Before you answer the poll, please watch this 54 second video:


What the ATF wrote the manufacturer when its chief engineer asked for an opinion was that, since the new item is not attached to the pistol, its use does not convert the pistol to a SBR. Rather, the ATF described the new item as a 'pistol rest' and therefore outside the purview of the ATF.

Because of the way ATF handled the SB-01, however, some potential buyers have elected to pass on the concept, citing the word 'attached' as ambiguous. I don't see it as ambiguous at all, and am planning to make a pistol rest myself (just for myself, not for sale). Here's why I feel comfortable in doing so:

1) Common usage of 'attached' (ATF apparently has no legal definition of 'attached') - The joint that attaches one item to another can be established by constriction (tape, string, wire, etc.), adhesion (glue, velcro, magnet, etc.), or tightness of fit (bullets within casings, precision dovetail joinery, pins, etc.). Lacking any of these results in the first item not being attached to the second. Containment in a third item (2 bullets inside a box) does not make the first item attached to the other.

2) My test of 'attachment' - If you can pick up the pistol rest and the pistol together by touching only one of them, they are attached. The video shows this is not the case.

3) But your hand 'attaches' them together - This pic shows a rifle and a pair of shooting sticks. The shooter is using one hand to hold both items together and in a usable position, but that doesn't make the sticks 'fastened' to the rifle (containment differs from attachment).


4) Logic chain (I know, does not apply to government) - Shooting can be dangerous. Aiming before shooting is a safety requirement. Anything that improves one's aim is a safety item. Safety items were never intended to be regulated by the NFA.

5) Avoidance of a restricted user pool - If a pistol rest is designed for geezers and gits, then used by a healthy, coherent 20-something, that's beyond its intended use and could change the way the ATF views it. My pistol rest's use would be generic and universal (as to user, given a particular pistol).

6) LE involvement - The first customer of the pistol rest in the video above was Reno's police. You'd think some reporter would have mentioned 'not available to the public' if that was believed by LE to be true. This is my weakest argument because it presumes people do their jobs to responsible standards.

No sense getting into how well it would work in this thread. That will be discovered soon enough. There are youtubes showing some long shots on steel that impress me, however.

Thanks for taking the poll.

I think it is very ambiguous personally. The ATF lives on ambiguous. That's why they can (and do) easily flip their decisions and opinions.



When you have the grip and the pistol, you are essentially joining them together. There is nothing that the ATF or a definition that states it has to be fixed or permanent in nature.

But, that being said, an ATF letter should work to keep range RSO's from having a coronary. I think it's a cool idea and wouldn't hesitate to own one if I felt a desire to.

Not with a 10 foot pole.
Lots of articles about it a year ago, now crickets.

https://blog.princelaw.com/tag/aps-usa-1shot/
"Contrary to the claims of the company, ATF stated that it has no record of receiving any samples of the product in order to issue a determination. Additionally, FATD stated they welcome a sample to be submitted for a determination. This is in stark contrast to the statement that the company has proffered that ATF will not issue a determination.

Furthermore, having shown FATD a picture of the product, I was immediately informed that it was a shoulder stock and ATF had previously ruled on “friction stocks” in other determinations. It would behoove APS to submit a sample to ATF in order to have a formal determination on the product, so that individuals can know whether possession of the product with a handgun would potentially subject them to criminal prosecution or not."

IIRC the very definition of SBR describes the weapon as being designed to fire from the shoulder. Whether permanently attached or not it seems this "rest" would meet that standard and be considered an SBR simply due to the purpose of the design. The Sig brace wasn't even (ehem ehem) designed to be fired from the shoulder and it is still walking a very fine line.

I really hope that a day comes when we don't need to have idiotic discussions like this. I mean, they're fun from an academic perspective but ultimately we just someone to realize that an SBR is just a fucking rifle, and there's no need to regulate them or create such drama.

Reminds me of this 1:24 minute vid:

don't give ideas outloud

I realize this increases the risk of harassment or worse, but cowing to paranoia and 'implied regulation' isn't without danger, either.


1) The video in the OP shows that this is not a 'friction stock' because the friction between the pistol rest and pistol is essentially nil. Studying a still photograph of the rest (with or without pistol) would not make that evident, so the determination was based on insufficient information and intimidation.

2) Likewise, sending the ATF a sample rest without the pistol it was designed for would not make clear this is not a 'friction stock' due to insufficient friction between pistol rest and pistol. Again, the video goes a long way to substatiating the case of no attachment of the rest to the pistol.

BTW, google couldn't find any references to pre-SB01 friction stock rulings - if you have any, I'd really appreciate having them posted here so we could learn from them.

Good luck.
Not arguing the logic nor physics of it.
ATF 'rulings' are whatever the technology branch chief declares that day.
If he takes the day off, his assistant can reverse the rulings.
No hearing, trial, or facts necessary.

Are you saying there are no 'friction stock' rulings prior to the SB01, or that any such rulings are without force of law, or . . . ?

I don't know. I quoted an article I found online as you did.
I'm saying that this 'product' was 'introduced' a year ago and there are no confirmed ATF approval letters, it is not available for purchase, and no product reviews since then (other than the 'manufacturer')
Could just be a hoax.

After a year, why isn't someone selling it?
Retail $349.99, probably cost under $20 to mold, bag, and ship. Goldmine!

Any way to fuck the ATF out of a tax stamp would be selling 50+ units a day and all of the major gun forums wanted to look at it.

I'm equally suspicious of there being no googlable ATF rulings on 'friction stocks' - maybe there isn't such a term in use at the ATF . . . .

I'm suspicious that this stock is not nor has ever been offered for demo or sale after a year in publication.
Tell me where to buy one, I'll check it out.
Until then, it's a hoax.
.

Could be a go-fund-me gimmick...
Or a hoax as you suggested.
Or it utterly failed and they dropped it.

I dunno, but I could probably get it made for like 5 bucks in China. Ten with a buffer tube and stock.