUBE]vC8wXGg1SmQ[/YOUTUBE]
 
jerkface11 said:
Ok in the pic it looks almost as long as the rifle.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not as short as some of the newer ones to hit the market. But I like the slightly longer sight base. The muzzle flash and noise level on this thing is atrocious .. don't think I'd enjoy going any shorter. I'm actually thinking it's about 12" to the slant break.

Dang thing is buried in the back of my safe, not in any hurry to extract it for a measurement. :)
 
Unless you are married to the folding stock, might I suggest trying an SB-47 brace? No stamp required and it remains legally a pistol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

zignal_zero
  • Locked
AK Pistol legal question
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
dogtown tom
dogtown tom
D
  • Locked
Builiding Registered SBR from an AK "pistol"
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
21K
twisterx44
T
Sebastian the Ibis
  • Locked
When is an SBR Manufactured?
Replies
10
Views
950
PTK
P
V
  • Locked
Illinois and SBR's
Replies
11
Views
2K
Vodoun da Vinci
V
castile
  • Locked
SBR or pistol upper legality
Replies
2
Views
848
Ryanxia
Ryanxia
Back
Top