What constitutes a Vertical Forward Grip?

[USAF_Vet]

Wasn't sure if I should post this here or in NFA, it applies sorta to both.

I'm building a 9mm AR pistol consisting of a steel lower and a steel Uzi magwell. I'd like to get a set of Uzi grips to cover the magwell, but concerned that, on a pistol, it would be interpreted as a VFG, which ATF says turns it into an AOW. The magwell does not protrude in front of the lower, but it does stick down below where the magwell would be on a standard 5.56 lower.

I know on traditional ARs, the wrap around molded mag well grips are not considered a VFG, so I'm assuming it should be safe, but I can't actually find anything in the letter of the law that defines what is, and what isn't a VFG on a pistol, and therefore an AOW.




It may be a moot point as I'm at a roadblock with my design that may force me into a rifle configuration rather than a pistol, but that's another subject.

 

[mokin]

Can't help you with your question but it sounds like a cool build.

 

[pjeski]

I have never seen any reference to a legal description of what is a VFG and what is not. I've been looking for a letter that answers this, but never stumbled across one.

My own assumption is based on the fact that they allow AFGs such as the magpul one. I believe it is a matter of whether or not you can wrap your hand around it. But again, just an assumption.

Also, what's the OAL of your build going to be? If it will end up over 26", you can put a VFG on it, and avoid the AOW classification because of the OAL if you don't actually conceal it.

 

[Theohazard]

The ATF does not consider a mag well grip to be vertical grip. Obviously they could change their mind on this, but as of now you're completely fine. And I doubt that will change.

http://johnpierceesq.com/does-the-mako-magwell-grip-make-an-ar-pistol-into-an-aow/

[resize=800] [/resize]

 

[pjeski]

Theohazard,
I've seen that letter. The problem with it is it does not explain why Mr. Spencer doesn't think the MWG is a VFG. This is one of the letters that made me form my opinion (which is all it is) that it involves whether or not you can wrap your hand around it. You can't get your hand around a MWG any more than you can an AFG or just a handguard on an AR (at least not in a pistol-grip sense), whereas with a true VFG, you can. In the OP's case, if there is space behind the magwell such that you can wrap your hand around the UZI grip, the ATF might not like that, and in any case that would be different enough from a standard AR magwell that I don't think this letter would apply. (Of course, tech branch letters generally only apply to the addressees anyway).

In this case, I think USAF Vet should write the tech branch (if his pistol is under 26" oal). This isn't repetitive of other letters (at least not so much that you see them all over Arfcom ) and a negative response wouldn't impact many gun owners.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The ATF does not consider a mag well grip to be vertical grip. Obviously they could change their mind on this, but as of now you're completely fine....

No, I'm afraid you're wrong about the OP being fine. We still don't know.

The ATF has not stated an opinion on magazine well grips in general. It has only passed on the particular magazine well device addressed in the letter.

That is how regulatory agencies work. When an agency has issued an opinion or determination letter it will take the position that the letter applies only to the exact device or fact situation or circumstances specifically described in the request and referred to in the agency letter.

 

[Theohazard]

No, I'm afraid you're wrong about the OP being fine. We still don't know.

The ATF has not stated an opinion on magazine well grips in general. It has only passed on the particular magazine well device addressed in the letter.

You're right, I should have said that he's probably fine. The ATF doesn't like approving products like that in general, so I doubt we'll ever see any determination letter saying that all magwell grips in general are fine.

However, based on that letter and the author's reference to examining other similar designs, it seems likely to me that any similar magwell grip would be fine. That, along with the ATF's various opinion letters regarding angled fore grips, seems to indicate that the ATF has a narrow definition of "vertical fore grip". Here is a definition from one ATF letter:

For your information, Federal law currently does not define "Vertical Fore Grip"; however, ATF has determined that a grip of this type is distinguished by being both forward of the magazine well and oriented at a perpendicular (90-degree) angle to the bore of the weapon.

[resize=800] [/resize]


So you're right, I shouldn't have said he's "completely fine", because the ATF likes to change their opinion on things. But all indication is that he's most likely fine.

 

[pjeski]

Thanks for that letter.

 

[Theohazard]

No problem. I knew I'd seen the definition somewhere but it took a little while to find it.

 

[pjeski]

Be careful calling it a "definition".

Right in this "definition" is the admonishment that federal law does not define a VFG. It's a "determination".

 

[Theohazard]

You're absolutely right. Good catch.

 

[kozak6]

Yeah. The 1934 NFA doesn't say a single thing about vertical pistol grips or grips at an angle to the bore, and they were otherwise lawful on pistols into the 1980's.

BATFE's current interpretation is that since a handgun has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand, then a pistol designed to be fired with two hands is actually not a pistol, but rather an AOW.

I don't see why this doesn't make all pistols with hooked trigger guards AOW's, but that's another thread.

Anyways, BATFE has decided that at 26" of overall length, a firearm is no longer concealable (unless you actually conceal it, or unless they change their mind since this isn't actually written into law either), which may remove it from AOW territory.

At this point, it becomes a Class I "Other", and may have as many vertical grips as you can stuff on it. Google the Franklin Armory XO 26 for more information.

So, if your intended firearm is going to be under 26" in overall length or concealed, then it would be safest to omit the grips.

If it's going to be over 26" in overall length, you can probably have a vertical foregrip unless you draw federal attention and provoke the BATFE into reinterpreting the law.

 

[USAF_Vet]

OK, OP here again.

I've seen those letters, which prompted this question. The MAKO MWG is very close in application to what I envision. My receiver does not have an open, empty space behind the Uzi magwell, so I can't wrap a hand all the way around it like a pistol grip. As it sits currently, it's a bare Uzi magwell (anyone familiar with the design knows it has open areas that could cause a pinch point).

The letter regarding the SE-5 AFG really doesn't apply because it's not being mounted on the hand guard, as they are designed to do, and couldn't possibly fit on the magwell.

Looks like I'll have to take some photos and write to the Tech branch if I do intend to keep this a pistol. It's looking to have a 7" barrel and a stubby receiver extension so it should still fall well below 26" OAL.

However, I'm still kicking around the idea of a 16" bbl carbine and full stock.

Eventually I'll do a build thread.

 

[dogtown tom]

kozak6 Yeah. The 1934 NFA doesn't say a single thing about vertical pistol grips or grips at an angle to the bore, and they were otherwise lawful on pistols into the 1980's.

I believe handguns with a second vertical grip were NFA from 1934 on and were never "..otherwise lawful on pistols into the 1980's...".

While the actual text of the law doesn't mention vertical grips on pistols, the implementing regulations DO define "pistol".
Here's how ATF explains it:https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-may2006-open-letter-adding-vertical-fore-grip-handgun/download

ADDING A VERTICAL FORE GRIP TO A HANDGUN
“Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand…. Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).

Under an implementing regulation of the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined as:
… 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).

The firearms recovered from John Dillingers gang included SBR's, SBS's machine guns and an oddity............a Colt Government model with a second vertical grip (It had been modified to fire full auto).


Those firearms served as a blueprint for what was destined to be included in the NFA.

BATFE's current interpretation is that since a handgun has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand, then a pistol designed to be fired with two hands is actually not a pistol, but rather an AOW.

That interpretation isn't just current, it's been the definition since 1934.

I don't see why this doesn't make all pistols with hooked trigger guards AOW's, but that's another thread.

A hooked trigger guard isn't a vertical grip.....it's a hooked trigger guard.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I believe handguns with a second vertical grip were NFA from 1934 on and were never "..otherwise lawful on pistols into the 1980's...".

While the actual text of the law doesn't mention vertical grips on pistols, the implementing regulations DO define "pistol".
Here's how ATF explains it:https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-may2006-open-letter-adding-vertical-fore-grip-handgun/download




The firearms recovered from John Dillingers gang included SBR's, SBS's machine guns and an oddity............a Colt Government model with a second vertical grip (It had been modified to fire full auto).


Those firearms served as a blueprint for what was destined to be included in the NFA.





That interpretation isn't just current, it's been the definition since 1934.




A hooked trigger guard isn't a vertical grip.....it's a hooked trigger guard.

When were these guns captured? Dillinger himself was killed only 4 days before the GCA '34 passing.

I wonder if those Thompson style grips would be angled enough for recent rulings?

Mike

 

[dogtown tom]

Arizona_Mike Quote:
When were these guns captures? Dillinger was killed only 4 days before the GCA '34 passing.

The guns were recovered from his gang, not John Dillinger himself. I believe he had a .380 pistol when he was killed.

I wonder if those Thompson style grips would be angled enough for recent rulings?

I highly doubt they would be considered anything but a vertical grip.

 

[USAF_Vet]

It's tough to say whether a Thompson style front grip would be considered a vertical grip or an angled grip. The Stark Industries SE-5 AFG mentioned in the letter above doesn't have much more of an angle than the Thompson did.


SE-5 AFG


Thompson

 

[Kaeto]

I used to have a book that showed how to make that forward grip on that 1911. The book also told how to do the full auto conversion.

 

[pjeski]

The ATF implied that the Thompson grip is a VFG in the Franklin XO-26 determination letter:
http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf

They reference the 1927-A5 "pistol" by Auto-Ordnance:
'Although marketed by Auto-Ordnance as a pistol, it does not conform to the definition of “handgun” or “pistol” as provided in Federal firearms statutes since it is not designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand'

So I would think they consider the foregrip on a Thompson to be a VFG, not an AFG, despite the angle on it.

So I wonder where between a Thompson foregrip and this Stark SE-5 the line is.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The guns were recovered from his gang, not John Dillinger himself. I believe he had a .380 pistol when he was killed.

Got that part but still wondering how much actual influence these guns had on Congress. Some claim the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre (which did involve two Thompson) and others point to the 1933 assassination attempt on the President (although Giuseppe Zangara used a .32 revolver).

Mike