Can I put a brace on an SBR?

alpharius said:
The AFT is trying to say they are stocks so one would think if you used it as one they wouldn't come after you. Of course, there was a guy just convicted of felony machine gun trafficking and all he did was advertise a perfectly legal piece of metal so who knows these days?
Click to expand...
The job of the ATF is to enforce. If they sat and did nothing how would the manpower and budget be justified?

When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.
 
It is a registered SBR. They are currently saying that most braces are stocks. A registered SBR has a stock on it. The use of the OP's brace is as a stock, which is exactly what they are trying to push us all to do - make our braced pistols registered SBRs. There is no legal downside to what the OP proposes.
 
Perfectly ok.

You could even remove the stock/brace and it’s not an issue.

Assuming you built it as a rifle first, it remains an SBR in each of those configs because it’s a weapon made from a rifle…even if it looks exactly like a pistol somebody else has.
 
Nobody cares, but ATF has been careful NOT to say that a brace is a stock. They aren’t allowed to regulate accessories, so take no position. Their only interest is in a firearm.

I know, they’ve defined a suppressor, an auto sear, maybe a forced reset trigger, and apparently a stainless steel card with images of lightning links to be firearms. But so far they haven’t done so for braces.
 
Going to be the devils advocate here and hopefully someone with proper ffl will chime in. Thought it was illegal to turn rifle into pistol. Not sure about SBR. Is it not still defined as a rifle by atf? Not sure.
 
Me. said:
Can you show me any ATF docs where they define "suppressor"? Isn't "suppressor" a made up term from gun guys, like "modern sporting rifle"?

Unless we're talking about 'flash suppressors'.
Click to expand...
ATF calls them silencers which I think is the term used in the NFA, I just used the term the hobby prefers so as not to start a debate about it. In some old docs I’ve seen “muffler” used, but don’t think it came from statute.
 
mellocollins said:
Going to be the devils advocate here and hopefully someone with proper ffl will chime in. Thought it was illegal to turn rifle into pistol. Not sure about SBR. Is it not still defined as a rifle by atf? Not sure.
Click to expand...
See post 10.
You can make a rifle into an SBR and you can make a pistol into an SBR.
 
Hiram Percy Maxim is usually credited with inventing and selling the first commercially successful firearm silencer around 1902, receiving a patent for it on March 30, 1909. Maxim gave his device the trademarked name Maxim Silencer, and they were regularly advertised in sporting goods magazines.
 
mellocollins said:
Going to be the devils advocate here and hopefully someone with proper ffl will chime in. Thought it was illegal to turn rifle into pistol. Not sure about SBR. Is it not still defined as a rifle by atf? Not sure.
Click to expand...
You’re not turning it into a pistol. As I said above, it’s now a weapon made from a rifle, which is one of the definitions of an SBR.

You can have two identical firearms as far as the parts are concerned…while one is considered a pistol and the other an SBR. That’s just one piece of the entire absurd puzzle.

prior to this current brace nonsense, you could:

Build a braced AR pistol with a 10” upper, and build an AR rifle with a 16” upper.

Register the rifle as an SBR, and swap to a 10” upper. Register the pistol as an SBR and replace the brace with a stock. Two identical SBRs.

Remove the stocks from both. They will be made from identical pieces…yet one is back to being a pistol and the other is still an SBR.
 
mellocollins said:
…hopefully someone with proper ffl will chime in.
Click to expand...
Unrelated to the actual discussion here, this part of your post (unfortunately) made me chuckle. If only having an FFL gave you knowledge. Just like having a law degree. It’s a piece of paper. I can’t even count the number of calls/texts/PMs I’ve received from NFA dealers asking questions about the process, paperwork, scenarios like the one being discussed here, etc. Just like some of the poor advice “gun trust lawyers” publish. 🙄
 
BigWaylon said:
You’re not turning it into a pistol. As I said above, it’s now a weapon made from a rifle, which is one of the definitions of an SBR.

You can have two identical firearms as far as the parts are concerned…while one is considered a pistol and the other an SBR. That’s just one piece of the entire absurd puzzle.

prior to this current brace nonsense, you could:

Build a braced AR pistol with a 10” upper, and build an AR rifle with a 16” upper.

Register the rifle as an SBR, and swap to a 10” upper. Register the pistol as an SBR and replace the brace with a stock. Two identical SBRs.

Remove the stocks from both. They will be made from identical pieces…yet one is back to being a pistol and the other is still an SBR.
Click to expand...
Thanks!!
 
BigWaylon said:
Unrelated to the actual discussion here, this part of your post (unfortunately) made me chuckle. If only having an FFL gave you knowledge. Just like having a law degree. It’s a piece of paper. I can’t even count the number of calls/texts/PMs I’ve received from NFA dealers asking questions about the process, paperwork, scenarios like the one being discussed here, etc. Just like some of the poor advice “gun trust lawyers” publish. 🙄
Click to expand...
even worse is how sometimes things slip by without notice, even for those of us who pay attention
i can't even remember what it was, but a while back there was a situation where it had always been just so... and i was asked about it but was wrong in my understanding
OH YEAH. i asked you about it! - making your own wipes for silencers that use them

you always could
and then you couldn't
and then you had to send it back to a manufacturer to have them replaced
and then you could again
and now you can, but don't have any extras
 
DrScaryGuy said:
even worse is how sometimes things slip by without notice, even for those of us who pay attention
i can't even remember what it was, but a while back there was a situation where it had always been just so... and i was asked about it but was wrong in my understanding
OH YEAH. i asked you about it! - making your own wipes for silencers that use them

you always could
and then you couldn't
and then you had to send it back to a manufacturer to have them replaced
and then you could again
and now you can, but don't have any extras
Click to expand...
And you used to be able to mark the barrel with the maker’s info. I still recommended that a couple times after it changed. 😳
 
BigWaylon said:
And you used to be able to mark the barrel with the maker’s info. I still recommended that a couple times after it changed. 😳
Click to expand...
yeah, i still see that advice pop up from time to time. frame or receiver seems like the only safe bet now
 
Me. said:
Can you show me any ATF docs where they define "suppressor"? Isn't "suppressor" a made up term from gun guys, like "modern sporting rifle"?

Unless we're talking about 'flash suppressors'.
Click to expand...
True. The inventor named them. Silencer is a name not a description.
 
Last edited:
wired said:
Im kinda torqued I cant put silencer info on the end cap any more.
Click to expand...
yeah…I knew that had been proposed at some point as well. I guess it finally got put in writing? Every one of my F1 cans is marked on one end or the other.
 
BigWaylon said:
Unrelated to the actual discussion here, this part of your post (unfortunately) made me chuckle. If only having an FFL gave you knowledge. Just like having a law degree. It’s a piece of paper. I can’t even count the number of calls/texts/PMs I’ve received from NFA dealers asking questions about the process, paperwork, scenarios like the one being discussed here, etc. Just like some of the poor advice “gun trust lawyers” publish. 🙄
Click to expand...
Whenever I see someone say " Why dont you ask your lawyer instead of relying on people on the internet?" I get a chuckle out of it. Very few attorneys know the NFA regs and those that say they do often give out terrible advice. Not to mention Im not paying a lawyer $400 to tell me something I could read for myself in the ATF regs.
 
Last edited:
rdinatal said:
The job of the ATF is to enforce. infringe. If they sat and did nothing how would the manpower and budget be justified?

When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom