XCR Forum banner
21 - 40 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Sean — the kiosks can no longer be used for form 1; i think that’s a relatively recent change. I tried to find out if they can just do the fingerprints and haven’t gotten an answer yet. Just doing my best to get it all done. The eForm website was like a bad flashback of 1999…

Anyhow my form 1 is for a PCC; happy to have ordered a 16” XCR.
Ah....again, goes right back to trying to make it as inconvenient as possible. The more red tape, the more hassle....the more people will give up out of frustration.

Sorry you're going through this. If it's any consolation, many of us will be dealing with the same agony soon it would appear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
Registered and made a comment. It looks like the SB PDW is one of the no way variants. I'm reflecting back on my constitutional law class. Which branch of the .gov makes laws? Which branch interprets laws? Which branch enforces laws? Looks like we have a slight mix-up going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
Being based on an existing shoulder stock design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Registered and made a comment. It looks like the SB PDW is one of the no way variants. I'm reflecting back on my constitutional law class. Which branch of the .gov makes laws? Which branch interprets laws? Which branch enforces laws? Looks like we have a slight mix-up going on.
Made a comment on the frame/receiver redefinition this morning....
Planning to address the brace fiasco in the next few days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Registered and made a comment. It looks like the SB PDW is one of the no way variants. I'm reflecting back on my constitutional law class. Which branch of the .gov makes laws? Which branch interprets laws? Which branch enforces laws? Looks like we have a slight mix-up going on.
That has been my issue with regulatory agencies for a while with the ATF at the very top. The legislators who are elected don't want to touch gun control issues so the bow to the ATF to make up rules that they know could not garner enough support to pass. Instead they make "rules". Many which are based on faulty logic or emotions IMO.

That is why I advocate letters and phone calls to your elected reps along with comments on the ATF site. It was a bipartisan group of legislators along with the 80K public comments that had the ATF reconsider the M885 ban once AR pistols starting gaining in popularity.

Last week, 239 members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter opposing the proposed ban. That included Ohio Reps. Steve Stivers of Upper Arlington, Pat Tiberi of Genoa Township, Steve Chabot of Cincinnati, Brad Wenstrup of Cincinnati, Jim Jordan of Urbana, Bob Latta of Bowling Green, Bill Johnson of Marietta, Bob Gibbs of Lakeville, Mike Turner of Dayton, Dave Joyce of Russell Township, and Jim Renacci of Wadsworth.

Tiberi called the ban “unacceptable.”


bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
So, just for fun, I've been looking at potential ways to make a "legal" (for the time being under this ATF 4999 "worksheet" document) and I'm finding that a lot of this is going to have to go to court to be clearly defined.

The worksheet is so vague that it raises as many questions as it answers....the obvious ones are how are these "objective" parameters determined, b/c they're all SUBJECTIVE and made up from thin air.

That not withstanding.....let's start with the length calc from section 1 of the worksheet. 12-26". Okay...and it's measured with all "non-operational accessories" removed. Does that include the brace in the case of the XCR pistol brace (sticking just with the RA XCR pistol brace for now just to keep things simple and related to our board)?

My 11" bbl Grendel pistol is ~28" with the brace attached. Without it....it easily falls in line at around 22". The brace is not operationally necessary and yet all of these parameters are about the brace in the first place. Seems odd to leave its length out of the equation especially since LoP is going to factor into their goofy formula in another section (3).

My 11" XCR-L does squeak in on the weight scale with the brace attached....just barely. Mag type makes a fair difference here on AKs.....and aluminum STANAGs are lighter than PMags, JFYI when weighing XCRs/ARs.

Section 2 isn't clear for the XCR pistol brace design. It's based on altering half of the regular stock design...is that enough to be considered a new design or does something as low as 1% based on an existing design mean it gets the highest point total of 2? I'm guessing the latter.

When closed, the Tailhook is useful for shouldering (I'd again guess that's what ATF would rule)....so 2 more points....and we're done...magic 4 points.

Even if you make it past this somehow by saying the brace is a new design, I'd still guess you're getting 2 points for it being "useful for shouldering" when closed.

Which then brings us to adjustability.....And unless RA came up with a factory way to make it non-adjustable (and at its shortest or an even shorter length)....you'd garner another 2 points. Again....you're done.

You're going to get a point for having a counterbalance design (the Tailhook) the folds open and closed....making more contact/surface area.

Let's say by some miracle, ATF doesn't find all of that true and gives a total score of 3. Let's move to Section 3:

LoP at shortest setting on the XCR brace: 11"....1 point.

"Modified shoulder stock with rear replaced by stabilizing brace" (aka Tailhook adapter) 3 points.....oops...already at 4.

And of course having any sights or no sights is another point.

So basically, the XCR brace, as it is currently, cannot pass this test. And if RA redesigned it to be non-adjustable and even shorter, it still couldn't pass Section 2.

Fun stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,530 Posts
I need to read up more on the proposed rule and the related laws, which are an example of idiocy in action. It seems that if you balance the length of the buffer tube and barrel length you can get to being just over 26”. E.g. 12.5” barrel, pinned muzzle device with brace removed and max LOP less than 13.5” when brace attached. Sure its not teeny, tiny but for that I’ll just use a G34 with a 27 round magazine and, compensator and a red dot. Hopefully common sense or lawsuits will create some sense of logic as the current version of the rule is so clearly a band it is ridiculous to state otherwise. Particularly given that even if you comply with the less than four points the rule stil allows them to declare your pistol illegal. The ATF is there so to prevent criminals getting firearms, not to turn law abiding citizens into criminals retroactively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sean K.

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 · (Edited)
So, for anyone interested....there's a way to likely meet ATF's new 4999 Worksheet requirements on pistol XCRs, AKs and ARs with bbls under 10.5" (since the length measurement can be taken with all "non-operational accessories" removed (in the case of the AR with buffer tube installed....the flash hider).


The XCR would need the AR or M4 Adapter, a KAK Shockwave pistol buffer tube and a Shockwave Blade 1.0 (or something like it). A Mod 1 Gear Head Works Tailhook on a pistol buffer tube (must be 1.17-1.2" max OD) would also work. You'd also need to add a cinch strap long enough to wrap your forearm to the Blade, if you go Blade over the Tailhook.

The XCR-M is too heavy in a 12" bbl to pass the current proposed rules...but a 9" bbl might squeak in under the weight requirement...I simply don't know.

With either brace type, you'd have to have a very short LoP measurement, no red dots (ridiculous considering Sigs, Caniks, etc. come with red dots from the factory), no front grip of ANY type and no folders. If you can live with those things, you can pass the worksheet numbers...just barely. AKs like fullsize Dracos with the longer 11.75" bbl will likely need to run Pmags to keep the weight down.

Hopefully RA reads this....if their folder is the same size as their fixed stock mount...then that doesn't add points in the worksheet. But, I still don't think ATF is going to allow the current brace that mates to the upper half of the stock to be considered anything but a redesign of an existing stock.

So, if you're thinking of going this route....trying to avoid NFA at least until this new rule gets sorted in court (assuming it even goes into effect...and I personally think it will)....might want to look into buying some AR/M4 Adapters from Nate or RA. Shockwave Blades have gone recently as cheap as $15. Cheap insurance to see how this all pans out.

EDIT Keep in mind...ATF has a caveat on the 4999 saying if they think it's an SBR in spite of meeting all the requirements of their own worksheet "rules"....they'll still charge you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 · (Edited)
As many of you likely know...the bumpstock ban lift verdict was vacated by the 6th circuit...so they are illegal again.

I can't see the brace thing going any differently.

The bureaucracies have gone completely rogue. They operate outside the legislative branch but wield decisions that have the force of law. And apparently no elected "representative" will take them to task on their overreach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: themousethatroared

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Wonder if USCCA might be able to string together a similar legal umbrella for bumpstock/brace/3D printed/etc. guns to help fight legal cases arising from these unconstitutional edicts. That's a legal insurance policy I might actually want to pay for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
I saw some letter recently that was signed by over 100 congress members telling the ATF, and I’m paraphrasing here, to back off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
I saw some letter recently that was signed by over 100 congress members telling the ATF, and I’m paraphrasing here, to back off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Was that this time or last what, December?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Funny how a 10.3/10.5/11.5/12.5 inch barrel on an AR pistol is "dangerous" but as soon a you pay $200 and get a thorough probing of your back (side) ground, then it's a lot less "dangerous".
All of my sub 16" AR's (and other guns) are SBR'd. Everyone thought I was nuts, but I keep telling them all it takes is for the "AFT" (same thing as the ATF in Joe's mind), to change their "opinion" and voila, instant felon. Too many "out" there? Nonsense! Not their (ATF's) problem....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
I’d concede universal background checks if they took SBRs SBS and suppressors off the NFA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I’d concede universal background checks if they took SBRs SBS and suppressors off the NFA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, I disagree. I won't concede universal background checks. In order for the UBC to work effectively, you have to have a registration of ALL firearms.
SBR, SBS and silencers (and machine guns and destructive devices) should never have been on the NFA. Ever.
 
21 - 40 of 44 Posts
Top