possible 9mm AR project

[sothereiwas]

I'm a Washington resident and was wondering what the legality, or how to go about building a 9mm AR short barrel (10-11"). What kind of receiver do I need to look for. Is there any tax stamps necessary. Thanks guys

Read More

 

[xjjeeper223]

In the state of Washington you cannot have a short barrel rifle... So you are out of luck...

 

[sothereiwas]

So all AR's regardless of receiver designation fall in the short barreled rifle category? Is there any way to meet the barrel length requirements with a thread on device like a long break or fake can?

 

[xjjeeper223]

You could make a 9mm AR Pistol. Which is pretty much the same except you cannot have a foregrip or stock on it. Or, you permanantly attach some sort or long flash hider/ fake silencer to it to bring the barrel to 16 inches. Or you could just build a 16 inch 9mm AR. If I were in your shoes, I would probably go the 9mm Pistol route.

None of those 3 options I listed require any tax stamps or anything special.

EDIT: Not sure if I totally answered your question No, not all AR are considered short barrel rifles. Only AR's with a barrel less than 16 inches. Go below that and you either need to have it be an AR Pistol, get a $200 tax stamp to build a SBR (which you cannot do in WA), or go to prison.

Hope this helps!

 

[sothereiwas]

So no butt stock or fore grip. That answers my questions thanks.

 

[wired]

I don't know if this will work or not but its something I have been kicking around in my head for a while. If you were to register it as a "weapon made from a rifle" you might get the ATF to approve it. It would be a pistol and have all the pistol characteristics like no stock etc. But if you traveled to Oregon you could add a buttstock to it while you were there and it would be an ATF legal SBR since a "weapon made from a rifle" is kind of a catch all that also includes SBR's. Before you come back to Vancouver you would remove the buttstock and its a legal pistol again. Its never actually an Short Barreled Rifle in WA . The test would be sending in a form 1 to the ATF and seeing if they approve it. If they don't they send your $200 back to you and decline the application. No harm.

 

[cyclesarge]

I think wired is thinking of an (A)ny (O)ther (W)eapon. Any weapon made from a rifle with a barrel less than 16" or an overall length of less than 26" IS a (S)hort (B)arreled (R)ifle. So no they wouldn't got for it. You could build an AOW (from a pistol) in Washington but would not be able to a stock while in Oregon, since you can't add a stock to a AOW. I think a pistol would be your best bet. The nice thing about 9mm pistols is that the buffer tube won't kick the crap out of your shoulder like .223 does. I know, I've run both through my SBR AR (when it was a pistol).

 

[wired]

Not Any Other Weapon (AOW) . "Weapon Built from a Rifle" is a complete other NFA category. Normally you could not turn a rifle into a pistol according to the ATF . It would be illegal. Pistol to rifle no problem but not back again. Registering it as a "Weapon Built from a Rifle" allows you to turn a rifle into a pistol on a form 1. Typically an SBR will be a "Weapon Built from a Rifle" but according to the WA state definition of a rifle it must have a butt stock to be considered a SBR so no buttstock, no SBR.

 

[cyclesarge]

"WBFR" hmm, that's a new one to me. What would be the difference between this and a SBR, other than the ATF giving loopholes to residents from states that don't allow SBRs?

 

[wired]

You'll have to excuse my phrasing . The official term is " weapon MADE from a rifle" . Normally that would be an SBR or what most states would call an SBR and many people are of the opinion including James Bardwell when he was battling the ATF that the SBR and the WMFR designation were one in the same thing. It MIGHT be enough of a loophole to get past the WA state authorities though. Clearly they cannot charge you on state charges for what the WA state government would define as a pistol if the Feds don't call it a title 1 rifle any more.

Here is an excerpt from Bardwells FAQ

<broken link removed>

"A short barreled rifle is a rifle (which is defined as a shoulder
fired, rifled bore firearm) with a barrel length of less than 16",
or an overall length of less than 26", or any weapon made from a
rifle falling into the same length parameters (like a pistol made
from a rifle). "

"A short barreled rifle (SBR) is defined in the law as:
26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(a)
* * * *
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches
in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified
has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
barrels of less than 16 inches in length;"

 

[cyclesarge]

Hmm, I'm reading this as
"A short barreled rifle is a rifle (which is defined as a shoulder
fired, rifled bore firearm) with a barrel length of less than 16",
or an overall length of less than 26", or any weapon made from a
rifle falling into the same length parameters (like a pistol made
from a rifle). "

Or put another way.

"A short barreled rifle (SBR) is defined in the law as:
26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(a) = (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified
has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
barrels of less than 16 inches in length;"
AS WELL as the three previous definitions.

I'm really not seeing any "gray" area here.

 

[sothereiwas]

The pistol option fits my needs perfectly. In 9mm I really am not in need of a but stock and since I dont have that option I would probably go with an even shorter barrel. Probably one of the RRA 7' kits.

Thanks again

 

[wired]

Hmm, I'm reading this as
"A short barreled rifle is a rifle (which is defined as a shoulder
fired, rifled bore firearm) with a barrel length of less than 16",
or an overall length of less than 26", or any weapon made from a
rifle falling into the same length parameters (like a pistol made
from a rifle). "

Or put another way.

"A short barreled rifle (SBR) is defined in the law as:
26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(a) = (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified
has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
barrels of less than 16 inches in length;"
AS WELL as the three previous definitions.

I'm really not seeing any "gray" area here.

The grey area would be the conflicting federal and state interpretations of what a SBR is. While the feds would consider a SBR to be a weapon built from a rifle that does not only have to be a stocked weapon the state says it have to have a stock to be a rifle. a 10 inch pistol built from a rifle would be legal in WA but taking it out of the state on a 5320 would let you add a stock to it once you get past the border and make what the feds would call an SBR . Its a matter of semantics of what an SBR is but the WA state definition of a pistol would allow what the feds call a weapon made from a rifle even though its not always what the feds call an SBR.

 

[cyclesarge]

But, I think the definition you gave says the feds DO consider " any weapon made from a rifle falling into the same length parameters (like a pistol made
from a rifle). " an SBR.

 

[wired]

The feds do but the state does not. To the state a 10 inch pistol with no butt stock is a pistol no matter that the feds consider it an SBR. The feds can let you turn a rifle into a pistol and categorize it as a weapon made from a rifle but when you go to a state that allows SBR still throw a buttstock on it where it would be a SBR according to the feds since a weapon made from a rifle CAN be made from a rifle but it doesnt have to be. It would be just enough paperwork to keep it legal wherever it is.

 

[cyclesarge]

The only classifications I know of concerning NFA items are: (M)achine (G)uns, (S)hort (B)arreled (R)ifles, (S)hort (B)arreled (S)hotguns, suppressors, (A)ny (O)ther (W)eapons, and (D)estructive (D)evices. If they had a "turn a rifle into a pistol and categorize it as a weapon made from a rifle" classification they wouldn't let you put a stock on it when you went to a state that allows SBR's, because if you put a stock on it it WOULD BE an SBR, and you would NOT have the proper SBR paperwork.

Even if they had a "weapon made from a rifle" category you wouldn't be able to convert it to a SBR, just like if you have an AOW stamp on a Mossberg 500 AOW, you wouldn't be able to put a stock on it to convert it to a SBS when you came to Oregon.

 

[wired]

Yes it would be an SBR in the state you were taking it to as it would be a short barrel rifle but the point is that a weapon made from a rifle does not have to be a SBR but a weapon made from a rifle CAN be an SBR in a state that allows them as there is no prohibition on buttstocks on weapons made from rifles to the feds. Federally a weapon made from a rifle is an actual NFA category that is seldom used because calling it an SBR does the same thing. In WA though it would be a pistol as the buttstock would not be allowed but in taking it to a more NFA friendly state you can add the buttstock because a "weapon made from a rifle" can have a buttstock.

From the ATF form 5320.1 ( form 1 to manufacture ) instructions

c . Firearm. The term "firearm" means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or
barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun
if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a
barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel
or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if
such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a
barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 5845(e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or a silencer
for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition;
and (8) a destructive device.

 

[cyclesarge]

Why do they even have an SBR classification then?

 

[wired]

Because the NFA laws are pretty screwed up and it is full of loopholes and redundancies. Remember that not all SBR's are made from rifles. Some are pistols with an added buttstock. When the NFA was created that was actually the most common way to make an SBR . Shortening a rifle was secondary. They tried to allow for rifles that became pistols under the classification of what a pistol is and the result is "weapon made from a rifle" . Remember the OP's question. He wants an SBR in WA . Cant do it like that but he can have one MAYBE if he can get the ATF to approve a rifle made into something else . Since an SBR is basically the same thing he wouldnt be breaking federal law or state laws given that he would have to travel out of state to use it in the classical SBR short barrel with a buttstock mode. 9mm AR pistols are not that handy but if I lived in Vancouver I would not be limiting myself to a 9mm AR pistol if I thought there MIGHT be a chance I could get one past the state.

 

[cyclesarge]

My SBR AR actually started out as a 9mm (to use with my incoming suppressor because 16" + 8" of suppressor = WAY TO LONG considering the range of 9mm) but after shooting 9mm and .223 on the pistol lower, the 9mm upper will probably live on my pistol lower.