6.5 Grendel barrel Length?????

[ricsmall]

I killed a hog at 312 couple weeks ago with my 12”. My 22” Bartlein rides the safe now. Capn, why do you hunt with your 20” instead of the 24”? Just curious.

Your statement about your 24” serving a purpose reinforces the whole 12” argument. My 12” with suppressor fits the bill perfectly for its intended purpose. I’m confident with it out to 400 on hogs. I’ll limit it to 300 on deer.

[NugginFutz]

...
Plus my comments at least get people to read my post and maybe some will see a 12.5 Grendel is not really as practical as many here think it is.
...

Again, posting caustic comments simply for the purpose of getting a response from the board is, by definition, nothing more than trolling.

I would hope you do not intend to be viewed as a troll so, please, why not sharpen your debate by including some real world data on why you prefer to carry longer, heavier barreled rifles instead of insulting people with opposing views?

[grayfox]

+1 Nuggin and Bigs, he's on my ignore list for just these reasons.
Happily oblivious to his posts.

[centerfire]

If I had a need I'd rock a 12" Grendel.

[CaptnC]

I killed a hog at 312 couple weeks ago with my 12”. My 22” Bartlein rides the safe now. Capn, why do you hunt with your 20” instead of the 24”? Just curious.

Your statement about your 24” serving a purpose reinforces the whole 12” argument. My 12” with suppressor fits the bill perfectly for its intended purpose. I’m confident with it out to 400 on hogs. I’ll limit it to 300 on deer.

The 24" will most likely never make it to the deer stand, it's going to be a range rifle. I thought I had said that before...maybe somewhere else.

My shooting buddy and I we re talking today...I have the weight up to the point now it is one of the heaviest rifles I own.

Curent configuration;
24" SS BCA barrel
Gibbz G4 left hand non-reciprocating
Armalite lower w/Risen trigger
Magpul 6 position butt w/tube/buffer etc.
15" key-mod FHG (heavier than you think)
Three chambered artillery style brake
4x16 50mm Millet scope 30mm tube w/sunshade
Vortex scope rings, high 30mm
A couple rail (3" each)
Atlas bipod

I need to get a picture of this beast...pretty slick!

[CaptnC]

I have a feeling this has more to do with government regulations than anything else.

I've been meaning to start a thread here about one issue that existed at one time that I'm not sure if it still holds true or not. But I know for a fact in the mid 2000 it did!

AR lowers; rifle lowers must stay rifles and can not be converted into pistols. But AR pistols can be converted into rifles, but once it is, it can not be converted back into a pistol.

Back in about 2005 to 2008 I was really into building AR's, so all the lowers I bought were listed as pistol lowers to not have to worry about breaking the law.

If...if the law still exists....how many here have made illegal pistols?

Even if you bought all your parts one piece at a time. The receiver must be labeled a pistol when you purchased it!

Like I said...I have not researched it to see if the law still reads that way or not, but I don't know of any reason why it would have changed.

[lazyengineer]

I've been meaning to start a thread here about one issue that existed at one time that I'm not sure if it still holds true or not. But I know for a fact in the mid 2000 it did!

AR lowers; rifle lowers must stay rifles and can not be converted into pistols. But AR pistols can be converted into rifles, but once it is, it can not be converted back into a pistol.

Back in about 2005 to 2008 I was really into building AR's, so all the lowers I bought were listed as pistol lowers to not have to worry about breaking the law.

If...if the law still exists....how many here have made illegal pistols?

Even if you bought all your parts one piece at a time. The receiver must be labeled a pistol when you purchased it!

Like I said...I have not researched it to see if the law still reads that way or not, but I don't know of any reason why it would have changed.

Where does this statement come from? Thomson Center is advertising exactly this; with conversion kits that go back and forth from pistol to carbine - and marketing saying you can swap back and forth at a moments notice. Theywent all the way to the US Supreme Court taking on the ATF, in order to do so.

[depletedyourcranium]

When applying the BATFE letter regarding the TC Contender to AR15 stripped lowers, those lowers purchased as "pistols" or "firearms" can be configured as pistols, rifles, and converted between the two. However, if you have an AR15 that you bought as a complete rifle, the lower receiver on that firearm is a rifle and cannot be legally converted to a pistol setup without violating the NFA. You can build out a stripped lower into a rifle, then later convert it to a pistol, without violating the NFA per the TC Contender letter here: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling...s/download

It should be noted that this is always subject to change and future rulings by the BATFE. Also the TC Contender letter does not specifically mention AR15 lowers, and as far as I know the BATFE has never rendered an opinion specifically on AR15 lowers. Nonetheless, the TC Contender letter can at least be minimum guidelines on how to consider the legalities of converting stripped powers into rifles and pistols from parts.

[lazyengineer]

When applying the BATFE letter regarding the TC Contender to AR15 stripped lowers, those lowers purchased as "pistols" or "firearms" can be configured as pistols, rifles, and converted between the two. However, if you have an AR15 that you bought as a complete rifle, the lower receiver on that firearm is a rifle and cannot be legally converted to a pistol setup without violating the NFA. You can build out a stripped lower into a rifle, then later convert it to a pistol, without violating the NFA per the TC Contender letter here: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling...s/download
.

Might want to read that letter again. First paragraph in italics is clear. Converting a pistol via attaching parts (in our example an upper), that make it into a rifle, is not making a new firearm. Converting a rifle that was originally intended to be a rifle, into a pistol, IS making a new firearm.

[depletedyourcranium]

Might want to read that letter again. First paragraph in italics is clear. Converting a pistol via attaching parts (in our example an upper), that make it into a rifle, is not making a new firearm. Converting a rifle that was originally intended to be a rifle, into a pistol, IS making a new firearm.

"assembled or produced from a weapon
originally assembled or produced only as a rifle."

A stripped lower receiver does not meet this definition. A stripped lower is transferred as a "firearm", and is never originally produced as only a rifle. It does not matter which order the end user configures the firearm as. The receiver leaves the manufacturer a serialized "firearm", not only a rifle.

Not that the BATFE makes much sense with some or most of their rulings, but it seems incredibly arbitrary to say if you first build out a stripped lower into a rifle, it's a rifle forever, but that if you build it first as a pistol, then you can go back and forth from pistol to rifle forever. I don't read this in the letter and don't think that applies to their wording as we extrapolate it out to AR15 lowers.

[lazyengineer]

"assembled or produced from a weapon
originally assembled or produced only as a rifle."

A stripped lower receiver does not meet this definition. A stripped lower is transferred as a "firearm", and is never originally produced as only a rifle. It does not matter which order the end user configures the firearm as. The receiver leaves the manufacturer a serialized "firearm", not only a rifle.

Not that the BATFE makes much sense with some or most of their rulings, but it seems incredibly arbitrary to say if you first build out a stripped lower into a rifle, it's a rifle forever, but that if you build it first as a pistol, then you can go back and forth from pistol to rifle forever. I don't read this in the letter and don't think that applies to their wording as we extrapolate it out to AR15 lowers.

It would seem that everyone everywhere including the ATF, would disagree with you.

The stripped lower is essentially a part. When you configure that non-fire-able part alone, as a rifle or as a pistol, you have now made it into an actual functional firearm, in the form of a rifle or a pistol, and you did so with intent and by design. Once it first becomes a rifle or a pistol, that is what it becomes. Once it's a pistol, putting a longer barrel on that pistol, so that it is more than 16", makes that pistol still a pistol, but a pistol with a really long barrel, that you can now put a stock on, as there is no regulation saying you can't put a stock on a pistol, only that the boom-stick can't be <16", if it has a stock. It looks like a rifle, we say "rifle", but it's a pistol with a stock and a long barrel. It's still a pistol. Hence the ability to go back and forth easily, it never stopped being a pistol.

If it first is made into a rifle, it's a rifle, by intent and design when you did that. And once it's a rifle, you cannot put a <16" Barrel on it, as a rifle can never have a <16" barrel; and so you made it into a different classification of a firearm (hence their last sentence in first paragraph, saying doing so makes a new firearm), and it it is now a short barreled rifle.

That's the symantics behind the at-first-glance seemingly goofy rulings on pistol to "rifle" back to pistol OK, but Rifle to Pistol is not.

[grayfox]

So, Lz, a question... how will anyone at ATF know/be able to prove whether that particular stripped lower (sold as a stripped lower) was "first" assembled into a pistol or rifle by the end user?

[Gyssie123]

I would say 16", short enough for close range hunting in thick stuff, but you will be confident enough to stretch it to 300 yards and beyond if the need arises.

[lazyengineer]

So, Lz, a question... how will anyone at ATF know/be able to prove whether that particular stripped lower (sold as a stripped lower) was "first" assembled into a pistol or rifle by the end user?

Ha! now that's a separate question. Short answer is they won't. Unless you tell them, or you otherwise documented it as starting as a rifle. For the most part, it really only comes into play if you bought a complete rifle and converted it into a pistol.

[NugginFutz]

When a lower is purchased at an FFL, doesn’t the application state the type of firearm being purchased? Further, the FFL’s records kept include both SN and weapon type. I would suspect that this would be enough rope to hang one’s self with, should the feds ever go looking.

[Bigs28]

When i bought my lower, it was purchased as "other".

[grayfox]

Unattached lower's are marked as "other" on that form... unless the ffl makes a mistake.
Sometimes they ask you while doing their part, I tell them IDK, maybe a pistol maybe an AR... haven't made up my mind. B/c I haven't; after all it is just a piece/part right now. I'm not into SBR's as of now.

[lazyengineer]

Unattached lower's are marked as "other" on that form... unless the ffl makes a mistake.
Sometimes they ask you while doing their part, I tell them IDK, maybe a pistol maybe an AR... haven't made up my mind. B/c I haven't; after all it is just a piece/part right now. I'm not into SBR's as of now.

Correct, a new AR is now sold on the ATF form as transferred as Rifle, Pistol, or Other. And on that, all stripped lowers are done as Other. Actually, even complete lowers are sold as Other, (if it doesn't have an upper on it). Even if you tell the FFL it's a pistol or rifle or so configured for that half; technically they still have to transfer it to you as Other. So to GreyFox' question - the only ATF official record of a stripped lower, is "Other". So they don't actually know how it started life as a functional firearm; unless you did something to solid document it on your own somehow.

[Kswhitetails]

OP - your question regarding the intended use and shot distances indicate you anticipate rough scrub or unknown shooting conditions. For my money, I'd hit the woods with the shortest and lightest rig I could build.

Grendel has more than enough legs to take your game at 300, even in barrels shorter than 12". I can ring steel with my 12.7" Faxon barrelled build with a red dot and 120SMKs at the 800 berm. I can string consistent hits together on the full size IPSC at those distances. It takes me a shot or two generally to decide elevation, but I do it. It makes the guys next to me shooting 26" 6creeds incredulous. And that is it's own reward. It's really funny when I pull the 8" suppressor off and see the smiles. It looks much longer than it really is.

[depletedyourcranium]

It would seem that everyone everywhere including the ATF, would disagree with you.

The BATFE hasn't agreed or disagreed until they release an opinion specifically regarding the classifications of stripped AR15 lower receivers. To date they have not. Until then correct and incorrect, like you said, is semantic and hinges specifically on the meaning behind "originally" and "only".

As I see it, a stripped lower can never be "only" a rifle because it previously existed as a title 1 firearm. Albeit undefined, but it was "originally" transferred as an "other" which means it already was something "other" than a rifle from the start.

Again, semantics, but until the BATFE says otherwise my interpretation is at least as relevant as every other person on earth who disagrees with me, which is to say, totally irrelevant.