>ATF says vertical foregrips on pistols are verboten if they are at a 90 degree angle perpendicular to the bore, but angled foregrips are ok
>buy 3D printed third-party Nerf accessory rail off Etsy for $8
>any VFG magically becomes an AFG
Any reason why this wouldn't work aside from being made of plastic and therefore breaking incredibly easily? I've tried to find an angled riser made of aluminum for real firearms, but I don't think anyone makes them.
Do you think the ATF is going to conclude that the riser is part of the grip, or part of the gun?
Not sure, but in practice it would be no different than something like pic related. Some people even claim that the BCM VFG is legal to use on pistols due to not being at a 90 degree angle to the bore. The ATF has only said that a VFG mounted 90 degrees perpendicular to the bore forward of the magwell is not legal on pistols regardless of where you actually mount it clockwise around the barrel.
Whatever is more convenient to charge you. Also, while they're at it, they'll shoot your dog.
Nothing a little JB Weld between the riser and hand guard can't fix.
You do know that manufactuerers have to submit their design to the ATF so they can clear it legally right? The BCM vertical grip comes to mind, it doesnt matter which orientation its still illegal on a ARP unless the recipet itself says handstop.
Just look at ryker, their design is not a vertical foregrip but ATF was like nah bro we going to screw your buisness over amd called it a vertical foregrip.
this is incorrect. the only way the atf will make a judgement now is as a complete set up. so any ruling or opinion would be specific as a yay or nay to that specific firearm.
so the short answer is that it's all legal, unless you're in their crosshairs, then it's all illegal.
I’ve heard mixed opinions about the BCM foregrip. Some people say it’s legal on pistols because it’s not a 90 degree foregrip, while other people say it’s illegal because it’s advertised as a “vertical foregrip” and because you can wrap your whole hand around it. Something like a handstop or Magpul AFG are ok because you can’t possibly wrap your entire hand around them.
pic is exactly what OP wants, but it might still be illegal since you can wrap your hand around the entire foregrip. I guess the same concept but made at a steeper angle like the Magpul AFG would be what we need.
Why not just make a 5" 2 slot riser? It's a riser, not a foregrip.
if people use it like a foregrip, they'll find a way to frick with you
>It's a brace, not a stock
Yeah, look how that turned out.
are you paying attention? it's a brace.
strike used to make one. I've been looking for one for awhile now.
not a bad idea at all, just try to find one
https://shop.jkarmy.com/element-pyramid-angled-rail-17-degree-adapter-tan.html
Here it is in stock. I'm actually considering buying one now:
https://www.airsoftgi.com/product/Element-Pyramid-Angled-Rail-Adapter-DE-28335/
you could easily design one in cad and 3d print it
that's what I'm down to, I think.
there's no way to know what's illegal and what's not anymore, so I don't get the hand wringing over this stuff. the atf doesn't issue opinion letters anymore. they don't approve or disapprove accessories. they evaluate on an individual basis, for a specific firearm, in a specific end user configuration when you submit your gun for them to tell you if it's legal or not, or if you're picked up. either way, it's going to end bad for you. so it's all legal at this point, until it isn't. meaning you've been booked for federal crimes and they need firearm tack on charges. that's it. that's when you would find out their opinion.
Part of me wants to say that everything is legal now post-Bruen, because the ATF would drop charges rather than be potentially get the NFA overturned.
this is essentially my position. they'd have to take it to court, and they keep getting blown out. as long as you didn't run afoul of state law, I'd argue the feds have no ability to enforce as it currently sits.
https://www.opticsplanet.com/mid-evil-industries-360vfgm-m-lok-360-rfg-foregrip-aluminum-black.html
i just realize, op may have a point, but then criminals inevitalbly uses the tech and antis who know nothing about guns weigh in on whether it should be a fine if found with the item or not.
so, they might decide that okay using it as a foregrip is okay (accuracy is good afterall, if they have someone take antis to a pistol range, they'll understand the conversation about accuracy being good for minimizing collatoral damage.)
HOWEVER, if bank robbers start printing slanty rails to mount rifle grenade leaf sights, oh, angled rails and all rails are getting banned. I can foresee this because i accidentally answered my wife that I'd draw the line for 2A at IEDs, because those are terrifying, because she asked while i was distracted. And she was like "oh okay yeah that's pretty sensible" like she was just going to make up her mind to agree with someone who knew firearms, and then hold me to that. But it might just be a very common view to restrict frag grenades and such similar stuff from civilian use, I suppose it would be a really bad day if you live in apartments or quad/duplexes, and your neighbor's improperly stored AT4 rockets burned down your place too.
But the point is, angled rails may be an alright loophole with everyone even the antis, but the moment it gets tied to rifle grenades, even tshirt canons, glitter bombs, or cheeto puff rounds, everyone's imagination will jump to blackhawk down or CoD where a soldier lobs a 40mm frag behind a wall and they'll shut down use of angled rails for real funs.
issa doggie dog world out there, mah man
If you live in a noncuck state the atf doesn't matter.
I live in a state where local law enforcement cannot legally cooperate with the ATF. They are such a distant cpnsiferation for me now. If some fat ass ATF agent wants to no nock raid me at 3am with no police support hats off to him.
I live in TN which has one of those anti-ATF laws on the books, but we also have weird compromise restrictions on carrying long guns. If I did put a stock or foregrip on an AR pistol, then I'm not sure how state law would reconcile that with the federal definitions of pistol and rifle.
Honestly if your local law enforcement never see it you'll be good. If they do see it... I'd look into whether something like that is a misdemenor or a felony in TN and make your call based on that.
I doubt local law enforcement would even care if you had a vfg and a stock but you never really know.
what if I am law enforcement?
do I have to just have to shoot my creation while not looking at the gun?
If you're not already training blind folded you're ngmi.
wanting to hire:
patrol officer
required qualifications:
The Force
>anon how am I supposed to shoot with this blind fold on I can't see.
Your eyes can deceive you don't trust them.
FAB Defense makes a folding VFG that you can lock at any angle.
https://www.fab-defense.co.il/en/category-foregrips/id-183/7-pos.-vertically-folding-foregrip.html
why not 3d print a non-90 degree vfg?
Because this allows you to use any existing VFG you already have. The problem is that I wouldn't want a riser made of plastic since that's a potential stress and breakage point between the foregrip and handguard rail.
seems moronic
Never really thought about it until this thread, but I wonder what the law would say about a VFG or brace on my Maxim 9? That has an integral suppressor, so it's already an NFA weapon that I already have a stamp for. Does anyone know how it works with something like that? I know with machine guns at least, the "mg" part overrides everything else, there's no such thing an "SBR" machine gun it doesn't matter how long the barrel or OAL is or what features it has, it's still a single stamp MG (and can't be newer than 1983 without ffl+sot etc). Integral suppressors count towards barrel length, so if you have 10" barrel + 6" worth of can and OAL is => 26" then it's not an SBR.
But no idea how it works with an integral pistol.
It’s a pistol with an integral suppressor, so a VFG would make it an SBR same as any other pistol.
>ATF says vertical foregrips on pistols are verboten if they are at a 90 degree angle perpendicular to the bore, but angled foregrips are ok
like why??? what is the justification for such a law??? is it just them being c**ts like with supressors?
Because the law specifically names vertical foregrips as a no-no feature, while it says nothing about foregrips. A lot of the ATF's moronation is a result of Congress's moronation when writing the laws and then having to try to define what exactly constitutes an X when you have an incentive from manufacturers to push it right up the line so there is no real gray zone "you know it when you see it" type of thing there normally is with these sort of things.
>Because the law specifically names vertical foregrips as a no-no feature
There are two definitions ATF "interprets" as forbidding VFGs on pistols:
18 USC 921 (a)(30)(A) (GCA's definition of handgun.)
>a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand
27 CFR 478.11 (NFA did not include a definition of pistol, so the ATF or its predecessors made one.)
>A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
Neither specifically mention vertical foregrips, or foregrips of any sort.
Both require a strained reading* to prohibit certain accommodations for offhand grip (VFGs) while allowing others (gas pedals, squared/textured trigger guards, and conventional foregrips).
And if one nevertheless commits to such a strained reading, neither definition offers a hint of guidance regarding where to draw the line.
* The definitions' references to "one hand" or "a single hand" can be naturally read two ways: inclusively (as long as it's made for one hand use, it's a handgun/pistol -- even if it also accommodates two-hand use, it's still a handgun/pistol), or exclusively (if it's made only for one-hand use, it's a handgun/pistol -- but if it has any accommodation for two-hand use, it's no longer a handgun/pistol).
The exclusive reading may be discarded because many pistols, at the time these laws were made, did have features to accommodate two-handed use, and there's nothing in the law to suggest congress was trying to distinguish those, rather than capturing the whole category and distinguishing them from rifles etc.. But that only leaves the inclusive reading -- there's no basis for the in-between, semi-exclusive reading ATF prefers.
yeah, these are all semantics contrived by people who know nothing about combat nor weapons
You can tell how fricked the ATF is by comparing the definitions there.
Like the NFA is a horrible bill, but the definition there is clearly written with the intent to be read and understood by humans.
The ATF definition below is utterly deranged to read and parse and follows entirely different standards on how a regulation and law should be written and communicated.
The problem is when you mix vague Common Law rules like firearms regulations from decades ago, with agencies like the ATF that try to treat those regulations like Napoleonic Law where everything is harshly defined in black and white.
There is no legal definition of "vertical foregrip" and there is no true legal precedent saying that putting a foregrip on a pistol makes it an AOW.
All of this ATF "opinion letter" bullshit is just that and literally all of it is going to get laughed out of any court in America post-Bruen. None of it carries the weight of law behind it, stop jumping at boogeymen.
Its honestly ridiculous that the ATF can just drop charges on demand to avoid having to deal with their shit being overturned.
You now remember that we could have had mail-order AR-15s if the ATF hadn’t been homosexuals.
They've also done this with bumpstocks, braced pistols as SBRs, and even in a couple cases where defense attorneys successfully pointed out that AR15s have no single part that fits the NFA and GCA's definition of "frame or receiver" and are thus legally not firearms under federal law and thus not subject to federal regulation. In their (now BTFO) new redefinition of "frames and receivers" rule they explicitly put into writing that up to 90% of new manufacture firearms lack a single part that fits the definition of "frame or receiver" which necessitated the (again, now null-and-void under the administrative procedures act) definition change.
And this is all pre-Bruen. There are currently multiple lawsuits working their way up the courts that are very likely going to completely castrate the ATF's ability to regulate guns because it turns out that in a lot of ways they were a fricking paper tiger in the first place, especially when it comes to these "I'll know it when I see it" bullshit opinion letters and "we're evaluating the legality of guns on a case-by-case basis now" announcements.
Anyway it's not illegal to put a grip on a pistol lol.
>Anyway it's not illegal to put a grip on a pistol lol.
I want to put a stock on my foregripped pistol and “reclassify” it as a brace if anyone asks.
since fricking when are 90 degree foregrips illegal motherfricker?
Why the frick are vfgs on pistols illegal anyways? Is this just more moronic nonsense like SBRs and suppressors being NFA items because they're scary?
See
and
there's nothing in the black letter law about foregrips specifically being illegal. The ATF has just previously interpreted the definition of "pistols" in their opinion letters to exclude firearms with VFGs, but not AFGs. They claim that attaching a VFG to a pistol remanufactures it into an AOW.
I hope everyone who has ever worked for the ATF in the past, present, and future all get testicular or ovarian cancer
>we saw this in a movie! time to pass legislation!
frick you
frick you
frick you