View Full Version : New AR Pistol with Forward Grip...Non NFA?
Anyone else seen this? I wonder if the ATF Approval may open doors for other manufacturers to do the same thing.
http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html
Their video link is probably the most retarded move I've seen in awhile. I take it they want to market to the "drive by" crowd...LOL!
rattlesnake
05-12-11, 20:39
I heard about that letter. I have not seen the actual letter, but I think it says OAL has to be 26 or so to have a vert grip on a pistol. Isn't the magpul afg legal? I am thinking about getting one.
Franklin Armory is based in CA and developed the XO-26 as a way to get an "AR pistol" with a vertical forward grip without going to the AOW route.
The Franklin Armory XO-26 has an OAL greater than 26", therefore under Federal laws it is not a handgun but an other (long gun that is not a rifle). Since, it's an other, it can legally have a VFG without having it be an AOW.
The Franklin Armory XO-26 has a barrel length less than 16", therefore under CA state laws it is a handgun.
Since it is a "handgun" under CA state laws, it is being sold in CA as a handgun.
In CA...
Firearms are transfered via 4473 form & CA DROS system.
The 4473 form allows for "handgun", "long gun" or "other" & CA DROS allows for "handgun" or "long gun".
On the 4473, the Franklin Armory XO-26 would be transfered as an "other".
On the CA DROS, the Franklin Armory XO-26 would be transfered as a "handgun".
Summary about forward grips on "handguns"...
AFG on a less than 26" OAL and less than 16" rifled barrel pistol = no stamp needed.
VFG on a less than 26" OAL and less than 16" rifled barrel pistol = AOW stamp needed.
VFG on a greater than 26" OAL and less than 16" rifled barrel firearm = no stamp needed.
Thanks for the info Quiet!
rattlesnake
05-12-11, 21:40
Summary about forward grips on "handguns"...
AFG on a <26" OAL, <16" barrel pistol = no stamp needed.
VFG on a <26" OAL, <16" barrel pistol = AOW stamp needed.
VFG on a >26" OAL, <16" barrel pistol = no stamp needed.
Can You be more specific? 16" barrel? > Sorry I am confused with Your summary.
Army Chief
05-13-11, 06:09
We should be careful not to confuse legality with usefulness here.
AC
Can You be more specific? 16" barrel? > Sorry I am confused with Your summary.
He's saying that if the overall length is greater than 26" and the barrel is less than 16" it is not considered an AOW hence no stamp required.
rattlesnake
05-13-11, 20:07
So if my pistol is 26 oal or greater, I can legally put a vertical grip on it?
So if my pistol is 26 oal or greater, I can legally put a vertical grip on it?
On the 4473, was it marked as a "handgun" or as an "other"?
If it was marked as a "handgun", then you need to get BATFE approval for making an AOW prior to installing a VFG on it.
If it was marked as an "other", then you do not need to get BATFE approval as long as the OAL is greater than 26".
rattlesnake
05-13-11, 20:38
On the 4473, was it marked as a "handgun" or as an "other"?
If it was marked as a "handgun", then you need to get BATFE approval for making an AOW prior to installing a VFG on it.
If it was marked as an "other", then you do not need to get BATFE approval as long as the OAL is greater than 26".
Still confused. I bought a stripped lower from the classifieds in the sunday journal in a private sale, no gov't involvement. The lower is laser etched pistol only. So nothing was marked on any form I filled out. This is so confusing. But I can use a afg without worry correct?
Still confused. I bought a stripped lower from the classifieds in the sunday journal in a private sale, no gov't involvement. The lower is laser etched pistol only. So nothing was marked on any form I filled out. This is so confusing. But I can use a afg without worry correct?
I'dd be willing to bet that if its marked "pistol only" it was most likely originally transferred as a "pistol" rather than "other". Therefore, based on the definitions above you would not be able to mount any sorta vertical grip to include the AFG if I'm understanding it corrrectly.
rattlesnake
05-13-11, 20:50
But the afg is not a vertical grip?
But the afg is not a vertical grip?
Best thing I can suggest is calling (304)616-4500 and getting clarification directly from BATF.
In regards to an AFG on an AR pistol, see question #7 on this ATF letter concerning AR pistols (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMtZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx&hl=en).
rattlesnake
05-14-11, 20:31
In regards to an AFG on an AR pistol, see question #7 on this ATF letter concerning AR pistols (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMtZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx&hl=en).
So that applies to all ar pistols, or just if You can get a letter? AFG is not a vertical grip so I cannot understand why it wouldn't be ok. All of this crap is stupid because the 2nd amendment PROHIBITS the government from regulating guns in the first place.
When my stripped lowers were transferred to me back in 2008, I had to sign some additional form for my FFL because the ATF wanted to track who was having more than two handguns transferred to them at a time. He offered me to take one lower that evening and then return after a week to pick up the other one if I wanted to avoid the form but I didn't see the point and signed the form.
So, since the 4473 at that time was using the word "handgun" or "pistol" instead of "other," does that affect my platform configuration options? It's sounding like the VFG is not only a no-go but the AFG would be a no-go as well?
Heartland Hawk
05-25-11, 11:23
If the lower is registered as a pistol, do you HAVE to use it for a pistol?
That letter makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. :blink:
http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf
In other words , THIS http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_800x280.jpg
is NOT a Handgun , Rifle , OR SBR :confused:
God help us.............. :(
.
Damn. These things would still be considered an assault pistol, therefore be illegal in hawaii.
FML :suicide:
rattlesnake
05-26-11, 20:45
Damn. These things would still be considered an assault pistol, therefore be illegal in hawaii.
FML :suicide:
Wow. Legal in Cali, but not in Hawaii?
I am interested in how the language of the Clinton ban would apply to this gun.
Does the language cover things that are not Rifles, Pistols, or SBRs?
I am interested because Massachusetts has the Clinton ban still, I wonder if it would cover this gun.
Wow. Legal in Cali, but not in Hawaii?
yea. we also can't have more than 10 rounds in a pistol mag. Which is sorta how we get around using 30 round ar15 magazines. Since ar pistols are considered "assault pistols", it's technically not a pistol, therefore ar15 mag's can't be used in a "pistol" and should not be illegal.
And i'm not sure if what i said even makes sense, but damn i'm still at work and can barely stay awake.
That letter makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. :blink:
http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf
In other words , THIS http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_800x280.jpg
is NOT a Handgun , Rifle , OR SBR :confused:
God help us.............. :(
.
It is a Title 1 "other" firearm.
I am interested in how the language of the Clinton ban would apply to this gun.
Does the language cover things that are not Rifles, Pistols, or SBRs?
I am interested because Massachusetts has the Clinton ban still, I wonder if it would cover this gun.
AFAIK...
Under MA laws, the Franklin Armory XO-26 would be considered a "large capacity weapon".
That letter makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
It sounds like to me they couldn't classify it so they say it doesn't fall under NFA.
So the first question has to be..... What is it? Unfortunately the manufacturer has already classified it as a pistol.
Started life as a pistol
Grip off, it's a pistol
Grip on, it's still a pistol but NFA doesn't have a specific class.
It only stands to reason that it's a firearm. It is some other sort of firearm that the manufacturer understands to be a pistol.
I wouldn't want that letter as my defense.
IZinterrogator
05-29-11, 15:19
I wouldn't want that letter as my defense.If an ATF agent came to my house and I showed him a letter from the ATF saying what I had was legal, I'm pretty sure I would still be stuck in legal proceedings for years. Ask anyone who bought an Akins Accelerator.
franklinarmory
05-31-11, 08:44
Hi M4 Carbine.
There are a lot of interesting posts here, so I'll try to touch on a few of the points. The first is the general legality of the product. As most of you know, the U.S. legal system is predicated greatly on precedent. For many years the Thompson 1927A5 "pistol" has been commercially available in the U.S. This firearm features a pistol grip as well as a secondary forward grip. Mr. Spencer stated to us that the 1927A5 is defined as an"other" under Federal law though it is marketed by Auto-Ordnance as a pistol. All Franklin Armory did was note the similarity of configurations between the 1927A5 and what we now call the XO-26 configuration. If the ATF were to revert their opinion on this matter, they would likely have to recall thousands of 1927A5s that have been sold over the years. I just don't see that happening.
Recently, we wrote a follow up letter to ask if it is legal to transform the firearm (post sale) from "other" to "pistol" and visa-versa. Our argument is that it should be legal since a buyer has to be at least 21 to purchase either class of firearm, and there is no other Federal interest in precluding the transition. We will post the results when they become available.
On Friday (when I waiting for my M4 Carbine account to be approved) I did check the regs for Hawaii and Mass. I don't have it front of me now, but I think the XO-26 would be legal in Hawaii if we used a bullet button mag release. While that is somewhat onerous, I know you boys like to do a little pig hunting. Can you imagine one of these rigs in 450 Bushmaster? :D
In Massachusetts, TMS951 is on to something. I think this configuration would be potentially viable as an "other" but not as a pistol. BTW, we only market it as a pistol where the state definition requires it to be so. For example, in Ca, anything with a barrel less than 16" is automatically defined as a pistol. Also, there's no reason why it couldn't be equipped with just a ten round magazine. The other thing I noticed in Mass. was that the state law referenced the Clinton AW ban, but when I turn to my Federal regs, I see the that the section does not exists anymore. So, how can a state law reference a federal section for the state definition of an AW when that section doesn't even exist in print? I know that's a tenuous argument that no one wants to hang their hat on, but on a theoretical level, it is interesting.
The last thing I should mention is that, while I have decent grasp of Ca law, I am a novice at understanding the laws in 49 other states.
rattlesnake
05-31-11, 10:13
Thanks for posting Franklin Armory. Legislative language is confusing anyway. I like that You guys are challenging the illegal regulations and finding ways around them. I would love a vert grip on my ar pistol, but even after reading all of this I am not sure I wanna risk being harassed or become a test subject. Makes no sense why a grip would be illegal on an ar pistol because it is still not as effective as an actual carbine. Even if I printed out the letter, it is so confusing, I am not sure it would end the harassment without being charged, and having to prove my innocence in court, and spend a ton of money on lawyers and a trial. Hopefully the latest letter will be more clear cut, and less confusing.
I'd stay away from using thE letter as a defense as well. Its confusing language is designed to let interpretation be brought in by ethier side, but in the long run, the civilian will lose. Sad that it works that way. I'd wait a little longer to see what else they put out there to be on the safe side
This is a lot like pistol gripped firearms that fire shot shells... what most people call a pistol grip only shotgun. It's not a shotgun since it's not meant to be fired from the shoulder, but it's not a handgun either. So it's an "other" and specifically a pistol gripped firearm.
The long AR in this thread is basically the same. It's not a rifle since it's not meant to be fired from the shoulder, but it's also not an AOW since it's not concealable or a smooth bored pistol,
The term ``any other weapon'' means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.
It seems it would be the same definition.
I'dd be willing to bet that if its marked "pistol only" it was most likely originally transferred as a "pistol" rather than "other". Therefore, based on the definitions above you would not be able to mount any sorta vertical grip to include the AFG if I'm understanding it corrrectly.
Not if the FFL dealer was doing his paperwork properly. On the 4473, a receiver is a receiver and an "other." Regardless of what it can be made into. Even if can only be made into a rifle, or a pistol, it's still an "other."
There are state forms in some states that are more stringent, such as Washington having a checkbox for "receiver or frame only," but that's not federal law.
A receiver is a receiver regardless of what's stamped on it. Just like making a carbine out of a Glock or 1911. But once it's a rifle, it's always a rifle (the ruling for the TC Contender seems to apply just to the TC Contender). If that receiver was never built into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), then it can legally be built into a pistol or anything else for that matter. Of course proving it was never built could be hard if you aren't the first buyer.
This is a lot like pistol gripped firearms that fire shot shells... what most people call a pistol grip only shotgun. It's not a shotgun since it's not meant to be fired from the shoulder, but it's not a handgun either. So it's an "other" and specifically a pistol gripped firearm.
The long AR in this thread is basically the same. It's not a rifle since it's not meant to be fired from the shoulder, but it's also not an AOW since it's not concealable or a smooth bored pistol,
It seems it would be the same definition.
This brings an interesting idea for shot guns. Will this lead the way for us to be able to have shot guns with no stock (two pistol grips) and a barrel less than 18" so long as the overall length is still over 26 inches? A little off topic but something worth thinking about, and seemingly much more useful than the AR in question.
franklinarmory
06-01-11, 12:12
I'd stay away from using thE letter as a defense as well. Its confusing language is designed to let interpretation be brought in by ethier side, but in the long run, the civilian will lose. Sad that it works that way. I'd wait a little longer to see what else they put out there to be on the safe side
That's the beauty about the letter. It precisely and clearly shows the controlling and relevant sections on page one, the precedence in the 1927A5 Thompson, and the conclusion on page 2 that our product does not require NFA paperwork. While the verbiage and style is protective of the government's interest, it defines a clear boundary and authorization to build this configuration. Given that this letter is signed by the "Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch," I can't imagine an ATF agent arresting anyone for this product. If it wasn't legal, wouldn't they simply pay me a visit?
TMS951 brings up an interesting suggestion in the preceding post. Of course someone would have to write another letter prior to building such a device with NFA stamps since that is so far out of the scope of this discussion. Great idea though. :)
60buckscash
07-03-11, 20:47
In regards to Massachusetts law I believe this would still be a no go seeing as it has all 5 of the features listed below. :(
The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of features are banned.....
a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip,
or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits
the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
Out of curiosity, would this be legal in Kalifornia without a bullet button?
In regards to Massachusetts law I believe this would still be a no go seeing as it has all 5 of the features listed below. :(
This is exactly the loop hole I am wondering about. It states a "semiautomatic pistol" can not have more than 2 of the 5 listed items.
The thing is, what we are talking about is not a pistol. It is an "other". It does however seem like a dangerous game because if the forward vertical grip is removed then it is a pistol.
You need to look up your State's definition of a "pistol/handgun", many copy Federal definitions but not all.
If you are worried about owning one then you should be equally worried about the PG Mossy 500's on the shelf of gun shops all over. There is nothing scary about it, read the legal definition of a pistol and AOW, this is neither.
A pistol gripped firearm with barrel less than 18" and OAL greater than 26" can be made in 12ga.
http://www.shockwavetechnologies.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=50
60buckscash
07-05-11, 14:40
Here is what I have found:
Section 121. As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:-.....
“Firearm”, a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured;...
P.S. Glad I moved to Fl
Out of curiosity, would this be legal in Kalifornia without a bullet button?
No.
A mag lock and 10 round or less magazine is required for it to be legal in CA.
Under CA laws, this is a "handgun". Therefore, the pistol assault weapon laws apply and it will need to be configured to conform to those laws.
more power to them and good luck on the sale of these.
The concept that because a firearm is less that 16", it is SOOOO much more dangerous, illegal, or what ever is retarded in the first place.
Velcro
franklinarmory
07-13-11, 11:56
In regards to Massachusetts law I believe this would still be a no go seeing as it has all 5 of the features listed below. :(
Our Ca models have Bullet Button magazine releases. Why wouldn't that be legal Mass? All of these AW regulations are set up pretty much the same way because they copied the Federal law. If the preceding clause is not attributable, then the subsequent "evil features" are of no consequence. Basically, if the BB is installed, it is not a "semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine," and it can have all the features one would want.
Just as 60buckscash pointed out, XO-26 would have to transfer as a pistol. In fact, in most states, this firearm is defined by state law as a pistol. This is why the 1927a5 Thompson was marketed as a pistol even though it was an "other."
I have always been of the impression that in Massachusetts a bullet button is not permanent enough.
The working of the laws basically make sound as if it must be almost imposable to change it so it can be a "detachable mag", considering it would take two minutes to change it I don't think so.
To bad because a bullet button would really open up some possibilities.
franklinarmory
07-14-11, 14:12
I have always been of the impression that in Massachusetts a bullet button is not permanent enough.
The working of the laws basically make sound as if it must be almost imposable to change it so it can be a "detachable mag", considering it would take two minutes to change it I don't think so.
To bad because a bullet button would really open up some possibilities.
Wouldn't red loctite make it permanent? We use loctitw on bullet buttons in ca to reduce liability for our customers, end-users, and ourselves. It can be removed, but usually requires a heat gun and a castlated screwdriver or special wrench.
I THINK fRANKLIN IS RIGHT. to make it accept detachable mags a tool is needed, therefore, it is a permanent part of their gun, from what I understand. Time to change the part or alter the weapon is not a part of the law
My concern is the "bullet button" seems to be a very California specific thing.
I have no knowledge of it being used in any other state with a ban, or during he federal assault weapons ban.
If there is a precedent for it being used I would happily use it on a pistol.
we have them on AR pistols. make the receiver into a 10 round non detachable magazine design.
In what state, cali or other. I know they are used in California.
I am more interested in if they have been used on factory guns that have been sold in states that adopted the old federal ban.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.