Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Rails on a AK pistol Build.

  1. #1
    Gunslinger jdgabbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    298
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Rails on a AK pistol Build.

    Ok, Pistols from what I understand cannot have a way to attach a forward grip on them. However, companies such as Kel-Tec have comercially produce pistols available to the market that allow you to do such. Such as their .223 pistol that takes M-16 mags.

    With that being said, what is the legality of installing handguards with rails for use with flashlights, such as Surefires? You could still install a forward grip, but there are several companies that supply these on the the pistols when they leave the factory?

    I think this is a very GRAY area, and think that if anyone has any info on case law it would be beneficial to all. Though, I have also heard that only vertical grips are a no go, and the ones canted at an angle are approved, though I do not think I would risk it.

    Anyone have any info???

    EDIT: Not to mention that Glocks and other such pistols with rails would easily have a forward grip attached. Even though the barrel would be a bit close for comfort. Is this something that the law is undefined on?
    Infantryman
    Two Combat Tours
    Criminal Justice Major.
    15 years of shooting under the belt
    Collection of both modern and antique handguns and rifles
    STILL A YOUNG MAN WITH LOTS OF TIME

  2. #2
    GuncoHolic kernelkrink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,976
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    "Handguards" on a handgun are OK, look at the various single shot hand cannons such as the Contender and XP100. Horizontal forearm, IOW.

    Rails are also OK, again they are standard equipment on almost all full size modern semi auto handguns. Just don't clamp on a grip.

    The only law involved with forward grips is the NFA, specifically the definition of Any Other Weapon, or AOW. Here's where things get confusing, mainly because of ATF's interpretation of the law.

    Fed law defines a pistol as:

    "A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
    projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and
    having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently
    aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped
    by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the
    bore(s). "


    Section


    An AOW is basically any "concealable" (under 16" bbl or 26" overall according to ATF) firearm that isn't a handgun, rifle, or shotgun.

    Somewhere along the line someone at ATF saw a forward grip on a handgun and said "That's designed to be fired with two hands, not one!" So not a handgun, no buttstock so not a rifle. That leaves AOW. The problem is pistols are specifically exempted from AOW status, and the legal definition states originally designed, made, and intended to be fired from one hand. How does Joe Glockowner clamping a grip to the rail after he buys it change Glock's original design and intent? It could even be argued that since Glock and many other makers add checkering and/or a "hook" to the front of the triggerguard to steady the forefinger of the off hand in a two handed grip the pistol was in fact originally designed to be fired with two hands, yet ATF classes it as a handgun.

    Now, say Beretta comes out with a semiautomatic 93R clone with factory folding foregrip, well ATF would be right that it is not a handgun. But people installing them after they are made and sold? Not an AOW according to the letter of the law.

    AFAIK no cases have ever been prosecuted over a forward grip on a pistol. I guess no one wants to be the test case that gets ATF's interpretation voided.

  3. #3
    Gunslinger jdgabbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    298
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    So really the law implies that it ok to put on a forward grip after the fact?

    I think your right as far as not wanting to be a test case for the BATFE. However, you know how they are with the parts + rifle = intent (otherwise known as 1+1=4).

    I wish the "Put the leash on the BATFE dog" bill would hurry up and pass congress.
    Infantryman
    Two Combat Tours
    Criminal Justice Major.
    15 years of shooting under the belt
    Collection of both modern and antique handguns and rifles
    STILL A YOUNG MAN WITH LOTS OF TIME

  4. #4
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,618
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    I have actually been concerned that even a bipod that is folderd together can be construed as a hand grip. and now there are hand grips that turn into bipods.
    Does any one know if the hole on a amd 65 pistol must filled in? there are also hand grips that fit sling studs. I have seen pistols with them as well

  5. #5
    BANNED nalioth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    1,529
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1biggun View Post
    I have actually been concerned that even a bipod that is folderd together can be construed as a hand grip. and now there are hand grips that turn into bipods.
    Does any one know if the hole on a amd 65 pistol must filled in? there are also hand grips that fit sling studs. I have seen pistols with them as well
    Ahhh, here we go with "INTENT" again.

    If the alphabet gang is trying to pin "INTENT" to install a VFG on your AMD65 handguard hole on your pistol, or your sling swivel, you've obviously stepped off into the deep doo-doo somewhere else. . . .

  6. #6
    Gunco Veteran Frogman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,259
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default What's next ?

    Great discussion, as usual the Kernal has most of the answers, I like shooting hand guns at
    pop cans at 50 to 125Yds, I've been using sand bags, but due to failing eye sight I've considered using or getting a mono pod to fit on a rail for long range shooting, now will some one interpret that as a grip? Good Grief Charlie Brown!!!!!!!!
    Xfrog

  7. #7
    Gunslinger jdgabbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    298
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    You know how they know no bounds. That being said, don't you have to be educated to work there? How did all those guys get jobs?
    Infantryman
    Two Combat Tours
    Criminal Justice Major.
    15 years of shooting under the belt
    Collection of both modern and antique handguns and rifles
    STILL A YOUNG MAN WITH LOTS OF TIME

  8. #8
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,618
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    I would stick with a BIpod just to be safe plus they work better IMOA.

    INTENT seems to be the issue with most of this crap. apparently you cna be convicted of a crime without doing it.

    the new rugger 10-22 pistol comes with a bipod and I saw a guy at gander moutain holding it like a pistol grip the other day made me go HMMMM.

    I have seen more than a few thompson encores with bolt pistol and rifle barrel and stock along with mono pods ,bipods, . if those guys can get away with having a a short barrel together with a butt stock all in the same box then in a good world I shold not have to worry about a rail or a sling stud or hole in my forend.

  9. #9
    Happy Camper hcpookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,694
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1biggun View Post
    I have seen more than a few thompson encores with bolt pistol and rifle barrel and stock along with mono pods ,bipods, . if those guys can get away with having a a short barrel together with a butt stock all in the same box then in a good world I shold not have to worry about a rail or a sling stud or hole in my forend.
    T/C was taken to court by the ATF for that very thing - short barrel and buttstock. T/C won.

    The ruling was *very* specific about a certain model and I do not think anyone assumed that was a blanket for SBR + buttstock builds to be viewed as "OK" by ATF.

    I would *NOT* assume, under any circumstances, that just because T/C can do it, so can we.

    You would be safest by writing ATF for a ruling on a specific build. I saw the whole story many many moons ago on another general gun forum, such as The Firing Line? Don't know where it was from, but it showed the model and the ruling. I think it was when the AWB was in effect. Irregardless, the concensus was that this was not a generic one-size-fits-all blanket statement, and other things were still regulated, like a Glock buttstock, etc.
    Gunco Member #10

    http://pookieweb.net


    The "original" Boltcutter Rivet Squeezers:
    http://pookieweb.net/AK/rivet/boltcutters/boltcutter.htm


    Project Pink - the Pink and Blue AK-74:
    http://pookieweb.net/pink/pink.htm

  10. #10
    GuncoHolic kernelkrink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,976
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    If you read the majority decision it applies to all SBR situations, not just the specific TC model submitted. It may also apply to other types of firearms besides SBRs.

    SCOTUS essentially set forth a legal test: If a group of parts could only be assembled in one way that constituted an SBR (say a Glock pistol and a Glockstock in a briefcase) then the assumption was the owner intended to assemble an SBR and thus was in possession of an SBR even though it was not assembled as such.

    However, if a group of parts could be assembled in more than one way, and one of those ways was not an SBR (add a 17" long Glock bbl to the briefcase) then the court must assume the owner only intends to assemble them in a legal manner and is thus not in possession of an SBR unless he actually assembles the stock to the short bbl Glock pistol.

    Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D. - United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •