Turning a pistol into a rifle by adding a magnified sight/scope

[-]

theFartingCarp@reddit

*Looks at the scoped revolvers*

BEHOLD! A RIFLE!

[-]

Revolver scopes are not "Limited Eye Relief" optics, meaning your eye has to be within "3 inches" of the optic....they are long relief optics which means there is no fixed relief distance. The rule is focusing on the fact the "Limited" optics force you to fire it like a rifle, while the revolver scopes don't.

[-]

NayroGain@reddit (OP)

the first thing that came to my mind 😂

[-]

JimMarch@reddit

So here's what's going on.

Let's assume you start with an AR-15 pattern true definite pistol - 8" rifled barrel, bufferless, pic rail on the back so you can add basically any brace or stock you want, mechanically speaking. No sights yet.

You add a folding brace. At this point under the rulings on braces you're legally ok so far.

You then add iron sights, or a red dot with LONG eye relief, or holographic sight with long eye relief.

You're still legal under the court rulings on braces because the gun CAN be used without shouldering the brace like it was a stock.

BUT!

You then take off the red dot or holographic sight and add a SHORT eye relief scope - usually an LPVO or prism. Short eye relief means generally a max of about four inches between your eyeball and the rear of the scope. (An otherwise long eye relief red dot with a magnifier behind it turns it into short eye relief behind the magnifier.)

You now just made an NFA short barrel rifle and if you have no special paperwork on it, a felony.

Why?

Because the ONLY way to effectively use it is to shoulder it like a stock, due to the eye relief.

Caveats:

Primary Arms is working hard on a LONG eye relief prism with no magnification (1x). They showed something very impressive at Shot Show in 2024. I don't know the status of that, whether it's shipping or not. If I recall correctly it still might be legally risky because it's labeled as working better in short eye relief mode, but the fact that it's usable with up to two FEET of eye relief might save you.

Maybe.

The other thing I don't know about are Scout Scopes, generally having an eye relief of about a foot. Some are variable and the eye relief might change with magnification level. I don't have much experience with these and I've never heard of any with illuminated reticles so the tactical usage is kinda limited so...I wouldn't bother.

Anyways. Bottom line, putting a short eye relief sight system into a pistol doesn't save you. It can only get you into trouble.

Oh God, ANOTHER CAVEAT:

Let's say you start with the same gun, don't add a stock OR brace, but you put some kind of padding on the rear so you can CHEEK rest it. If that's not clear, see this example:

https://youtu.be/7UDeNrjGhtE

The opening slow-motion footage shows what's going on.

If you set up an AR-15 pistol to shoot like that and use a SHORT eye relief sight, are you legal? Especially if you don't own any brace OR stock that can be clipped onto that gun quickly? (Avoiding "constructive possession" issues - claims by ATF that you can set it up legally dirty.)

Fuck if I know. There's an argument that this is legal. There's other arguments that it'll get your dog shot. I have no idea how that would go.

[-]

LeadnLasers@reddit

Dude literally the first thought I had as well. This is really mostly going to piss off a bunch of hunters, we all know that the pistol ar’s they want to catch with this new rule usually have NO sights😂😂

[-]

jgacks@reddit

So many people in mn use braced pistols to hunt south of the shotgun/ rifle line. It's so prevalent that the state is likely to just adopt a use what ever you want stance lol

[-]

Unhindged_Potatoe@reddit

Whoever thought of that one is one dumb SOB

[-]

MrDeacle@reddit

The simple solution is to apply a bipod, as it therefore would classify as a man and not a gun.

[-]

The-Fotus@reddit

The old featherless biped.

[-]

Lewcypher_@reddit

Homotriggersaurausrex

[-]

Seinnet@reddit

Revolver/pistol scopes have “pistol length” eye relief at like 16-20 inches vs like 4 inches of eye relief on traditionally rifle mounted scopes, so that would explicitly not qualify

[-]

PreferYouNotToKnow@reddit

So glad someone can read

[-]

Daqpanda@reddit

16-20" is still limited eye relief. Unless there is a specific exception scoped pistols could be considered rifles.

Fuck the ATF.

[-]

theFartingCarp@reddit

Dead 2 yr old attempt at a new rule buuuut something to keep in mind of shit they've tried

[-]

wildjabali@reddit

Right? Specialty pistols- Contenders, Encores, XP100, etc just became very complicated.

[-]

Aggie74-DP@reddit

From what I understand and before the bad attempts to come up with some numerical value where Most end up being SBR's......

But basically, anything that make your PISTOL OPERATE in a Manner MORE LIke a Rifle would no longer be a rifle.
AR's pistols should be able to be fired with 1 hand, and not really require 2 hands and a shoulder like a rifle.....

Scopes designed for shooting at distances, where you most probably have to shoulder the gun etc. -> Rifle
Forward Grips so you can shoulder the rifle --> Rifle.

Those are what I found in the regs maybe 8-10 years ago.

Not saying I agree with it all, but that was I believe part of the compromise when the Pistol Braces came out.

[-]

Kihav@reddit

If it’s not a written & passed law, there’s nothing for them to legally enforce

[-]

sttbr@reddit

This is from January of two years ago... on a defunct ruling that was thrown out

[-]

bajasauce2025@reddit

I just don't pay attention to the atf or their suggestions.

[-]

KittehKittehKat@reddit

They change the MF rules so often I don’t know if I’m cool or a felon.

[-]

bajasauce2025@reddit

Constitution says you're cool 😎

[-]

KittehKittehKat@reddit

If only!

[-]

SnowDin556@reddit

It’s really hard to keep up even if you try and study the law any and every question seems to be about a grey area, that could easily be overturned for nothing. Enforcement is weak. Getting weaker by the day. No one wants to enforce them and no one wants to change their shit every 6 months because the way the way are up down and side to side

[-]

Unicorn187@reddit

So do we have a link to the ATF rule itself, not a page or person fishing for clicks? Maybe the SAF or FPC, or even the NRA? Nit someone most people have never heard of.

[-]

NayroGain@reddit (OP)

it’s the link off googles answer suggestion lol

[-]

Unicorn187@reddit

And even that one says it's over two years old.

Here is the ATF link, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

And the link to the rule itself,

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-31/pdf/2023-01001.pdf

The optics are just one of the, "factoring criteria," like the point system to determine if it is or isn't an SBR.

[-]

NayroGain@reddit (OP)

Should I add the VFG and wait for ATF to show up knocking and then yell at them for never making their minds up about stuff?

[-]

Unicorn187@reddit

So ce they've never changed their minds about that it would be kind of stupid. With few exceptions almost every law is black and white. The brace is one kf the exceptions that proves the rule. That's why it stands out so much.

And likely wouldn't have even been an issue if a couple thousand morons hadn't written them asking for letters if it was OK to shoulder them. It doesn't need to have your name on the letter to show precedence. A thousand people asking for a fucking letter just brought it to someone's attention.

[-]

Col_Clucks@reddit

Abolish the ATF. These government bureaucrats should not be allowed to just make up shit as they please.

To the agents seeing this post.

Shit like this is why no one will date you fed boi

[-]

islesfan186@reddit

I’m pretty sure this came out when the ATF said that pistol braces on ARs, PCCs, and shorty AKs were a no-no. But since that isn’t a thing anymore, I don’t believe this is either

[-]

Double_Minimum@reddit

You shouldn’t be getting your info from a law firm’s website. That’s like asking a salesperson if their product is the best, and expecting them to break down complex aspects of theirs and competitors products for you, for free.

If you are going to consult a lawyer, realize they make money doing this, and the websites are not perfect.

Also this is some weird shit that I imagine I would have heard of before. The ATF is not determining eye relief ranges, nor is it going to say, “well you have to hold that up to your face to see, but we can’t let your shoot a pistol like that. Finally, if it isn’t obvious, any real aspect of this is meant to try again to fix the brace loophole, which it seems like only 1% of braces owners decided to save $200 per gun with the amnesty, which required no engraving, and is a list you can have your gun removed from if you want to sell it. In fact, I am pretty positive if you return it to “non-sbr” configuration, you can sell that former SBR as a regular gun. And if, in that process, the LGS looks at it as a pistol (no brace), it will likely become a handgun again and not because of your doing. I just wish I had though of getting more lowers to SBR and some Glock clone grips or Sig FCUs and having them registered too.

[-]

jcmadick@reddit

Why is it that federal agencies are the only ones I see going out of their way to make their job (that they rarely do well) more difficult? I'd love to have seen them try to deal with the scoped pistols that I see.

[-]

Stellakinetic@reddit

In their eyes it’s not making their job more difficult. The more convoluted the law is, the easier it is for them to arrest people and do whatever they want and use the “grey area” to justify their actions.

[-]

baconman888@reddit

If a law is unjust, a man is boy only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

[-]

Crazy-Ad-2161@reddit

The US gun laws make absolutely no sense.

[-]

riversofgore@reddit

How does the ATF suck so bad at this?

[-]

ServingTheMaster@reddit

*2023

homie, learn to proof read

[-]

Western_Ladder_3593@reddit

Nobody gives a fuck. They can't make up rules. We do.

[-]

Agammamon@reddit

Adding a scope does not turn it into a rifle. Adding a stock turns it into an SBR.

Without the stock you can put on a scope and a long barrel and it's still a pistol.

[-]

ExoticGeologist@reddit

It's from a rule they proposed but pulled. Doesn't mean anything now.

[-]

singlemale4cats@reddit

I think a vertical grip will turn it into an aow. A stock will turn it into an sbr.

[-]

NetJnkie@reddit

Yeah. For a while the ATF was trying to come up with an awful "points system" to define a rifle or pistol. This is from that.

[-]

gun_runna@reddit

Not unless it’s over 30” (something like that) OAL.

[-]

HlaaluAssassin@reddit

26”

[-]

Diligent-Parfait-236@reddit

At which point it becomes an "other firearm".

[-]

snippysniper@reddit

Aow not rifle

[-]

Chewie090@reddit

Yeah that article is also 2 years old. If the ATF actually did make that a rule and kept it, we would have heard of someone getting arrested over it by now

[-]

james_68@reddit

There have been arrests though. I'm struggling to find a reference now but I definitely remember a recent (within the last month) article or video where a man was arrested for an illegal SBR for this very reason. There is also the charges against Taylor Taranto for having an SBR that were dropped by the DOJ after it was pointed out that the charge of carrying a pistol without a license and owning an SBR for the same gun was inherently stupid.

Arrest and conviction are 2 different things but both are very expensive.

The ATFs take has never changed. They consider a braced pistol to be an SBR despite the nationwide injunction. They have stated that they still intend to determine if a pistol is classified as an SBR on a case by case basis.

Their argument here is that an optic with short eye relief is intended to be shouldered, therefore it is a rifle. Their argument, not mine.

The fact remains that there is still a large rogue element in the ATF that is resisting both the courts and the DOJ guidance on pistol braces.

I've said this from day one when the nationwide injunction was issued and everyone was like "yay it's over". This is not over, and will not be until congress starts writing some clear laws.

[-]

ThosBeans457@reddit

I thought a VFG turned a pistol into an AOW not a rifle, did they change that rue too?

[-]

NayroGain@reddit (OP)

aw shucks :( thanks anyways guys

[-]

6ought6@reddit

Laughs in cheek pistol

[-]

Nemo_the_Exhalted@reddit

This is 2 years old and was never actually enacted, that’s why you can’t find it…

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

They must really be sitting in their office throwing darts at a board of words to try and piece some dumb shit together

[-]

cIaim@reddit

Fun fact: the ATF used to have a "point system" in order to determine the type of firearm you have. No longer a thing but still kind of funny to look at.

https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

[-]

Netan_MalDoran@reddit

Lol, LMAO even.

[-]

Science-Compliance@reddit

Is this classification really that big of a deal? I mean, if you're holding a magnified optic up to your shoulder and putting your face close to it, that would pretty much classify it as a rifle, no? How big of a deal is this really for the SBR rules? Are people really running magnifiers or scopes a lot with their 'pistols', i.e. short-barreled AR-15's with pistol braces?

[-]

kileme77@reddit

My 5" gp100 .357 revolver has a magnified optic on it. I'd say it's a fairly big deal if I get charged with a gun crime for something that I've had since the 90s.

[-]

Science-Compliance@reddit

Does it have short eye relief?

[-]

kileme77@reddit

The article says "limited" that can go both ways.

[-]

gameragodzilla@reddit

So if a slap a scope on my Desert Eagle, I turn it into an SBR?

[-]

Kv603@reddit

i’d like to add a vertical grip to my akv without paying a $200 tax stamp and not going with the angled, would a magnified sight make it a rifle? a sbr?

This doesn't get out of paying the $200

Adding a VFG to a pistol (such as the short barreled AKV) gives you an AOW.

Add a stock and you have an SBR.

[-]

Sousafro@reddit

IIRC, AOW tax stamps are only $5 as opposed to $200

[-]

Kv603@reddit

Transferring a pre-made AOW on a Form 4 is $5.

Making an AOW for yourself on a Form 1? $200.

[-]

darkside501st@reddit

Holy cow! I didn't realize that. I'm glad i saw your post. Why would there be a price difference?

[-]

Tybick@reddit

Because all laws are made up and arbitrary bullshit meant to inconvenience you and extort money

[-]

Sousafro@reddit

ahh, thank you.

[-]

NayroGain@reddit (OP)

“Yes, angled foregrips on pistols are generally considered legal under federal law. Unlike vertical foregrips, which can transform a pistol into an AOW (Any Other Weapon), angled foregrips are not subject to the same restrictions. The ATF has clarified that angled foregrips, such as the Magpul AFG, do not make a pistol an AOW.”

[-]

Simply, Eye relief is the distance between the scope and your eye when the image is in focus.

American Rifleman article on the concept - Rifleman Q&A: Eye Relief Explanation, Application | An Official Journal Of The NRA