AR pistol to rifle?
- Thread starter dcmann
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Just having the disassembled parts to build a SBR, even if you never plan to, is a violation of federal law, unless you have it registered.
If you buy it as a pistol and decide to build it as a rifle, you cannot go back, as this also violates the NFA.
Building it as a pistol, switching it to a rifle, then switching it back also violates the NFA.
If you buy it as a pistol and decide to build it as a rifle, you cannot go back, as this also violates the NFA.
Building it as a pistol, switching it to a rifle, then switching it back also violates the NFA.
Last edited:
Just having the disassembled parts to build a SBR, even if you never plan to, is a violation of federal law, unless you have it registered.
If you buy it as a pistol and decide to build it as a rifle, you cannot go back, as this also violates the NFA.
Building it as a pistol, switching it to a rifle, then switching it back also violates the NFA.
This is incorrect.
If it started as a pistol it can go to rifle and back to pistol per ATF Ruling 2011-4.
http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf
Just having the disassembled parts to build a SBR, even if you never plan to, is a violation of federal law, unless you have it registered.
If you buy it as a pistol and decide to build it as a rifle, you cannot go back, as this also violates the NFA.
Building it as a pistol, switching it to a rifle, then switching it back also violates the NFA.
^This guy is all sorts of wrong.
OP, You're safe. Your firearm isn't registered either, unless you've gone out of your way to put yourself on someones list or something. There's not really a list for Title 1 (rifle, handgun, shotgun) guns. You can take a handgun receiver, disassemble it, and build it into a rifle, that's fine.
What whitsend linked is right.
It is because it was first assembled as a pistol.
Whether a factory pistol or stripped lower first assembled as a pistol is irrelevant.
If you think you may ever want your lower to be assembled as a pistol, it is a good idea to assemble it that was first.
Or just always assemble your lower as a pistol first.
Yes.
Not having a pistol upper simplifies things.
The only thing to watch out for is not having the buttstock and <16" upper on at the same time.
Not an issue since you don't have a pistol upper.
The good thing is you can now go back to a pistol at a later date if you choose.
Not having a pistol upper simplifies things.
The only thing to watch out for is not having the buttstock and <16" upper on at the same time.
Not an issue since you don't have a pistol upper.
The good thing is you can now go back to a pistol at a later date if you choose.
Why not contact the ATF on this and ask them directly. This way you will have the correct answer and have something to fall back on. Telling an agent you got your information from a local web site will not gain you any leeway. A lot of mis- information is spread on the web with very good intention.
Not trying to rub anyone the wrong way just a thought.
Bauxdog
Not trying to rub anyone the wrong way just a thought.
Bauxdog
That was why I posted this ↓
A ruling from the ATF is better than a verbal opinion of a random agent you happen to get on the phone.
IANAL
JMHO
When I asked that question to the folks at ATF Hq., I was informed that was only for the TC firearms. You still cannot do that for other firearms. I did not read the whole reg you posted but what I saw only dealt with the TC firearms. The information I got was you still cannot convert a rifle to a handgun except for the TCs. I said I was not trying to rain on anyone's parade but I spoke to the folks at ATF about this very subject and they put me with the legal guys (actually they called me back) to make sure I got the correct answer. Do as you wish but I feel your information is incorrect.
Beauxdog
Beauxdog
The letter is not written specifically to the TC firearms - TC is the case that brought the issue up, but the statements are written about Title 1 firearms in general. They use very broad terms to declare it. They do not say "TC pistol" nor "TC rifle" nor "TC parts kits" but rather speak to the definitions of rifle, pistol, in general and blanket terms. This "issue" is not unique to TC firearms, either, as evident by many other pistol-rifle conversion kits that exist for 1911s and Glocks, such as these here: http://www.mechtechsys.com/ http://www.mechtechsys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=431
I appreciate that you are cautious and want to avoid the spread of misinformation on the internet - that's definitely something most corners of the internet suffer from. Also, I'm not surprised that ATF employees would obfuscate this issue by speaking too-conservatively to cover their own ass. It's a government office like any other, and they often employee some low-grade people who are then put into a position to not take chances by saying too much. However the firearms industry and ATF statements seems pretty conclusive about the fact that swapping pistol-to-rifle and back'n'forth is completely kosher.
On top of that you have the added security of PURE PRACTICALITY OF EVIDENCE. How can anyone take a look at your AR15 rifle, or your AR15 pistol, and say with certainty that it was once something it currently is not? How do you prove that it once was something else? The only thing I can think of is if they are able to somehow trace 4473 forms back to see how it was transferred - if you believe that is possible. If you had assembled the firearm from a bare receiver, then what is there to accuse a person over? What could possibly /ever/ physically indicate that you have had the receiver in any condition other than it's current state?
To the best of my research and experience; it's not only legal but it's practically impossible to prosecute if it wasn't unless you're standing there with an agent of the BATFE watching you swap parts back and forth.
Last edited:
I, for one, don't believe it is possible. I believe it is certain. I say that as a result of the experience of a FFL, known by a number members, here. One fine day, two BATFE agents identified themselves and asked to examine the records of two specific transfers, over one YEAR old. They supplied personally identifiable info to specify which transfers interested them.
Now if those records are not held by the feds beyond a few days, how were they able to do that? I welcome any balm for my paranoia.
I will never underestimate the government's willingness to lie to its citizenry, or to behave lawlessly. It should not be necessary for me to provide myriads of supporting evidence, much of which may be found in the days headlines.
Last edited:
