"Stock" On An AR Pistol?

[JHoward]

Anyone ever seen anything about cutting a stock and installing it onto a pistol for a cheek rest?

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/ghostface81/IMAG0408.jpg (http://s1267.photobucket.com/user/ghostface81/media/IMAG0408.jpg.html)

Something like that? (But much nicer...) Maybe on something like an STR cut and epoxied up to be un-movable?

[JHoward]

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m5/ohmydodge/RSR-MPIMAG470BLK_zps3bbed1d0.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/ohmydodge/media/RSR-MPIMAG470BLK_zps3bbed1d0.jpg.html)

[mbogo]

Chances are good that BATFE will consider this an SBR because the part was designed and intended to be used as a stock.

The SigArms SB-15 is probably what you want.

mbogo

[tact]

I think CAA makes some abortion that resembles that.

[JHoward]

I was just looking for an easy fix before my stamp came. No big deal.

[ksenter]

I think CAA makes some abortion that resembles that.

I've seen and heard a lot of people talking smack (no offense) about the CAA cheek weld. In my experience, its a great sturdy piece that is a great addition to a standard mil-spec type stock. I'm not quite sure why it carries such a bad opinion from some. I've had 2 of them when I first got into AR's and my .22lr still wears one. As far as money goes, its way cheaper and accomplishes the same things as many stocks that cost many times more money.

Without being a douche, mind if I ask why you think its an "abortion" per se? Is it because its not a Vltor, Bravo, Magpul or B5 that are so popular?

Again, I dont ask in vain or to be negative, I'm really just trying to understand why its carries such a negative view from others.

[WHSmithIV]

You can get the CAA cheek weld and tube cover for a milspec or commercial spec tube and use the milspec tube as a pistol tube. Cost is around $80 or so for Thordsen Custom. Then, just take it off and put the stock on the tube when the tax stamp comes in. Either that, or just use a pistol tube with a foam cover until the tax stamp comes in. ATF has already ruled those parts legal.

[HeavyDuty]

I just built an 11.5" pistol using the Thordsen RE, cover and CAA saddle. I'm impressed as hell with it to the point I have no desire for a SIG brace. I'm not shouldering it, I'm relying on cheek weld which works really well. I just have to remember not to NTCH. ;)

[freebug]

For my build, I chose the Thordsen Enhanced Pistol kit. The cheek rest is good, should be able to replace the CAA one with a Magpul one. All artwork created in AI.

- QD Ambi 80% billet lower
- Aero Precision upper
- Aimpoint Comp M3 2MOA
- ARMS 71 MBUS
- Standard US Mil trigger group
- Battle Arms Development - Ambi FC Controls
- SPIKES buffer - Standard Carbine
- KNS SPIKES Anti Rotation Pins
- Thordsen Pistol Cover - Enhanced
- Law Tactical Gen 3 Folder
- Rainier Arms Raptor charging handle
- Mapgul Pmag - The best mag ever.
- FerFrans Muzzle Brake + Blast deflector
- CMMG 12.5" 5.56 Nitride Barrel
- Centurion Arms CMR 11"
- Standard Phosphate Bolt Carrier - MPI/Blah..Blah..Blah...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nhR5fZeUEW8/VJsoeEPgweI/AAAAAAAAAa0/AX8-CFvZoPY/s900/6C7A0065.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ogFzOYN-Abg/VJsoeXVikJI/AAAAAAAAAa8/sW_8XzjH0go/s900/6C7A0070.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pn55mA7Iq1w/VJsofmgvsbI/AAAAAAAAAbI/FfVy5T6dZCE/s900/6C7A0071.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HE0Vzp0zbZo/VJsoex3R7XI/AAAAAAAAAbE/FTrxj6LmCyY/s900/6C7A0069.jpg

[CK 187]

CAA, carbine buffer with some padding or cover, or sig brace

[Thompson]

Either that, or just use a pistol tube with a foam cover until the tax stamp comes in. ATF has already ruled those parts legal.
Yes, but isn't that AFT ruling for both parts separate? It was my understanding that the ATF didn't have a ruling for use of both together.


For my build, I chose the Thordsen Enhanced Pistol kit. The cheek rest is good, should be able to replace the CAA one with a Magpul one. All artwork created in AI.
Any complaints about the saddle? Have been considering the Thordsen kit for my pistol build.

[camomike]

The CAA worked well for me. The reason I took it off is facial hair. Every pull of the trigger would pinch a hair or two and yank it out of my face. Got real old after a mag or two.

[WHSmithIV]

I've seen and heard a lot of people talking smack (no offense) about the CAA cheek weld. In my experience, its a great sturdy piece that is a great addition to a standard mil-spec type stock. I'm not quite sure why it carries such a bad opinion from some. I've had 2 of them when I first got into AR's and my .22lr still wears one. As far as money goes, its way cheaper and accomplishes the same things as many stocks that cost many times more money.

Without being a douche, mind if I ask why you think its an "abortion" per se? Is it because its not a Vltor, Bravo, Magpul or B5 that are so popular?

Again, I dont ask in vain or to be negative, I'm really just trying to understand why its carries such a negative view from others.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The OP discussion was about a pistol, not about adding a CAA cheek weld to a stock. The question was would a stick cut off to be a pistol tube buffer be legal. The correct answer is 'probably not' since the ATF hasn't approved it. However, putting Thorsen Customs buffer tube cover on WITH the CAA cheek weld is perfectly legal. This particular discussion is about an AR pistol design, not about adding a cheek weld to a normal stick. If a stock get's put on an AR pistol it becomes a short barreled rifle that needs a $200 tax stamp from the BATF.

[freebug]

CAA fits on a Thordsen for pistol builds. The CAA is cheaply made but works.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet using Tapatalk

[WHSmithIV]

CAA fits on a Thordsen for pistol builds. The CAA is cheaply made but works.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet using Tapatalk

That's what I was looking at doing until I measured the diameter of the Phase 5 pistol tube and noticed that the diameter is about 1/4th of an inch over what the Thordsens tube cover can fit. So, I'm just going to leave mine with tube and foam pad. Besides, I have 3 more foam pads I can use [:)]

[ksenter]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The OP discussion was about a pistol, not about adding a CAA cheek weld to a stock. The question was would a stick cut off to be a pistol tube buffer be legal. The correct answer is 'probably not' since the ATF hasn't approved it. However, putting Thorsen Customs buffer tube cover on WITH the CAA cheek weld is perfectly legal. This particular discussion is about an AR pistol design, not about adding a cheek weld to a normal stick. If a stock get's put on an AR pistol it becomes a short barreled rifle that needs a $200 tax stamp from the BATF.

if you followed along

this....

I think CAA makes some abortion that resembles that.

I was responding to the negative comments regarding the CAA cheek weld and was seeking reasons as to why. The CAA cheek weld was involved in the topic of discussion as adding a cheek weld or cut down stock to an AR buffer tube for pistol use.

[tommartins]

No. But looks good and innovative idea!

[BoilerUp]

Anyone ever seen anything about cutting a stock and installing it onto a pistol for a cheek rest?

Something like that? (But much nicer...) Maybe on something like an STR cut and epoxied up to be un-movable?

I'm going to go against the grain here. The ATF doesn't make law, it provides letters that explains how one employee of the ATF currently interprets the law and will therefore guide how the agency may chose to enforce the existing laws. The ATF has clearly put out letters that won't hold up in court.

The law in question is whether or not that modification would make the pistol into a rifle under this definition:


The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder

It looks to me like you are trying to produce the equivalent of the Thordsen to improve your cheekweld and you'd be taking steps to ensure it is not a shoulder stock. That is legal under the law.

The problem is the ATF has its share of vindictive freedom-hating politically motivated idiots so they actually don't care too much what the law says and could ruin your life even if you ultimately are vindicated in a court of law.

So my response to your question is, "Yes, that is perfectly legal, but the ATF may still choose to go after you anyway if by some small chance you have an encounter with them or some other self proclaimed NFA-know-it-all so be very careful if you go down that path"

Oh, did I mention I'm not a lawyer and you should never take legal advice (even from lawyers) on an internet forum?

Personally, I'm considering designs for a "chest stock" to turn AR pistols into firearms "intended to be fired from the chest" since the NFA doesn't regulate those. That is slightly less offensive and should provide a more stable shooting platform than the "pelvic stock" portrayed in some images currently floating around the internet.

[JHoward]

I decided to just bite the bullet and get the Thordsen, but thank you. I do agree that it would not make it something designed to be fired from the shoulder. It'd be awesome if I could get a letter that said that, because then you could have a decent looking buffer cover, and a decent cheek weld, for less than I paid for the Thordsen/CAA. Also, it would most likely be stronger. I have considered mortaring it just to check to see if the Thordsen/CAA could handle it... But I don't want to take the chance on breaking it quite yet.

[HeavyDuty]

I won't be mortaring my Thordsen - I think the open space behind the RE will immediately collapse and the saddle block will tear loose.

[JHoward]

That's what I was thinking as well.