AR Pistol Buffer Tube Paracord Wrap

[CavalierLeif]

With the current political environment around AR pistol braces, I was looking for a simple and effective pattern to wrap the buffer tube for my 10.5” build.

Watched a number of videos before finding one I liked.

May be of interest for any of you looking for a similar solution:



Results:

 

[Lennyjoe]

Pretty sure that tube may get you in trouble with the new ATF rule, even if you wrap in parachord.

 

[shafter]

I wouldn't do it.

 

[dogtown tom]

Pretty sure that tube may get you in trouble with the new ATF rule, even if you wrap in parachord.

For what reason?
Please cite the portion of the rule instead of making everyone take wild guesses.

 

[Lennyjoe]

I’ll get back in it and let you know but I believe the adjustable buffer tube may be an indicator of intent.

The whole brace rule has everything out of whack right now. My comment was just a word of caution, not law….

 

[12Bravo20]

The section of the Brace rule that talks about lengths of the buffer tube is quite vague and definitely needs to be rewritten. That section talks about buffer tubes being between 6 and 6 1/2 inches being fine for pistols without showing intent of shouldering the firearm. And since it is vague, it has been taken several ways. Most will agree that the 6 to 6 1/2 inch length is to keep people from using an extended buffer tube such as the Kak Super Sig buffer tube or a rifle length buffer tube

Depending on tolerances of all parts and how far one has to screw a buffer tube in to catch the buffer retaining pin will effect the length of a smooth pistol buffer tube and a standard 4 or 6 position carbine buffer tube. I measured my pistol buffer tube and it was within 6 to 6 1/2 inches while my carbine buffer tube was over 6 1/2 inches. Others have measured their carbon buffer tubes and they were within in the 6 to 6 1/2 inches.

And in another section, they talk about buffer tubes with indentations to allow adjusting a brace. But this talks more about if a brace can be adjusted. It doesn't talk about a bare buffer tube.

Now if you want to ere on the side of caution, then by all means use a smooth pistol buffer tube.

 

[kidneyboy]

The section of the Brace rule that talks about lengths of the buffer tube is quite vague and definitely needs to be rewritten.

It needs to be struck down, not rewritten.

 

[jmorris]

I think it would be a lot funnier if you wrapped it up to look like a stock.

 

[12Bravo20]

It needs to be struck down, not rewritten.

I definitely won't argue about that. But until it is struck down, it definitely needs rewritten with more clarification.

 

[DMW1116]

Buffer tube questions aside, I like the combat crochet.

 

[DrDeFab]

For what reason?
Please cite the portion of the rule instead of making everyone take wild guesses.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF_FRDOC_0001-0049

The numbering scheme is a bit of a mess (as is the writing of the regulation) so pardon me if this is off, but I believe the reference is to [IV.B.3.a.(6).b.vii Adjustability] which begins: 'A majority of the commenters disagreed with the NPRM's characterization of the “adjustability” factor for “stabilizing braces”...' and can be interpreted to mean that buffer tubes with adjustment holes would be considered as stocks instead of braces.

 

[dogtown tom]

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF_FRDOC_0001-0049

The numbering scheme is a bit of a mess (as is the writing of the regulation) so pardon me if this is off, but I believe the reference is to [IV.B.3.a.(6).b.vii Adjustability] which begins: 'A majority of the commenters disagreed with the NPRM's characterization of the “adjustability” factor for “stabilizing braces”...' and can be interpreted to mean that buffer tubes with adjustment holes would be considered as stocks instead of braces.

If an AR buffer tube is required for operation its not an accessory that may make the firearm an SBR. Buffer tubes by themselves are not adjustable, but if an arm brace or stock is attached then those may be.

 

[bmorestance]

Yea, with all this bs rule talk, who knows what's what. But my two cents is I like the fact that you did NOT cover the rear.
I feel this might be ok to do for that reason. I don't know if "cheeking" is considered "shouldering" nowadays... but
it would 'seem' that if nothing is on the rear of the buffer tube, its not suspected to shouldering. Does that make sense?
If it was on the rear, it would be more likely to assume you are shouldering.
Pads too. This is just my assumption.

 

[wayneinFL]

I'm just waiting for someone to come out with a shooting vest with a big foam block labeled "padded shoulder", with a socket to accept a buffer tube.

 

[bmorestance]

HAHAHA! let the inventions begin!

 

[CavalierLeif]

Erring fully on the side of caution, a smooth buffer tube makes sense. Hopefully not every AR pistol owner will have to purchase a new buffer tube if they don’t want to register as SBR.

Can’t see it in the photos, but under the wrap I lined the adjustment hole trough with a strip of plastic and wrapped the tube fully in black tape. While we await clarification around the rule (if it comes), I believe having the adjustment holes covered and no brace in the same locale as the firearm should prevent interpretation of intent.

 

[mljdeckard]

I dabble a bit with paracord, I have wrapped knife handles, made pet collars, etc. I recommend to a little bit of trial and error. try both full cord and just the outer shell with the inner strands removed. I recommend get a few different sizes of hemostats, (surgical clamps,) they are just a few dollars. They let you pull strands through small holes. I also get it wet before I work with it, it seems to tighten just a bit when it dries.

As for the legality of that particular tube.....I don't think it's a problem, but I'm not the one who will be knocking on your door. I would get a regular tube. I personally thought that the whole concept of using an arm brace to skirt the law was silly, and decided at the time I would never get myself into the position we are in now, with the three/four letter agency going back and forth deciding who isn't a criminal based on what day of the week it is.

 

[F-111 John]

For what reason?
Please cite the portion of the rule instead of making everyone take wild guesses.

From the rule (not from the replies to comments, which are not part of the rule) on pages 272 and 273:

3. Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be 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 manufactured 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.”
​

The rule discusses altering the "stabilizing brace," not the buffer tube. However, putting on a smooth pistol buffer tube prevents attachment of the stabilizing brace, thus should meet the requirement to avoid 'constructive possession' should you for any reason wish to keep the pistol brace in your spare parts box.

 

[kje54]

From the rule (not from the replies to comments, which are not part of the rule) on pages 272 and 273:

3. Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be 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 manufactured 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.”
​

The rule discusses altering the "stabilizing brace," not the buffer tube. However, putting on a smooth pistol buffer tube prevents attachment of the stabilizing brace, thus should meet the requirement to avoid 'constructive possession.'

Adding a smooth pistol buffer tube only prevents the use of "adjustable" braces. many braces/blades are designed to fit on smooth tubes in a fixed position.

 

[wesmonster]

IMHO anything wrapping or padding the outside of any buffer tube, round or std. M4 is OK.
If it's a std. M4 stock then wrapping it in cord at least makes it impossible to mount a stock. It's not permanent but it's an impediment to slapping a stock on it.
I wouldn't pad the end of the tube, just based on ATF's history going WAY back to AR pistols before braces, They frowned on anything you added that made it 'more comfortable to shoulder'. I remember when guys were adding furniture coasters to the ends of buffer tubes 'to help them stand up in gun cabinets'.
Cheek weld without shoulder contact has been OK as long as I can remember. If ATF's latest contradicts that, someone needs to have a sit down with them.

 

[F-111 John]

Adding a smooth pistol buffer tube only prevents the use of "adjustable" braces. many braces/blades are designed to fit on smooth tubes in a fixed position.

If you own such a pistol brace that attaches to a smooth pistol buffer tube, your pistol has a smooth pistol buffer tube, and you do not want to register your braced pistol as an SBR, then your only choice would be to destroy the brace.

If you own a brace designed to be used on an adjustable carbine buffer tube, as 99% of today's braces are, then swapping out the buffer tube and retaining ownership of the brace is still an option, in my non-legal advice opinion.

 

[kje54]

If you own such a pistol brace that attaches to a smooth pistol buffer tube, your pistol has a smooth pistol buffer tube, and you do not want to register your braced pistol as an SBR, then your only choice would be to destroy the brace.

If you own a brace designed to be used on an adjustable carbine buffer tube, as 99% of today's braces are, then swapping out the buffer tube and retaining ownership of the brace is still an option, in my non-legal advice opinion.

Yes exactly. Your post appeared to state that all pistol braces were adjustable: "However, putting on a smooth pistol buffer tube prevents attachment of the stabilizing brace". That's what I was addressing, it doesn't prevent the installation of a pistol brace.

 

[12Bravo20]

Adding a smooth pistol buffer tube only prevents the use of "adjustable" braces. many braces/blades are designed to fit on smooth tubes in a fixed position.

Both of the braces I have are the type that fits smooth pistol buffer tubes. On the one I installed a 16" barrel on the first time a brace rule change was announced. I left the brace on to mess with range nazis and Karens. My 9mm Colt SMG clone had a SB15 on it. I have since removed it and will probably pin and weld a XM177 style muzzle device to it so that the barrel will be at least 16" and then put a real stock on it.

 

[citizenconn]

Pretty sure that tube may get you in trouble with the new ATF rule, even if you wrap in parachord.

That is my understanding from several 2A advocates following this closely as well. They indicate a buffer tube that would allow you to remount a brace is a no go. If the buffer tube is required for the correct operation of the firearms, i.e. direct impingement, then the buffer tube should be a slick tube. If the buffer tube is not required, i.e. a piston system or similar, then you aren't allowed to even have the buffer tube.

 

[BreechFace]

Clear as mud, as they say.