Angled Foregrips on Rifle Caliber Pistols

L

Loronzo

New member
Good day ladies and gents.

I've been doing some research on the topic before I decided to start a thread. My question is about Magpul AFG2's on Rifle caliber pistols. I know a vertical Foregrip would require registration as an AOW but what about angled foregrips? I know its more of a grey area. I've already checked with local law enforcement and they said it was ok as far as they were concerned. I'm more concerned about the federal regulations. I have seen a BATFE letter floating around on the internet stating that it was ok (in relation to an AR-15 pistol). But also don't want to inadvertantly violate any laws.

The pistol in question is a Draco 7.62x39mm. I posted this in the NFA forum because it relates to NFA laws, even though the intended outcome is that adding the angled foregrip would not result in a NFA AWO weapon. Any suggestions, imput, or guidance would be highly appreciated. I've been a member of these forums for a while and have been able to gain a good bit of knowledge across the board from all of you and I appreciate everyone here for sharing what they do.

Thanks in advance,
Loronzo
 
Last edited:
AOWs really aren't my thing, but I do believe a vertical fore-grip okay if it's not permanently attached to the weapon. But I could be wrong.

Even if I'm wrong, though I wouldn't go wandering around the local ATF office with a vertical fore grip on a pistol AR, I seriously doubt AR-15 pistols with a grip are on the ATF's list of top crime-fighting priorities.
 
Vertical fore grips are a strict no. I have also heard the afg is not "a conspicuously protruding grip" so it doesnt count, but I wouldnt act on it until I see something from the ATF about it. You said you saw a letter?
 
Last edited:
I never figured out why the BATF would be against anything that would make a weapon more accurate and therefor less likely to miss the intended target. Do they want you to miss the bad guy and hit an innocent? It just makes no sense.
 
lcpiper I never figured out why the BATF would be against anything that would make a weapon more accurate and therefor less likely to miss the intended target. Do they want you to miss the bad guy and hit an innocent? It just makes no sense.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with Federal law.

As a regulatory agency, ATF is required to formulate regulations based on Federal law, in this case the 1934 National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The legal definition of "Handgun":
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=4cda007175869bfe7c3666ec60524e47&rgn=div8&view=text&node=27:3.0.1.2.3.2.1.1&idno=27
§ 478.11 Meaning of terms.
Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(b) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in paragraph (a) can be assembled.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately ATF doesn't get to use common sense in its interpretations, nor can they alter regulations to keep up with modern technology. They are "handcuffed" by outdated and poorly written federal laws.

When common sense crosses paths with those regulations the courts often get involved (see Thompson Center decision).
 
lcpiper said:
I never figured out why the BATF would be against anything that would make a weapon more accurate and therefor less likely to miss the intended target. Do they want you to miss the bad guy and hit an innocent? It just makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Their reasoning is probably more towards use by criminals. Contrary to popular television, some bad guys are skilled. Making a weapon more accurate means they can kill more innocents more efficiently.

Of course, like all laws that try to micromanage details, criminals ignore them anyway. For example, just making murder illegal isn't enough, they have to outlaw things people might use to do something that's outlawed already...
 
Their reasoning has to do with an attempt to classify firearms. A pistol is defined by the BATFE as being designed to be fired with one hand. (I know, I know; most people fire their handguns with two hands, but it has to do with outdated and somewhat ridiculous attempts to clearly define firearms.) Therefore, if you attach a forward grip to a pistol, it is clearly intended to be fired with two hands and, because it has a barrel shorter than 16" and no stock, it falls into the catch-all category of firearms called AOWs ("any other weapon"), which are NFA-controlled items similar to silencers.

So if you attach a vertical grip (doesn't matter if it's permanent or not) onto any pistol that has an overall length shorter than 26", it becomes an AOW, which is regulated like machineguns, SBRs, and silencers and requires BATFE registration and a tax stamp (but only a $5 transfer tax).

Angled foregrips are a grey area, a grey area open to interpretation by the BATFE. If you're going to put an angled foregrip of any kind on a pistol, make sure it has been officially acknowledged by the BATFE as not being a vertical grip (like the Magpul AFG has), otherwise you're at the mercy of the whims of a BATFE bureaucrat to decide if you're breaking the law or not.
 
Loronzo, Yes you can definitively put a Magpul AFG on a Draco AK pistol.

I have it on my Draco (12" barrel). I've researched this to the tee and know for sure. Other AR and AK pistols under 26" OAL (over all length) are allowed to have an Angled Foregrip, but not a Vertical foregrip.

You can clearly see on Q7 on the document you posted that it is fine to use Magpul's AFG.
 
Therefore, if you attach a forward grip to a pistol, it is clearly intended to be fired with two hands
Click to expand...

This isn't logical. The words, "if you attach..." clearly indicate a consequence of modification. The word attach is key. The weapon is still "...designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand." But the attachment, or modification, allows for two handed operation. This does not change the weapon's design.

Of course they didn't consult with me over the ruling so this is what we have.
 
I never figured out why the BATF would be against anything that would make a weapon more accurate and therefor less likely to miss the intended target. Do they want you to miss the bad guy and hit an innocent? It just makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Because forward grips make pistols "look like" a Tommy Gun. And, Tommy Guns are known (by the antis) to seek out and destroy all human life and are more powerful than a 60 megaton nuclear weapon.

Stupid answer? Yes. Stupid law? Yes.
 
Loronzo, I can only tell you what I would do in this situation.

You are obviously in a bit of a grey area. If it were me, I would write my own letter to the ATF so that I had my very own signed and dated personal response letter stating that it's okay to attach the grip. It will take a while longer but you will probably sleep better knowing that you are clear.
 
jclayto said:
You are obviously in a bit of a grey area.
Click to expand...
He is not in a grey area; the BATFE has ruled that the Magpul AFG is not a vertical grip and can therefore be used on a pistol without making it an AOW. It would only be a grey area if he was using a different grip that the BATFE had not ruled on yet.
 
lcpiper
Quote:
Therefore, if you attach a forward grip to a pistol, it is clearly intended to be fired with two hands
Click to expand...

This isn't logical. The words, "if you attach..." clearly indicate a consequence of modification. The word attach is key...
Click to expand...
The word "attach" has nothing to do with it. If there was a permanantly forged second vertical grip on the frame or receiver of that firearm it would not be a handgun as it was not designed to be fired with one hand.



The weapon is still "...designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand." But the attachment, or modification, allows for two handed operation. This does not change the weapon's design.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. It was REDESIGNED to allow the second grip.
 
By Dogtown Tom;
The word "attach" has nothing to do with it. If there was a permanantly forged second vertical grip on the frame or receiver of that firearm it would not be a handgun as it was not designed to be fired with one hand.
Click to expand...

Well dogtown_tom, there isn't a permanently forge second vertical grip on the frame of the receiver. The OP is talking about a grip attachment that is fixed to the plastic handguards of the pistol.
By Loronzo;
My question is about Magpul AFG2's on Rifle caliber pistols
Click to expand...

By Dogtown Tom;
Sure it does. It was REDESIGNED to allow the second grip.
Click to expand...

It is not a redesign of the weapon to add a vertical fore-grip to the mounting rail of a weapon that is designed for attachments. Any more then it is a redesign to add a scope to a hunting rifle.

If the ATF want's to rule that adding the attachment to a weapon that didn't have one integrally equates to a weapon that was designed with one that is up to them, but don't try to snow me with some hog wash that adding an attachment is a redesign of the weapon.

Perhaps your getting snippy because you think I am arguing that the verticle fore-grip is legal or that he should do something illegal so I will be very clear, I am saying no such thing.
 
lcpiper
Dogtown Tom: Sure it does. It was REDESIGNED to allow the second grip.
Click to expand...

It is not a redesign of the weapon to add a vertical fore-grip....
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Just because a handgun has an accessory rail doesn't give you the freedom to add a vertical grip anymore than the stock slot on a Browning Hi Power allows you to use the detachable stock holster without a tax stamp. While there are BHP's that are removed from the NFA, there are thousands out there that when a shoulder stock is attached require a tax stamp.

Mako Group and others make shoulder stocks for Glocks, using your theory simply attaching a shoulder stock without modifying the Glock doesn't require a tax stamp...........but it does.

Any more then it is a redesign to add a scope to a hunting rifle.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant...........adding a scope to a rifle does not require an ATF tax stamp.


If the ATF want's to rule that adding the attachment to a weapon that didn't have one integrally equates to a weapon that was designed with one that is up to them, but don't try to snow me with some hog wash that adding an attachment is a redesign of the weapon.
Click to expand...
Uh, where you been since 1934? :rolleyes:
ATF has held since the passage of the NFA that a second grip on a handgun requires a tax stamp. In the NFA handbook they used to show a picture of a Colt 1911 with a Thompson SMG front grip attached......supposedly taken from John Dillinger.
1911full-tfb-tm.jpg


The current ATF NFA Handbook shows a Glock pistol with a vertical grip attached to the accessory rail as the example of an AOW.

From page 9 of the NFA Handbook:
....certain alterations to a pistol or revolver, such as the addition of a second vertical handgrip, create a weapon that no longer meets the definition of pistol or revolver. A pistol or revolver modified as described is an “any other weapon” subject to the NFA because the weapon is not designed to be fired when held in one hand...
Click to expand...
glock-safety-grip-extended2.jpg
[

You could argue the distinction of "added" vs "attached" or "created" vs "redesigned" with ATF but you would lose.
 
Last edited:
I think you two guys are arguing two different things. I think lcpiper is arguing the actual common-sense definition of "designed", and dogtown tom is arguing the BATFE's definition. And as we all know, the BATFE rarely deals in common sense.

Either way, it's a pointless argument. The BATFE doesn't distinguish between a permanently-attached vertical forward grip on a pistol or just attaching one temporarily; both are considered AOWs and both will get you in just as much trouble if they aren't registered as such.
 
Theohazard, you just about got it.

Dogtown Tom, I made myself very clear right here.

By lcpiper;
Perhaps your getting snippy because you think I am arguing that the verticle fore-grip is legal or that he should do something illegal so I will be very clear, I am saying no such thing.
Click to expand...

And I think Dogtown Tom has a selective reading problem.

By dogtown_tom;
Sure it is. Just because a handgun has an accessory rail doesn't give you the freedom to add a vertical grip anymore than the stock slot on a Browning Hi Power allows you to use the detachable stock holster without a tax stamp.
Click to expand...

I have a question Tom, if I open a business and buy Colt M-4s, add a FlashLight Attachment to the rails, and resell them. Can I claim they are lcpiper M-4s since I redesigned them? Do I owe Colt royalties?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top