Can I convert a AR rifle into a pistol?

[71Commander]

As the initial question states, is it legally possible to convert a AR rifle into a handgun, and if so, what are the legal and technical requirements.

Thanks, Tucker.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, if you want to pay $200 to make it a SBR under the NFA you can. Otherwise, once the lower had been registered as a rifle it will always be a rifle. You would need a new lower registered as a pistol in order to make an AR pistol.

 

[71Commander]

Thanks. Looks like I have to buy one pre-made.

 

[Dionysusigma]

If someone purchases a short buffer tube with no stock, a 10" upper, a plain-jane-no-internals lower, and a receiver kit... would that be legal? The receiver would be fresh from the manufacturer, never used as a rifle. Or would the buffer tube be considered a buttstock?

 

[RRTX]

Yes it's legal if the reciever has never been assembled into a rifle, a lot of people have them put pistol or receiver on the 4473 just in case. As long as the buffer tube can't readily accept a stock you are fine.

 

[tokarev]

AR Pistol

You need to buy a new stripped receiver - at that point it is neither a rifle or pistol - have the FFL write "pistol" on the 4473 and its a pistol. The pistol buffer tube can not have any way of attaching a buttstock. Build away - A word from experience with AR pistols - They can be tricky when it comes to reliable operation.

 

[71Commander]

I see both AR's and AK's. How would you get the stripped receiver on a AK platform?

 

[Zundfolge]

once the lower had been registered as a rifle it will always be a rifle.

I always here that, but guns are not registered in America (thanks to the 1986 Firearmowners Protection Act).

 

[thatguy]

I have seen this question before and it was my understanding that the gun manufacturers had to file reports with the ATF where they declared the types of guns associated with the serial numbers. Some people say that simply checking the handgun box on the 4473 makes it a pistol but this didn't sound right to me. Then last month a story appeared in a magazine about this very topic and the author agreed with the 4473 theory. This still sounds wrong to me so I have sent a letter asking for clarification to the ATF. I hope someone there can clear this up. I know that the gun makers report their production to the ATF and I thought this included declaring what types of guns were made. I find it hard to believe that the ATF would leave it up to the retail dealer to determine this.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I always here that, but guns are not registered in America (thanks to the 1986 Firearmowners Protection Act).

I completely disagree because we do have gun registration in America. When I go buy a gun at the store, I am required by law to write down on a yellow government form my name, birth-date, address, sex, etc. and the gun shop is required to write down on the same form the manufacturer, make, model and serial number of the gun I'm buying. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives then has free access to these government issued yellow forms. And all of that no thanks the 1986 Machine Gun Ban.

But anyways, the way I understand the pistol/rifle issue is that you can make a pistol into a rifle and even back into a pistol again. But you can't make a rifle into a pistol. As far as the deal about buying a receiver only and how to describe it on the yellow government registration form, it's probably best to just have the gun shop call it what it is at the moment you buy it - a "stripped receiver".

 

[Kurush]

I always here that, but guns are not registered in America (thanks to the 1986 Firearmowners Protection Act)

Registered may be the wrong word but he's right. When an SOT makes a gun they have to record it in their bound book, and they record if it's a handgun or rifle or whatever. If a gun starts life as a pistol, it can be made into a rifle later, but not vice-versa.

Anyhow AR pistols are overrated: there's a reason we have pistol ammo; short barrels can't get rifle bullets moving fast enough to be useful. 5.56x45 out of an 8 inch barrel is just 22 magnum plus a huge muzzle flash.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I always here that, but guns are not registered in America (thanks to the 1986 Firearmowners Protection Act).

We do not have central registration of firearms similar to the UK, Australia, or Canada. We do have registration of firearms since the 1968 Gun Control Act. A good discussion of the differences in these registration systems can be found here.

As for the 1986 FOPAs effect on registration, it forbids the government from using money to set up any form of central registration and discontinued the wildly unsuccessful registration of handgun ammunition established by the 1968 GCA (an effort that was so ineffective that practically nobody on either side stood up for it).

But anyways, the way I understand the pistol/rifle issue is that you can make a pistol into a rifle and even back into a rifle again.

No, if you make a pistol into a rifle you have created an NFA weapon by adding a stock (even if you have a 16" barrel). The only exemption to this is certain pistols on the C&R list that were designed to accept detachable stocks and even then I believe the exemption is only for authentic period stocks, not reproductions.

 

[Zundfolge]

No, if you make a pistol into a rifle you have created an NFA weapon by adding a stock (even if you have a 16" barrel). The only exemption to this is certain pistols on the C&R list that were designed to accept detachable stocks and even then I believe the exemption is only for authentic period stocks, not reproductions.

So my Steyr with carbine kit is actually an NFA weapon?

 

[AJ Dual]

No, it's not illegal to make a pistol "bigger" into a rifle. Only to make a rifle "smaller" into a pistol.

They sell kits like this for Glock, and 1911's too. The key is you can't attach the stock without the 16" barrel. If you do, you've made an illegal (unregistered) SBR.

The reasoning behind that is the original draft of the '34 NFA was to make all handguns NFA items, and the SBR and SBS provisions were to keep people from making "handguns" by cutting down non-NFA rifles and shotguns.

When it was clear the handgun provision in the NFA was too extreme, it was dropped, but the SBR and SBS portions were left in, either by oversight, or by the belief that these were still useful to combat "crime".

 

[Gewehr98]

Yeah, that needs clarification.

No, if you make a pistol into a rifle you have created an NFA weapon by adding a stock (even if you have a 16" barrel). The only exemption to this is certain pistols on the C&R list that were designed to accept detachable stocks and even then I believe the exemption is only for authentic period stocks, not reproductions.

You can always take a pistol, add both a full-length buttstock and 16" or longer barrel, and be completely safe - ATF has no problem with that. Here's one example which is completely legal:





It's also fairly routine in benchrest circles to take the receivers from XP-100 pistols and build insanely accurate rifles out of them. Where ATF gets ugly is when you add a buttstock to a pistol that retains the original short barrel, or shorten a rifle's barrel down below 16" without going through NFA paperwork. Some pistols were grandfathered, including Broomhandle Mausers, Lugers, and Browning Hi-Powers with original stock lugs and removable stocks. Otherwise, you gotta jump through NFA paperwork hoops.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Thanks for the clarifications. Sorry to have muddled the issue by confusing the barrel issue. I'd also add that ATF themselves isn't too clear on this issue so whatever you ask them, get it in writing.

 

[Derby FALs]

I saw Lucas McCain make a SAA into a SBR with a board that had a knothole in it. He was deadly with it. ATF saw it too and that is why it's a NONO.

 

[beerslurpy]

One thing I find weird is that SBRs and SBS were only outlawed because they intended to outlaw pistols, but pistols have remained entirely legal and seen an explosion in popularity over the decades.

So the weird things is, what purpose does the whole "short barrelled long gun" serve? An SBR krink or M4 is not even comparable to a giant size handgun in terms of concealability. Rifle stocks are larger than all concealed carry guns.

I cant think of any reason repealing that section of the NFA would cause political problems for anyone that voted for it. Short barrelled weapons arent exactly a hot button issue and never have been. Most people who encounter the law are shocked that it even exists.

 

[71Commander]

saw Lucas McCain make a SAA into a SBR with a board that had a knothole in it. He was deadly with it. ATF saw it too and that is why it's a NONO.

I saw that. Kilt them all, he did.

 

[Zundfolge]

I cant think of any reason repealing that section of the NFA would cause political problems for anyone that voted for it.

read my sig

 

[Bullet]

beerslurpy

Quote –

“So the weird things is, what purpose does the whole "short barrelled long gun" serve? An SBR krink or M4 is not even comparable to a giant size handgun in terms of concealability. Rifle stocks are larger than all concealed carry guns.”

“Most people who encounter the law are shocked that it even exists.”

I’m with you, this makes no sense. Just shows that idiots are making the gun laws (which criminals don’t go by anyway).