search
top

Bipod Grips

Uncle asks about whether ATF would argue a bipod grip attached to a handgun would make it an AOW.  I have to admit… the the bipod grip almost looks useless enough to be designed specifically to piss off the ATF.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Post to Technorati

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. My Day Without State Government
  2. Teaching With Laser Grips
  3. Can U

6 Responses to “Bipod Grips”

  1. . . . the the bipod grip almost looks useless enough . . .

    Damn–I think it’s kinda cool ;).

  2. Sebastian says:

    Well, if it confounds the ATF, I approve.

  3. Mad Saint Jack says:

    My friend put one of those on his Walther G22 rifle. I had a similar worry that he was violating the 922 crap.

  4. Sebastian says:

    It’s fine on a rifle. A rifle is a rifle. A handgun is defined under the National Firearms Act as a firearm designed to be held by a single hand. ATF’s contention is because a grip makes it designed to be held by two hands, but it’s not a rifle or shotgun, which is “fired from the shoulder” then it falls under AOW, which is basically everything else.

  5. Mad Saint Jack says:

    It may not be fine on an imported rifle. I can not put a forward grip or a folding stock on my Egyptian Maadi with out installing X number of US parts to make the gun 922 compliant. The G22 should fall under the same importation law. I believe this is what is referred to as “the sporting purpose clause.”

    I understand the law in regards to AOW’s. At the NRA convention I saw that the company that makes the .22 cal MP-5 clone had a pistol version on display. This pistol had an accessory rail under the fore grip, and I took one look at it and said to the rep at the booth “you know someone is going to stick a grip on there and make it an illegal AOW.”

  6. Sebastian says:

    US parts are always OK. It’s foreign parts you have to watch out for.

top