AR-15 Pistols

N

Nightcrawler

New member
Anybody have one of these?

Professional Ordnance makes one, as does Olympic Arms.

Not real practical, I suspect, and I'm sure 5.56mm isn't at its peak out of a 7" barrel. But, just a little curious here. Anybody have one, what kind have you got, and how is it? Is it fun to shoot? Is it accurate?

You can build one out of any AR-15 receiver, too. You simply need one of the 7.5" upper receivers and the pistol kit back end, which is a small tube that holds an M4 style buffer, sans the actual buttstock. (Of course, doing that is illegal in MI, as we have handgun registration.)

oa98sml.jpg

Olympic Arms OA-98 Pistol, .223 Remington
 
I've seen those but unless I could get one that was select fire (so it's more of a submachine gun) I don't think they would be all that practical.

but they'd be fun (and isnt that really the point?) :D
 
I've got a Prof-Ord Carbon 15 Type 97 Pistol. Fun gun. Doesn't kick all that much, but it's loud and has a good sized muzzle blast. I'm not sure of the "tactical usage", but it's about the size and style of a SP89/MP5K, but shoots a much more potent cartridge.
 
You know, as long as one was reliable, I don't see any reason it couldn't be used for home defense. People use AR's for home defense, and what is this but an AR with a shorter barrel and no stock?

I'd still prefer a good scattergun, mind you, but all because it's impractical doesn't mean it's useless. :)

And, also, it's the closest thing we civilian peons can get to having an "armor piercing" pistol. Even out of a 7" barrel, I suspect .223 hardball will still slide right through even a Level IIIA soft armor vest.
 
Well, after seeing the thread on the kid that shot a cop and in return was shot between 11 - 15 times with a .40 and still had to be subdued, these start to look more attractive! :eek:

- Aion
 
I think you are going to be at least 12" shy on the optimal barrel length business. The big benefit is that you can use the same mags for your AR as the AR pistol. The downside is that the round is not very optimal, but that doesn't mean it would be bad. A .223 at 1800 fps (guessed) instead of 2500 fps might perform well - but I have no idea.

Like Nightcrawler, I prefer a good scattergun. My wife does too, but a 30 round pistol might be a hoot!
 
Before building one of those, better check the law, as the gun shown in the pics would seem to be an assault weapon under Federal law. The old ones are grandfathered but making a new one could get someone into deep trouble. Also, it is (and has been for over half a century) illegal to make a pistol out of a rifle.

Jim
 
As Jim Keenan said, doesn't taking an AR-15 lower and bolting it to the pistol upper constitute making a short barreled rifle? Sort of like the difference between a "Witness Protection" short barreled shotgun listed as an AOW ($5 transfer fee) and a sawed off shotgun ($200 transfer fee). It would be ok for the company to manufacture a lower reciever specifically for the "pistol", but it seems that using a rifle lower would be against the rules.
 
Post 94 crime bill, a pistol can't have both a detachable magazine outsize of the PG and be over 50 oz. Therefore you can't simply buy a new lower and slap a short barrelled up to it - you'll almost certainly be above 50 oz. That's why the Oly offering has all those cutouts in it - you get the weight down low enough. The ParaOrdnance is also light enough to fall below the limits, and I think Hesse (yuck) makes one with their kevlar uppers and lowers.

A lower isn't considered a rifle as long as it is a "virgin" lower that has never had a stock attached. So, you could theoretically make one with a new stripped receiver (provided you can get under the weight limit), but can't make one out of a pre-ban receiver that has been assembled as a rifle.

Rocko
 
Post 94 crime bill, a pistol can't have both a detachable magazine outsize of the PG and be over 50 oz.
Click to expand...

It gives me little hope for the country when I realize that a lawmaker, somewhere, sat down and wrote this and thought it was a good idea that would have some appreciable effect on crime. :rolleyes:
 
Rocko, that's partially correct

That virgin lower shall be designated from the manufacturer as a pistol lower, with a unique marking that differentiates it from a rifle lower, even if it's something as simple as a different serial number range. AR-15 lower receiver manufacturers have been doing just that, at the time any lower receiver is manufactured, the maker must list the serial number and the type of receiver it is eg. pistol or rifle.

Now you can take a receiver marked for pistol use and build a rifle out of it, no problem. It's gotten real popular with the varmint and benchrest folks, they do that with the Remington XP-100 pistol receivers, building some seriously accurate rifles out of them.

But if you take a receiver marked for rifle use and build a pistol out of it, you end up with legal problems that can border from expensive to breaking the bank. :(
 
Gewehr98,

Wow, you learn something silly about our laws every day...

So, once you make a rifle out of a pistol receiver, is it now considered a rifle from then on, and thus not able to be changed back into pistol configuration? If so, then what about all those pistol carbine conversions that are getting so popular now? Once you put the carbine kit on, can you then legally convert it back to a pistol?

Hmmm, now that I think about it, I suppose it makes sense, since pistols are treated differently than long arms. Here in PA, for example, private transfers of long arms are OK, but pistols are a nono. I guess the question would be, would a private transfer of a 1911 with a carbine kit, for example, be OK here. It is technically at this point considered a long arm, right? Or, even though it has a stock and a barrell over 16", it is still considered a pistol in this case? If this is so, how are us mere mortals supposed to know what the receiver, frame, etc was designated at the manufacturer? Easy to tell in this example, as I don't think anyone is actually making a 1911 carbine, but what about, say, the MAC 11's? Right now, both carbines and pistol versions are created...

I guess I was taking what I knew of AOW's and trying to apply it to this case. As long as you work from a receiver that has never had a stock affixed, you should be OK to build it as an AOW (after getting your form 1 approved, of course).

Rocko
 
It's a bit easier than that...

Maybe a better way to look at it. (Although I'm flipping through all my courtesy BATF FFL manuals to make certain I'm not running afoul of the latest and best regulations)

Aforementioned 1911 receiver/frame began life as a pistol frame (Pretty obvious since there aren't many factory rifles sold on 1911 frames).

If you slap on one of those carbine kits that replaces the slide, you've created a long arm, right?

True, to a point. You've made a long arm out of the 1911 receiver, which is totally legal, assuming that you stay within barrel length limitations, total weapon length limitations, 1994 Crime Bill Assault Weapons criteria, etc. But that receiver/frame is still marked, from the factory, as a pistol receiver/frame. So you're entirely in your legal right to return it to a pistol configuration at any time, no problem, and no penalties under law. Nice option, ain't it? You can go back and forth from pistol to long arm all day long, much like the Thompson/Center Contender and Encore family of guns.

How's the average Joe supposed to know his particular receiver/frame was marked at the factory as a pistol or rifle? Not too easy. Olympic Arms had a catastrophic fire at their facility that destroyed their manufacturing and serial number records up to the date of that fire. Some may interpret that fire as a good thing when it comes to identifying pre-ban AR bare receivers from pre-ban complete AR rifles built by that company. Likewise, when it comes to identifying which AR lowers are marked for pistol or rifle use during that gap in coverage, who knows?

How about the guy who gets one of those 80% finished AR lowers, and finishes the milling/drilling/machining on it? Per the law, he's perfectly legitimate in putting his own unique serial markings on the lower, and designating it for either pistol or rifle use. But it's his responsibility to declare it for it's use. Smart money would be to designate it as a pistol lower, and then, if so desired, the gun could be converted to rifle configuration and back again without hassles.

Looking at the Remington XP-100, it looks vaguely familiar, doesn't it - especially the repeater version. Where have you seen that bolt action before? A-Ha! The Remington Model 7 rifle!
Right down to parts interchangeability, they're assembly line cousins. But the serial numbers and roll markings on the receivers are coded/designated separately for the XP-100 pistol and Model 7 Rifle.

Now, once you get into AOW's or SBR's, it's a different ball of wax, but that receiver still started life, if you didn't make or finish construction of it yourself, as a designated pistol or rifle. ;)
 
Hi, Gewehr98,

The XP-100 pistol came out long before the Model 7; in fact it came out before the Model 600, which used basically the same action. It wasn't a matter of not making a pistol out of a rifle, the receivers are different and marked differently.

I looked at that picture and thought the shroud surrounded the barrel, but it does not. FWIW, here is the definition of assault pistol in the law.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An assault weapon is....:

A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim
 
A receiver or action from a manufacturer is not specified as a rifle or pistol. It is sold off the bound book as a receiver or action. A stripped metal AR type reciever cannot be made into a pistol unless the assembler can keep the weight below 50 oz., which would be very difficult to do. As an example, look at the sale of SAKO bolt actions 'in the white'. They can legally be built into a rifle or a bolt action pistol (and often are for metallic shilloette shooting), but the barrelled actions from SAKO, Remington, or Weatherby cannot be rebarrelled or have their barrels shortened to be a pistol since they were already of a rifle configuration when they left the factory, even if they didn't have a stock attached. This is like the Wilson Witness Protection 'shotgun' built on a Remington 870 receiver with a pistol grip. They got some of the bare receivers from Remington and built them to be an AOW smooth bore pistol with a $5 transfer fee. They may never have a shoulder stock attached, to do so would make it a short barrelled shotgun which requires a $200 transfer fee. Remington quit selling the receivers for awhile so many SBP's were built on Mossberg 500 shotgun receivers.
 
I don't know how good of a home defense weapon that would be.
.223 out of a barrel that short is probably LOUD! Add that to the fact that you'd be firing the weapon indoors, and you're probably looking at more of a hearing loss than you would suffer had you used a scattergun.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see Neo doing a John Woo style Bullet-Time gunfight with one of those puppies clenched in each hand. :cool:

Or, I suppose, the next best thing, Antonio Banderas in the newest installment of 'Desperado.'
onceuponposter.jpg
 
Going off topic,

I really liked "El Mariachi" when it came out in 1993. I still like it.
But I really think they've made it into a joke action flick series. C'mon, guitar cases shooting belt fed ammo, and rockets?

This was one movie that didn't need a sequal, prequal, or remake, it stood out as a good movie, now sadly ruined.
 
re: AR-15 Pistol

I have the Carbon 15 pistol. I had jamming problems at first, but it seems to work fine now. The factory magazine is junk, use USGI or Thermold magazines and you should be OK. Knowing your penchant for somewhat exotic firearms (like me! :D ), I think you would be pleased with one of them. It does not recoil much at all, although it makes plenty of noise. For some reason, I can't seem to get used to the trigger, but it's probably just me.

FWIW, I bought mine at CDNN last year. They don't have any more, but I see where Bachman Pawn & Gun has them for $650-700. They are in Shotgun News. Hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top