Question regarding AR pistol to Rifle conversion.

[Jsh2A]

Thank you for reading post.

I recently learned that an AR pistol can legally be converted to a rifle (ofc removing pistol upper before installing a stock). I always thought an AR receiver was always a pistol or rifle based on the manufacturer.

What I'm wondering is that if someone bought an AR pistol (for argument sake we'll say it was fully assembled by the manufacturer), disassembled it, and reassembled it as a rifle; could they then reassemble it as a pistol down the road? Bought a pistol, turned it into a rifle, then went back to pistol. My understanding is that you can't go from rifle to pistol, but there would be no re-registering of the pistol/rifle needed (that I know of). Could there be an issue if ATF examined the rifle and found that the lower was registered as a pistol?

Bonus question:
Is there a benefit to registering a stripped "multi-caliber" AR lower as "other" (meaning frame or receiver)? Seeing as it could be registered as a pistol but built into either category.

Thank you for your input!

Read More

 

[Yarome]

Thank you for reading post.

I recently learned that an AR pistol can legally be converted to a rifle (ofc removing pistol upper before installing a stock). I always thought an AR receiver was always a pistol or rifle based on the manufacturer.

What I'm wondering is that if someone bought an AR pistol (for argument sake we'll say it was fully assembled by the manufacturer), disassembled it, and reassembled it as a rifle; could they then reassemble it as a pistol down the road? Bought a pistol, turned it into a rifle, then went back to pistol. My understanding is that you can't go from rifle to pistol, but there would be no re-registering of the pistol/rifle needed (that I know of). Could there be an issue if ATF examined the rifle and found that the lower was registered as a pistol?

Bonus question:
Is there a benefit to registering a stripped "multi-caliber" AR lower as "other" (meaning frame or receiver)? Seeing as it could be registered as a pistol but built into either category.

Thank you for your input!

Absolutely a benefit to buying lowers as "other".

If it was purchased fully assembled as a pistol... you can convert it to a rifle and from that rifle back into a pistol. Non-issue.

The only problem is if you bought a rifle fully assembled (recorded on the 4473 as a "rife") and then converted it to a pistol. The lower would be traceable back to a "rifle" and be illegal.

There is no issue with a rifle being traced back to a "pistol".

There is no requirement to "re-register" or to "register" a pistol built from an "other". The only time that would be an issue is if you sold/transferred it as a complete firearm. If you sell it though... it would benefit the purchaser to sell the upper and lower as separate transactions. Transferring only the lower and maintaining it as an "other".

 

[Jsh2A]

Thank you for your reply! Didn't expect feedback so soon.

Could you elaborate on the benefit of the "other" designation benefits? It seems like registering it as a pistol already allows the lower to bounce back and forth between pistol and rifle anyways...
Is buying the stripped lower as an "other" simply stating that the purchaser hasn't decided whether they're building a pistol or rifle yet?
If someone registers it as a "pistol" and already owns an AR rifle, could they possess an assembled AR pistol upper? My understanding is that if someone only owns an AR rifle, and buys an AR pistol upper, they could be considered to be in constructive possession of an SBR. Would owning a stripped AR lower designated as "pistol" be enough to constitute legal assembly? Would the "other" designation cover this as well?

Thanks again! Been geeking out on this all evening.

 

[Jsh2A]

Absolutely a benefit to buying lowers as "other".

If it was purchased fully assembled as a pistol... you can convert it to a rifle and from that rifle back into a pistol. Non-issue.

The only problem is if you bought a rifle fully assembled (recorded on the 4473 as a "rife") and then converted it to a pistol. The lower would be traceable back to a "rifle" and be illegal.

There is no issue with a rifle being traced back to a "pistol".

There is no requirement to "re-register" or to "register" a pistol built from an "other". The only time that would be an issue is if you sold/transferred it as a complete firearm. If you sell it though... it would benefit the purchaser to sell the upper and lower as separate transactions. Transferring only the lower and maintaining it as an "other".

Sorry! Replied to the thread but not your response...

Thank you for your reply! Didn't expect feedback so soon.

Could you elaborate on the benefit of the "other" designation benefits? It seems like registering it as a pistol already allows the lower to bounce back and forth between pistol and rifle anyways...
Is buying the stripped lower as an "other" simply stating that the purchaser hasn't decided whether they're building a pistol or rifle yet?
If someone registers it as a "pistol" and already owns an AR rifle, could they possess an assembled AR pistol upper? My understanding is that if someone only owns an AR rifle, and buys an AR pistol upper, they could be considered to be in constructive possession of an SBR. Would owning a stripped AR lower designated as "pistol" be enough to constitute legal assembly? Would the "other" designation cover this as well?

Thanks again! Been geeking out on this all evening.

 

[Yarome]

Could you elaborate on the benefit of the "other" designation benefits? It seems like registering it as a pistol already allows the lower to bounce back and forth between pistol and rifle anyways...
Is buying the stripped lower as an "other" simply stating that the purchaser hasn't decided whether they're building a pistol or rifle yet?
If someone registers it as a "pistol" and already owns an AR rifle, could they possess an assembled AR pistol upper? My understanding is that if someone only owns an AR rifle, and buys an AR pistol upper, they could be considered to be in constructive possession of an SBR. Would owning a stripped AR lower designated as "pistol" be enough to constitute legal assembly? Would the "other" designation cover this as well?

Thanks again! Been geeking out on this all evening.

Basically, insomuch as current or future laws may apply to a "pistol". IE... one example off the top of my head... you can't sell your pistol to anyone under 21, but you can sell them an "other". There is or may be other application of laws regarding "pistols", specifically, that would not apply to an "other".

Stepping back on my previous statement about no requirement to "re-register" a bit... and before some of our out of staters that don't bother to check where you're from jump on that one..

There are some states that do require alterations to an existing firearm to be reported. Not exactly "re-registering" it formally under a 4473 though. I was speaking only about OR.

The rest of your hypothetical I responded to in the other thread you opened on that subject.

 

[Jsh2A]

Basically, insomuch as current or future laws may apply to a "pistol". IE... one example off the top of my head... you can't sell your pistol to anyone under 21, but you can sell them an "other". There is or may be other application of laws regarding "pistols", specifically, that would not apply to an "other".

Stepping back on my previous statement about no requirement to "re-register" a bit... and before some of our out of staters that don't bother to check where you're from jump on that one..

There are some states that do require alterations to an existing firearm to be reported. I was speaking only about OR.

The rest of your hypothetical I responded to in the other thread you opened on that subject.

Thanks! That makes total sense. I saw your response on the other thread after posting my reply.
An "other" designation is different from. The NFA "any other weapon" right? Sorry if it's a dumb question, it just seems weird that the lower could be ambiguous.
Guess people would have to look at how it's dressed to tell what it identifies as. Haha

 

[Yarome]

Thanks! That makes total sense. I saw your response on the other thread after posting my reply.
An "other" designation is different from. The NFA "any other weapon" right? Sorry if it's a dumb question, it just seems weird that the lower could be ambiguous.
Guess people would have to look at how it's dressed to tell what it identifies as. Haha

"Other" and "AOW" are different classes of firearm. "Other" is any firearm that does not fall under the main classification of established definitions. IE., Rifle, pistol, etc.

AOW's are a specific class of firearm with it's own specific definition.

On a 4473 though there is no distinction made. "Other" is simply "Other".

 

[Jsh2A]

"Other" and "AOW" are different classes of firearm. "Other" is any firearm that does not fall under the main classification of established definitions. IE., Rifle, pistol, etc.

AOW's are a specific class of firearm with it's own specific definition.

On a 4473 though there is no distinction made. "Other" is simply "Other".

Sounds like that PSA lower that is on it's way is an "other"! Thanks for your input! I learned a lot.

 

[Camelfilter]

Just be mindful whatever you end up doing that arm braces are now just considered stocks.

So any pistol you wish to configure needs to go without, or you have to pay & file to short barrel rifle.

Great points above regarding lowers as "other" for Oregon. Currently.

 

[Jsh2A]

Just be mindful whatever you end up doing that arm braces are now just considered stocks.

So any pistol you wish to configure needs to go without, or you have to pay & file to short barrel rifle.

Great points above regarding lowers as "other" for Oregon. Currently.

Good to point out the pistol brace rule. Hopefully that gets kicked out. It should have been just on the merits that the ATF can't make laws...

 

[Yarome]

Just be mindful whatever you end up doing that arm braces are now just considered stocks.

So any pistol you wish to configure needs to go without, or you have to pay & file to short barrel rifle.

Well.... kinda. The alphabet wants there to be no distinction, but braces are still braces until the fat lady sings. An illegal rule doesn't change the facts just because that's what brandon wants.

There is also 2 other options. Unless there has been some change I am not aware of... If you are a member of GOA, FPC, or SAF then there are injunctions in place that exempt their members from any enforcement or prosecution. "Business as usual". There remains some risk that a LEO may not be aware of the injunctions and still try to arrest someone... which has some potential of incurring legal expenses. I wouldn't flaunt it, but it's still legal for their members to have their braced pistols.

The last option, and the riskiest... simply do not comply and lay your bet down that the pistol brace rule is thrown out.

 

[Jsh2A]

Well.... kinda. The alphabet wants there to be no distinction, but braces are still braces until the fat lady sings. An illegal rule doesn't change the facts just because that's what brandon wants.

There is also 2 other options. Unless there has been some change I am not aware of... If you are a member of GOA, FPC, or SAF then there are injunctions in place that exempt their members from any enforcement or prosecution. "Business as usual". There remains some risk that a LEO may not be aware of the injunctions and still try to arrest someone... which has some potential of incurring legal expenses. I wouldn't flaunt it, but it's still legal for their members to have their braced pistols.

The last option, and the riskiest... simply do not comply and lay your bet down that the pistol brace rule is thrown out.

Right, my understanding is that you can still own the brace and the pistol without being in constructive possession of an SBR. Just can't install it.

 

[CamoDeafie]

A quick release buffer tube adapter might be awesome here for pistol to rifle to pistol conversions, but I don't know of such a thing, beyond takedown stocks or folding stock adapters?

Edit
The idea being that there's a pistol round tube with no way to attach stocks or braces; then there's the carbine tube with adjustable stock. An adapter that allows one to detach the tube itself from the lower would allow one to have a pistol configuration without needing to thread and unthread tubes, especially if tubes are supposed to be staked in place.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Huh
There's something out there actually.

RAB-AD (Rapid Attach Buttstock Adapter)

getstern.com

Well I guess there's the solution and ATF may or may not be able to prosecute for "constructive possession "?

 

[Yarome]

Right, my understanding is that you can still own the brace and the pistol without being in constructive possession of an SBR. Just can't install it.

With the injunctions... and if you are a member of one of those organizations then you can still have your brace on your pistol... without a tax stamp. Just as before.

There is a bit of a caveat there too though with owning a pistol and owning a brace. Simple possession isn't necessarily "constructive possession", but... say you keep them both in the same drawer/bag or secured in your trunk together... such that it's reasonable to assume your intent is to use "that" brace on "that" pistol it may still be considered constructive possession. The key there really seems to be what a LE official might consider "reasonable intent".

You can overthink yourself scared, but the reality is more likely that If the alphabet is knocking on your door with a search warrant, you have a lot more to worry about than a simple constructive possession charge. Keep your nose clean and it's more likely to remain a non-issue. YMMV

 

[edzz]

OK... So, if one were to sell a brace equipped pistol lower (originally sold as a complete pistol) with out the upper assembly to an FFL should the FFL put it on the books as a rifle? As the brace is now viewed as a stock by the alphabet agency?

 

[CamoDeafie]

OK... So, if one were to sell a brace equipped pistol lower (originally sold as a complete pistol) with out the upper assembly to an FFL should the FFL put it on the books as a rifle? As the brace is now viewed as a stock by the alphabet agency?

Likely "other/pistol"? FFL could just put 16"+ upper on it and sell as "rifle" and swap brace for real stock? IDK.

Edit. ATF has said the brace itself is "not the issue, ATF doesn't regulate accessories/parts" it's the barrel length with the brace that's apparently the issue

 

[Diamondback]

A quick release buffer tube adapter might be awesome here for pistol to rifle to pistol conversions, but I don't know of such a thing, beyond takedown stocks or folding stock adapters?

Edit
The idea being that there's a pistol round tube with no way to attach stocks or braces; then there's the carbine tube with adjustable stock. An adapter that allows one to detach the tube itself from the lower would allow one to have a pistol configuration without needing to thread and unthread tubes, especially if tubes are supposed to be staked in place.

Primary Weapons Systems ratcheting endplate.

Enhanced Pistol Buffer Tube with Ratchet Lock Castlenut and Endplate

Weight- 4.3 oz. Mil-Spec tube diameter Impact Extruded 7075 Aluminum Extended Carrier Support Lip For Smoother Cycling Smooth Pistol Buffer Tube Lightening Cuts Reducing Weight By Approx. 1 Oz. Off Mil-Spec Unique Fluted Tube Design For Debris Clearing MIL-A-8625 F, Type III, Class 2 Anodized...

www.primaryweapons.com

 

[Diamondback]

Well.... kinda. The alphabet wants there to be no distinction, but braces are still braces until the fat lady sings. An illegal rule doesn't change the facts just because that's what brandon wants.

There is also 2 other options. Unless there has been some change I am not aware of... If you are a member of GOA, FPC, or SAF then there are injunctions in place that exempt their members from any enforcement or prosecution. "Business as usual". There remains some risk that a LEO may not be aware of the injunctions and still try to arrest someone... which has some potential of incurring legal expenses. I wouldn't flaunt it, but it's still legal for their members to have their braced pistols.

Or a politically motivated LEO may know of the injunction and choose to ignore it... HE'll just get a slap on the wrist and you won't beat the ride even if you DO beat the rap. Gee, where have we seen that before?

 

[Diamondback]

PWS kit is 84.95 at AIM Surplus but they won't ship to WA.

AimSurplus, LLC

Then get a pistol tube from Damage Industries for about $15-20...

Extended Pistol Buffer Tube w/ QD Socket

Extended Pistol Buffer Tube w/ QD Socket

damageindustriesllc.com

and Bob's Yer Uncle.