I sincerely don’t understand why this is legal, and why several shops near me are selling it. I mean, I understand that technically, it was never manufactured as a rifle, therefore the Draco is 100% legal without a tax stamp or permit in Texas. Still, it feels like a childish game these days, with the gun manufacturers sticking their fingers 2 inches from the ATF and chanting “I’M NOT TOUCHING YOU! I’M NOT TOUCHING YOOOOOOOOU!”
That said, if funds were better, I’d have at least two of these. Not because I need them, per se, but because I want them. Gonna see about firing one in a month. Looks to be hells of fun. GOnna see about firing it in a reactive steel target bay.
So how was your 4th of July, peoples?
Illustrates the stupidity of the gun control laws more than it does anything on the part of the manufacturers.
How is the tattoo going?
It’s silly, but I steel wish there was a enough of a gun market in my country for manufacturers to 1-exist at all and 2-try to pull out this kind of shenanigans.
At least it’s funny to watch from the outside. I especially like what SIG is doing with it’s arm brace and lately the MPX-C, even if they end up getting burned for trying.
Still*
wtf was I thinking?
It gets even better. Sig sells an AR15 pistol with an arm brace that works really well for shooting it like a rifle. The ATF has ruled that as being legal too. BTW, if you already have an AR15 pistol, you can buy the arm brace separately.
They make them for AKs as well. I have one on my M92 PAP and it is AWWWESOOOMMMEEE!
Get 2, they are great.
Get kinky with it. Mount a pistol buffer tube on a side-folding mount, and attach the Sig brace to the tube.. Sidefolding AK notastock. Should also be long enouhg unfolded to count for the Thompson Ruling.
That is some voodoo level shit right there.
AS a FFL let me make a quick comment on this. The “Pistol” AK’s and AR’s are what we call NFA hacks. If someone wants to buy a SBR new from a dealer. they have to pay everything up front, plus that $200 to the ATF, and then wait god knows how long for approval to possess something they already own. With these pistols, you can purchase it, take it, and shoot the hell out of it. If you want to turn it into a SBR, you just submit a different piece of paper to the ATF, along with that $200, and wait. Difference is, you actually get to enjoy what you paid for.
That reminds me of this old comedy skit i saw aaaaages ago. Think it was a Saturday Night Live section, but not sure. It started with black screen and white text going “What realy goes on at the ATF agency” or something like that. Next up is a short clip of an office with heavily drunk, chainsmoking ATF agents shooting pistols and other assorted weapons into the rooof.
you mean like this?
http://ftf-comics.com/?comic=dhs-2
The show was The Edge, and the collection of skectches were “Right This Minute” (along the same lines as Exit 57, The State, and Upright Citizen’s Brigade)
The real reason is that the 1934 National Firearms Act was *supposed* to control handguns as if they were machineguns. The original purpose was to effectively ban ($200 was the retail cost of one of the most expensive guns commercially available in the United States – the Thompson SMG; the tax was about $3,500, *per*gun* in current dollars) both machineguns AND the guns actually most commonly used it gangland slayings — guns that could be concealed under a common coat.
In order to prevent the “loophole” of thugs sawing the barrels short on shotguns and rifles, the SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) and SBS (Short Barrel Shotgun) categories were created, and controlled the same as machineguns. In order to differenciate “rifles” from “handguns” (keep in mind that there were plenty of guns that were simultaneously and widely produced in rifle and pistol forms, all the way back to the pre-Civil War Colt cap & ball revolvers and matching full length rifles), and since “handguns” were removed from the NFA’s control, there had to be a legal way to differenciate between “Short Barrelled Rifles” and handguns that were based on a common design with the rifles.
The NRA managed to get handguns removed from the NFA. They didn’t manage to get the SBS and SBR categories removed (and there were *very* few people who cared at all about owning legal SBS and SBR’s) — they hadn’t even *formed* their legislative lobbying group until the NFA came along, because until then there *was* no federal gun control, nor any credible threat of it at all. (It was widely acknowledged – including by the Attorney General, who was completely anti-gun — that the federal government had NO authority to actually ban or force registration ANY kind of gun. That’s why the NFA was set up as a “tax”, and the SOLE purpose of the NFTR was supposedly to simply ensure everyone with an NFA firearm had paid the tax.)
Yeah, that.
In this case, at least, it’s not “the ATF is on crack”.
It’s “Congress was on crack” – the ATF didn’t make up these rules.
But they’re making up for lost time now.
Hell, the fact that the categories of SBS, SBR, and AOW are in existance and covered by the NFA is the actual “loophole” here.
Once handguns got dropped, the reason to cover ANY of the “concealable” guns disappeared. Congress simply didn’t clean up the law well enough when they amended handguns out of it during debate.
I know a leather worker who makes holsters, including custom. One of those was for the AR-15 pistol. Naturally, it was OWB. 🙂
That reminds me, I should get a second Draco pistol so I can have one in each hand the next time some politician’s fanboy comes around canvasing for votes.
Say all you want about loss of muzzle velocity, more muzzle flash, and possible loss of accuracy on the things; what makes up for it is the fact that the very look of the Draco pistol scares the pants of anti-gunners.
I heard that. Gun for Fun also includes intimidaiton.. just dont brandish it 🙂
And in Texas, it’s not ok to open carry. But the full rifle is.
These are a big part of why the cheap ChiCom ammo is banned from import anymore, since a bunch of that was the steel-core (read: armor piercing), and therefore illegal to fire from a pistol. One would be cool to have tho, even if it’s nearly the same price as a full- and folding-stock AK.
Actually, I’m pretty sure chicom imports were halted by executive order.
What you’re thinking of is the recent decisions regarding soviet munitions.
Nope. The steel core ammo thing goes back to a 1994 ATF ruling. You can thank Olympic Arms for it. Read more here:
http://www.thegunzone.com/762×39.html
You’re right, it was an XO from Bush the Elder that banned the ChiCom ammo, and the AWB spiked the prices on any guns that were already here. I haven’theard anything about the recent Russian ban having anything to do with “armor piercing” ammo, it was more retaliation for the Ukrainian skirmish. Funny thing, now one can buy the same “pre-ban” SKSes as newly imported C&R.
Yeah, it was an executive order, issued to comply with a law passed by Congress.
The 5.45x39mm ban is ENTIRELY because it is classified as “armor piercing ammunition” under the law once a 5.45mm pistol was commercially offered — the 7n6 round has a steel core, and “steel core” + “commerically *available* handgun” is all it takes. (M855 is explicitly exempted, despite having a steel penetrator specifically designed to increase armor penetration, however. . . )
The timing is suspicious — but ATF acted almost the instant the 5.45mm pistol was offered. Just as they did when the first 7.62x39mm pistol was offered. (Hell, ATF *TOLD* the firearms industry generally and SPECIFICALLY the company that created the first 7.62x39mm pistols that as soon as the pistols were offered for sale, they were pulling the plug on the ChiCom stuff under the armor piercing ammo rule. Well BEFOREHAND.
Likewise, the industry has been WELL aware for more than 10 years (10 years by my personal knowledge) that they were going to do the SAME EXACT THING with 7n6 ammo as soon as a 5.45mm pistol was available, which is why discussions amongst importers and manufacturers have always been “DON’T MAKE AN AK74 ‘HANDGUN’, FOR GOD’S SAKE! You’ll kill our AK74 RIFLE market when the good cheap milsurp is cut off!”)
I seem to recall that the ban on steel core 7.62×39 was put in place as soon as Olympic built prototypes, before they ever had one for sale. IIRC they had built two in shop prototypes…
As for the Draco, I would like to try one in 9×39. Though getting ANY ammo for that…
My 4th: Made BBQ ribs on the grill, had those with corn on the cob. Went to a local city park’s fireworks display. The next town over had their display as well, visible a couple miles away. The one we attended, held off on lighting theirs up until the other town’s was pretty much wrapping up. We had ice cream on the way home. Got enough fireworks fix on, that I didn’t feel the need to burn any of my stash.
Re: Pistols — I have a PPS43 pistol in 7.62 Tokarev. If I ever get over my trust issues with ATF, I’ll file the paperwork and pay the $200. Then, Dremel the weld on the shoulder stock hinge, and swap the existing rivet for a push-button. The guy who sold it, and the FFL who did the transfer for me, both said that with the parts kit (button, lock bar, and spring, essentially), it takes less time to convert to SBR than it does to fill out the paperwork.
My favorite so far are Sig Sauer’s attempts at pressuring the ATF to say that a “monolithic baffle stack” isn’t a silencer. Their “Arm Brace” is pretty slick, too.
But that’s the thing: it ISN’T a silencer, because it doesn’t do any sound suppression on it’s own. You have to add another component to it. Just like every semi auto gun you own isn’t full auto, even though adding 1 or 2 components will make it a full auto.
“…even though adding 1 or 2 components will make it a full auto.”
It’s generally not quite that simple… but I’m assuming you know that.
Sure it’s that simple! You just need to replace a couple minor components – the receiver and trigger group – and there you go!*
Actually, there have been a few hacks out there that actually were a single component added to a semi-auto to make it full-auto. The one I remember was basically a motor that repeatedly pulled the trigger for you. They’ve all been weird hacks and immediately gotten outlawed, though.
* for those not very familiar with guns: the receiver is as far from “minor” as you get; it’s so important that the ATF considers it to actually BE the gun. The receiver is the part that gets a serial number on it.
“The…Engine of the gun.”
Ouch. >_<
While I don't agree with calling it "the engine of the gun", I do stand by my statement both from a legal and a mechanical standpoint. If you called it "the cylinder block of the gun" you'd be pretty accurate, but that's a little less useful for swaying the masses; I suspect that most people who know what a cylinder block is also know what a receiver is.
Man with the Dogs is actually quoting an anti, there.
I know; I winced because that quote (from an idiot) was disturbingly close to my statement. To some degree, the problem is that analogies are almost always imprecise, and something general enough to be understood by most people will often sound stupid to people who are familiar with the subject matter.
An AR15 can be made to fire more than one round per pull of the trigger with what is known as a lightning link. This uses a specific style of bolt carrier (Colt SP1), and pieces of stamped/filed sheet metal: Basically, you put a loop over the disconnector, run it back to a paddle that sticks up behind the takedown pin, and use a bolt carrier cut to pinch the paddle. This setup works by using the bolt carrier to pull the disconnector loose, thus releasing the hammer.
It isn’t the ideal way to get an AR15 to fire full-auto, but in terms of parts required it is the simplest solution.
Other designs can be converted more easily; When it comes to most open-bolt semi-autos, all you really have to do is remove parts. For this reason, BATFE issued a ruling in the early 1980’s that firing from the open bolt was a characteristic specific to machineguns. This ruling basically grandfathered the open-bolt semis that had already been made, but declared that from then on any gun manufactured which fired from the open bolt would be a machinegun.
For once, I have to agree with BATFE here. Firing from an open bolt makes less sense than firing from a closed bolt for a semi-auto design, particularly because of the significant accuracy penalty. It’s only when you’re delivering rapid fire that an open bolt becomes a better solution, so from that standpoint, firing from an open bolt is indeed a characteristic of machine guns.
Well, that stops my idea of a semi automatic version of the iirc sidewinder smg that was used like the Bushmaster Arm Pistol. I
Yup. It is almost impossible to make an open bolt semi that CANNOT be readily converted to full auto. Hell, just rip the entire trigger group out (or disable it), and the gun will fire its entire magazine off when you go to chamber a round. (Google “York Sputter Gun” – ATF actually won that determination court battle, which is actually unusual.)
Hell, a Lightning Link (makes a semiauto AK variant full auto) is one piece of flat steel with no moving parts. Which is why there are a bunch of pieces of spring steel about yay long that have the full NFA registration info stamped on them – because a Lightning Link, BY ITSELF, is classified as a “machinegun” since it is a drop in “machinegun conversion kit” that requires NO receiver changes. (Here’s how simple they are — You could make a Lightning Link on your kitchen table with spring steel, a Dremel Tool, and a hand file. While watching TV.)
An DIAS for an AR15 is also pretty simple, and requires no other parts that are actually prohibited in Title I semiauto ARs to work. (Yes, you CAN use a bunch of selective fire FCG parts and the “full auto” bolt. You’re a fool if you do so, because while it is perfectly legal in most rifles, if, with those parts installed, it *can* go full auto, it’s a “machinegun” legally, and you’re going to prison if caught. The *only* “full auto” part I would ever use in a semi AR15 is the full weight bolt carrier, because it helps reliability and CANNOT cause full auto fire on its own. Which is commonly done by many reputable registered manufacturers.)
The conversion between an M1 Carbine and a milspec M2 Carbine is ENTIRELY done with drop in parts, at least one of which is commonly found of M1 Carbines (even those sold to civilians by the US Government). There is NO difference in the receivers between an M1 Carbine and an M2 Carbine — many “M2 Carbines” in US military service were still marked “M1 Carbine”.
How easy it is to convert something to full auto is based on the design. Some guns are stupidly easy to convert, others less so. (No, I have NEVER been involved with an illegal conversion — but it has been really important to me on several occaisions to know _HOW_ to do it, so I could avoid crossing that line unintentionally. Knowing how to do a conversion helps when designing a semiauto that will not be easy to convert – you have to cock block at least the easier conversion methods.)
The rule on suppressor parts is one ATF will lose HARD if they go to court, unless they can establish that:
A. The Sig “muzzle brake” DOES reduce the sound of firing all by itself, or,
B. The Sig “muzzle brake” cannot do ANYTHING except serve as the core of a suppressor. If it reduces the recoil, muzzle flip, flash, dust signature, etc. – ANYTHING AT ALL that is useful to a shooter except reducing total sound volume, it isn;t a part designed soleley for use as part of a suppressor.
See, Lowe’s and Home Depot sell “silencer baffles” on aisle 10 — they call them “washers”. Likewise they sell silencer main bodies on aisle 12 — it’s called “pipe”. But since you can legitimately use them for something other than silencer parts, they are not silencer parts.
Not that I expect Obama to actually do anything since this is totally against his beliefs that lowly serfs like us shouldn’t own “weapons of war” but there is an online White House Petition asking there to be a change on this issue…
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-need-citizens-register-short-barreled-rifle-sbr-atf-paying-200-tax-stamp/h3YQxFCY
That would be nice, but I would rather see the 10s of thousands of M1 Garands and Carbines in warehouses in South Korea allowed back into the US for civilian sale…
It’s crazy how cheap those Zastava M92 PAP’s are selling for right now. They can be easily had in the $450 range. I think it has the worst iron sights on the planet but otherwise makes a great trunk gun. Add the Sig brace and you’ve got your no-tax no-drama almost SBR 😛
Put some Tech-sights on it, or if you want to be lazy a red dot. You’ll be surprised at the accuracy possible (don’t expect sub-2 moa and you might be surprised in a good way).
The BATFE certainly NEEDS to be touched… in a bad way.
Gun Laws: What fucktardery looks like.
Agreed. The 922r shit mystifies me. Why is my gun ok if it has X number of foreign parts, but now it’s suddenly illegal if it has x+1 number of foreign parts?
Similarly, the Armsel Striker/Streetsweeper. Why is this gun listed as a ‘destructive device’? The DD designation is usually applied to explosives, not shotguns. Answer: because the Streetsweeper is too fucking badass (translate for gun-haters: “scary”) to be legal otherwise. God/”Bob”/Flying Spaghetti Monster help us if any politician sobers up one day and wants to put Saiga shotguns under similar designation; they’re even more badass than the Streetsweeper!
The 922(r) regs (which aren’t in the actual law, they’re an administrative interpretation of how “the Secretary”* can carry out his statutory duties in keeping out Scary Foreign Guns) is in response to companies that imported “banned” Scary Foreign Rifles, slapped the parts into a US made receiver (i.e., a bent piece of sheet steel, for AKs, which was the main issue), and called it a “US built” gun.
The Streetsweeper (and other Scary Bad Shotguns) are “Destructive Devices” because ANYTHING with a bore over 1/2 inch is *automatically* a “Destructive Device” under the 1968 GCA, unless it is an “antique” (including repro muzzleloaders), a “sporting” shotgun, or a “sporting” rifle “the Secretary”* determines is unlikely to be used in a crime. 12 gauge shotguns have a bore in excess of 1/2 inch, so, if not “sporting”, they’re legally considered CANNONS.
* – the Secretary of the Treasury, since ATF was in Treasury when most of these gun laws were written. When ATF moved to the Justice Department after 2001, the statute that did that included language to indicate that everywhere the statutes say “the Secretary”, you’re supposed to interpret that as “the Attorney General”.
So, I wonder… Does the Draco mean that my local indoor range, which only allows “pistol-caliber” rounds, will allow 7.62×39? They do already allow .223, so maybe…
Your premise is wrong to begin with… ‘I don’t understand why these are legal.”
False, everything should be legal. What you don’t understand is how our Right to Keep and Bear arms has been so torn apart so as to come to this point where buttstock vs no buttstock is the difference between paying an additional $200+ dollars with a 3-9 month wait time or get it over the counter like aspirin respectively.
I should also point out… you make it sound like you believe that ‘rifle rounds’ should only be fired from a traditional rifle configuration and anything other method shouldn’t be legal…
Well, if you start from the fact that a short-barrelled rifle is illegal, then it makes sense to say. In other words, what jlgrant said seems to be short for “I don’t understand why Dracos are legal when short-barrelled AK rifles are not.” I agree with this – it’s inconsistent. Mind you, the real problem is that there’s no reason for short-barrelled rifles to be illegal in the first place.
As for the rifle rounds, I didn’t get the same reading you did. What I think jlgrant was saying was that it’s one more indication of how the law is messed up. There are good functional ways to distinguish between weapons; action being one and caliber being another. There are also stupid ways involving largely aesthetic aspects (such as the stock). What you have here is something with a rifle-style action and a rifle caliber; the only thing that makes it a pistol is that there’s no place to put a shoulder stock. That’s absurd.
Also… “get it over the counter like aspirin”? Have you been listening to gun-grabbers so long that you’re starting to believe them? Or perhaps you live somewhere that you need a NICS check to get aspirin… (If you had said pseudoephedrine instead of aspirin, you would have been a lot closer to accurate, which is sad in its own right.)
Sputter chuckle giggle. You aint from arorund here are ya boy? Statement a is not “these things should be illegal.” Statement a is “the powers that be usualy make these things illegal”
Ruger 10/22 rifle, Ruger Charger, identical receivers except for serial number, both legal. Swap the receivers, commit a felony.
Yup.
I was asked if I wanted the stripped lower I bought some time ago for a pistol or a rifle, so the seller could send along the appropriate paperwork. the onus was on my to purchase the ‘correct’ upper for it.
Yeah, they fixed that, by defining virgin stripped receivers as “other” (NOT “Any Other Weapon”), instead of either “rifle”, “shotgun”, or “handgun” receivers. The current Form 4473 reflects this (and probably should have all along – the law never changed, and requiring FFLs to gaze into a crystal ball and try to determine the FUTURE use of a receiver by the end user was silly.)