Bipod on an AR Pistol?

[StoneHendge]

My in process 264 LBC pistol has a length of 26.75" from the end of the barrel to the end of the buffer tube when neither the muzzle device or stabilizer are attached.

My understanding is that since it is over 26", I would be able to put a vertical foregrip on it and it would become classified as a "firearm" because it is no longer designed to be fired with one hand. But it would not be subject to the Stamp rules since it is over 26" - as long as it is not concealed. OK - cool. I could in theory put this on it:

IMG_20180704_211039_crop_388x310.jpg

Which has a very handy feature.

IMG_20180704_211234_crop_388x391.jpg

It's ok to put a bipod on a pistol - no NFA rules apply. S&W sells plenty of 13" 460 XVRs with factory bipods. But the theoretical vertical foregrip on my pistol makes it into a "firearm" instead of a pistol since it's meant to be used with 2 hands (and a 460 XVR isn't?) Except when the theoretical bipod is open. Then its back to being a pistol because it doesn't have a foregrip and isn't meant to be fired with 2 hands. At least in any rational human beings eyes. Or does it stay a firearm and is a bipod allowed on a non NFA firearm.

Any thoughts other than ask a lawyer or don't do it because no one knows?

Disclaimer: The foregrip/bipod combo in question is currently mounted on rifle and has never been mounted on the incomplete pistol.

[grayfox]

https://www.itstactical.com/warcom/firearms/considering-building-ar-pistol-heres-411/

“a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.” So if you’re building an AR-15 rifle (or any rifle for that matter) with a barrel that measures 16” or more, the NFA laws wouldn’t apply. However, anyone looking to build a rifle with a barrel under 16” must apply for and be granted the tax stamp before manufacturing the firearm. The last part is particularly important for those wishing to build an SBR. Even simply having the parts in your possession to construct an SBR could get you in legal trouble.

Apparently the 26" spec is for "any weapon made from a rifle...". Don't know if I really want to go there however. I have thought about those angled foregrip-attachments like magpul's... maybe those are verboten as well?

It's also relevant to ask if the attachment you show is a foregrip having a bipod function as well, or a bipod having a foregrip function... how do they describe it? If the former, could be trouble.

[Sticks]

Lawyer up.

Depending on the ATF agent, and their mood on any given day, you could be either good to go, or gone.

[StoneHendge]

Grayfox, it's not a rifle since it doesn't have a shoulder stock, isn't designed to be shouldered and was designed to be fired with one hand. My google fu brought me to this which isn't a rifle (no shoulder stock), a pistol (vertical foregrip makes it designed for 2 hands), or AOW (over 26" from end of barrel without muzzle device to end of buffer tube without brace attached [provided that it is not concealed on a person]).

Screenshot_20180705-075610_crop_806x275.jpg

https://www.franklinarmory.com/collections/complete-firearms/products/bfs-equipped-franklin-armory-xo-26-s

This is the ATF letter to Franklin Armory explaining it

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/01/12/xo-26-letter-c/

The device is marketed as "Tactical Vertical Foregrip With Integrated Adjustable Bipod and incorporated flashlight"

ADD: So the XO-26-s doesn't require a stamp. And nor does this

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/performance-center-model-460xvr-14-barrel-bi-pod

[grayfox]

Might be true, I wasn't trying to say it's not, just that I saw the article. Me personally, I'm skittish to try it, as Sticks says, I'd definitely have a good lawyer near at hand if it were me. My own approach is not to try for those 300-800 yd shots where a ***-pod (not a "bipod" per se) would be needed, what I see is a good lil truck pdw good for up to about 200 yds or so. Plenty of reach for me.

[StoneHendge]

Yeah, but I'd rather give $200 to the government for an SBR stamp than a lawyer (who will just use the money to upgrade little Suzie's option package on the Benz she's getting for graduation), put a carbine stock on it and be done with it. That way I wouldn't have to worry about the ramifications of accidentally shouldering it in a stressful situation (even though the ATF says that's okay).

I would say that with the device, Joe would identify itself as a binary transclassification non-NFA weapon. Which should qualify it for a free double soy boy half caff latte at Starbucks.

[grayfox]

SBR stamp works vice trying the AR-P route... with my Trust I could do it that way, would probably still stick with my plan of <200 yds for this however. Trust mods and updates thru my atty for me are free.

[Lastrites]

StoneHendge, you are correct for everything I've ever read, your vfg/bipod would still be a considered a vfg even with the legs deployed. Being that your at 26"+ with the way that you measured that base is covered as that was the way it was always measured in the past, recently though I've seen where atf has stated measuring to include the brace at it's full extension to the end of barrel sans muzzle device. Have also seen where in one case with a folding adapter they measured with the brace folded from the back side of the adapter to the end of the barrel. So it may seem nothing is set in stone, typical fashion of big brother.

Angled fore grips have never been a problem. There was one case with a vfg on a less 26"oal pistol that went to trial but was thrown out about 10 years ago as the atf likely feared they would have lost the case and the case would have set a precedent.

The Imminent Threat Solutions article is fairly accurate but fails to mention a 3rd letter produced from batfe that for the most part rescinded letter number 2 in its entirety. I am not a lawyer by any stretch but have played in the AR pistol soon after the AWB sunset. Also ITS article fails in mentioning the number of different ways that have surfaced recently on how one is to measure.

It's as if the batfe is relishing in the gray areas of opinion and not law and an actual way to measure should be codified. Here's one for example, applying a red type loc-tite to the screw of the Shockwave Brace can make it considered to be permanently attached, changing the way the pistol maybe measured