This is what I was getting at, it has been my expierence that those in the field aren't always up to snuff with rulings and law.
That said after hearing from you guys I will he using mine this season.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Legality: Indiana Deer Hunting w/300BLK AR15 Pistol w/ Sig SB15 Arm Brace
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This is what I was getting at, it has been my expierence that those in the field aren't always up to snuff with rulings and law.
That said after hearing from you guys I will he using mine this season.
jblomenberg16
Grandmaster
Yep, use with confidence! I'll be using mine again too. I do keep a copy of the latest regulation with me so that I can clearly refer to it if there are any future questions. I think that with each passing year the word probably spreads and the CO's in the field become more familiar with the legality of a 300BLK AR pistol.
Do you subscribe to what Hookeye said up thread about being a violation to place the arm brace to your shoulder?
https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download
Has this been challenged and changed?
What I heard ..............dunno how true. The Sig Brace was designed for handicapped folks, so if the BATF didn't approve it they could be sued for discrimination.
Designer had them over a barrel. Hence the allowance for what we all knew would be shoulder used by many.
Now my take.............
Shotgun News (and who else?) ran a couple of "articles" about the Sig Brace being shoulder fired, and that "playing cute" rubbed the BATF's nose in it.
Maybe if they had shut up things would have been left alone.
But people are stupid.
So the BATF made a clarification later.
Play whatever game one wants, just don't b*tch about the price later.
Has this been challenged and changed?
What I heard ..............dunno how true. The Sig Brace was designed for handicapped folks, so if the BATF didn't approve it they could be sued for discrimination.
Designer had them over a barrel. Hence the allowance for what we all knew would be shoulder used by many.
Now my take.............
Shotgun News (and who else?) ran a couple of "articles" about the Sig Brace being shoulder fired, and that "playing cute" rubbed the BATF's nose in it.
Maybe if they had shut up things would have been left alone.
But people are stupid.
So the BATF made a clarification later.
Play whatever game one wants, just don't b*tch about the price later.
Last edited:
jblomenberg16
Grandmaster
I actually don't have an arm brace on mine...just a regular pistol buffer tube. But given the ATF's language, sounds like shouldering is a no-no, even with a standard pistol tube.
Grey area?
Even on an AR rifle, a stock is attached to the buffer tube.
I was thinking a bare buffer tube might be shouldered without issue.
If they wanted no handguns shoulder fired all they had to say is "the practice of shooting handguns from the shoulder is illegal" (period).
Do what you want........with a bare buffer tube. Wouldn't Youtube vid it though
Sig braces are devices, which sounds a lot like something added to a basic allowable handgun form. They even LOOK like a shoulder stock, offer a larger area to be placed on the shoulder...........so really do appear to be added for shoulder usage. So blatantly obvious to be comical.
Which then kinda means to me the rumor of the initial design having the agency over a barrel, due to handicap legalities and discrimination..........sure sounds legit.
And I bet the BATF knew a further ruling would be needed and played along, waited for the media to build the agency's case.
By my thinking, even a foam covering on a AR pistol buffer tube for cheek weld or added arm support/friction/comfort, points toward an accessory/device possible for shoulder usage........even though one might not touch it to the shoulder............it sure looks like "intent".
Bare buffer tube might be legal...............dunno. Am sure thinking ANYTHING added to a buffer tube, and then shoulder firing it...........is a no no.
Like the link I posted in prev............it's abut money. Pay your $200 stamp and they don't care what you do.
Even on an AR rifle, a stock is attached to the buffer tube.
I was thinking a bare buffer tube might be shouldered without issue.
If they wanted no handguns shoulder fired all they had to say is "the practice of shooting handguns from the shoulder is illegal" (period).
Do what you want........with a bare buffer tube. Wouldn't Youtube vid it though
Sig braces are devices, which sounds a lot like something added to a basic allowable handgun form. They even LOOK like a shoulder stock, offer a larger area to be placed on the shoulder...........so really do appear to be added for shoulder usage. So blatantly obvious to be comical.
Which then kinda means to me the rumor of the initial design having the agency over a barrel, due to handicap legalities and discrimination..........sure sounds legit.
And I bet the BATF knew a further ruling would be needed and played along, waited for the media to build the agency's case.
By my thinking, even a foam covering on a AR pistol buffer tube for cheek weld or added arm support/friction/comfort, points toward an accessory/device possible for shoulder usage........even though one might not touch it to the shoulder............it sure looks like "intent".
Bare buffer tube might be legal...............dunno. Am sure thinking ANYTHING added to a buffer tube, and then shoulder firing it...........is a no no.
Like the link I posted in prev............it's abut money. Pay your $200 stamp and they don't care what you do.
Last edited:
AR pistol buffer tubes are shorter than reg, which makes them less likely to be shoulder fired.
They make for a crappy stock.
Probably why AR handguns are legal.
Basic part not modified, nothing attached..........might be allowable.
Again, with the way laws are written ( for debate and generate $)......and with how so many people are A holes looking to start trouble for others...........I'd not Youtube or admit anything on a forum.
They make for a crappy stock.
Probably why AR handguns are legal.
Basic part not modified, nothing attached..........might be allowable.
Again, with the way laws are written ( for debate and generate $)......and with how so many people are A holes looking to start trouble for others...........I'd not Youtube or admit anything on a forum.
jblomenberg16
Grandmaster
Yeah, the laws are certainly not very black and white, and that is often intentional as it allows for "interpretation." The kicker in all of this is that an AR-15 SBR in 300BLK is not legal to use for deer hunting in Indiana.
So...even though I do have a legal SBR lower that my 300BLK upper normally rides on, I also have a dedicated pistol lower that I use for hunting.
So...even though I do have a legal SBR lower that my 300BLK upper normally rides on, I also have a dedicated pistol lower that I use for hunting.
Last edited:
I thought SBRs were legal for deer hunting, but being a Short Barrel Rifle they had to meet the rifle cartridge spec.
The problem when I checked into it years ago was making a rifle into a handgun, which requires SBR stamp. The gun then could legally exist in handgun or rifle form.
But the State would not recognize a SBR in handgun form as handgun. The specialist flat out told me "a rifle is a rifle".
Supposedly, and I think I even read it on DNR copy someplace not all that long ago.............that the State was to align more with the Feds on this.
That then meaning a SBR in handgun form for deer, would need to follow the handgun cartridge spec.
Dunno if that passed or not.
But no, a .300 Blk SBR is not going to be legal with a buttstock on it for deer, no matter what. In that form it's no handgun, and in that form the .300 doesn't meet the rifle cartridge spec.
FWIW I thought I'd get a Rem 7600 in .243 and convert to handgun. Mag fed, free float bbl and easy. Was willing to drop the $ for the stamp.
But the State said they would not recognize it for deer hunting...........since it was a SBR. Handgun form and legality did not matter.
I think the law now allows for my build. I had asked Tanks about doing it, but he said he was swamped with shotgun work. I asked back then if he could get me a 7600 receiver, and I also contacted Remington, for the custom shop...............to have them classify a 7600 receiver as handgun from them, then send to Tanks for completion. They were of no help.
Tanks thought it a cool idea, just too busy. Said getting 870 receivers was tough enough.
That a few yrs ago.
If I find a donor rig at a good price, I'll do it. Right now rebarrel of my Ruger #1 RSI to .35 Rem takes priority.
The problem when I checked into it years ago was making a rifle into a handgun, which requires SBR stamp. The gun then could legally exist in handgun or rifle form.
But the State would not recognize a SBR in handgun form as handgun. The specialist flat out told me "a rifle is a rifle".
Supposedly, and I think I even read it on DNR copy someplace not all that long ago.............that the State was to align more with the Feds on this.
That then meaning a SBR in handgun form for deer, would need to follow the handgun cartridge spec.
Dunno if that passed or not.
But no, a .300 Blk SBR is not going to be legal with a buttstock on it for deer, no matter what. In that form it's no handgun, and in that form the .300 doesn't meet the rifle cartridge spec.
FWIW I thought I'd get a Rem 7600 in .243 and convert to handgun. Mag fed, free float bbl and easy. Was willing to drop the $ for the stamp.
But the State said they would not recognize it for deer hunting...........since it was a SBR. Handgun form and legality did not matter.
I think the law now allows for my build. I had asked Tanks about doing it, but he said he was swamped with shotgun work. I asked back then if he could get me a 7600 receiver, and I also contacted Remington, for the custom shop...............to have them classify a 7600 receiver as handgun from them, then send to Tanks for completion. They were of no help.
Tanks thought it a cool idea, just too busy. Said getting 870 receivers was tough enough.
That a few yrs ago.
If I find a donor rig at a good price, I'll do it. Right now rebarrel of my Ruger #1 RSI to .35 Rem takes priority.
Last edited:
FYI
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2362.htm
312 IAC 9-3-3: Makes the following changes governing deer hunting equipment:
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2362.htm
312 IAC 9-3-3: Makes the following changes governing deer hunting equipment:
- Allows the 28-gauge shotgun to be used during the firearms seasons and the special antlerless season. Twenty-eight (28) gauge deer slug ammunition is now available and allowing these firearms will provide deer hunters another choice of firearm with which to hunt deer.
- Clarifies that handguns currently legal to use during the firearms season are legal even if originally designed and registered as a rifle. This would clarify that a rifle that can be changed to be used as a handgun can be used during deer firearms season as long as it meets requirements for legal handguns.
- Allows firearms to be used during the deer reduction (formerly urban deer zone) season, where legal to discharge a firearm, from the first Saturday after November 11 through January 31 of the following year. Use of firearms in deer reduction zones would give communities greater flexibility to manage deer-related problems and should improve deer-harvest success rates.
- Changes the dates for placing tree or ground blinds on state and federal properties to noon on September 15 through January 10
- Allows those who place on tree stands or ground blinds on state and federal properties to identify it with their Indiana DNR-issued Customer ID number or name and address, instead of requiring only their name and address. This ID number is pretty short and would add a degree of privacy to hunters without interfering with law enforcement validation of the users.
jblomenberg16
Grandmaster
It appears tome from the code pasted that a SBR in handgun form is recognized as a handgun by the state now.
7600 .243 handgun might yet be a project!
Per the old days, SBR even in legal handgun form, was called a rifle by the state. So rifle cartridge spec it had to be.
7600 .243 handgun might yet be a project!
Per the old days, SBR even in legal handgun form, was called a rifle by the state. So rifle cartridge spec it had to be.
avboiler11
Master
Yeah. By the indiana code, that seems to be the case. BUT, by batfe specs, isn't it still, once a rifle, always a rifle? That seems like a pretty sketchy situation to me.
No.
If rifle first, always a rifle.
If handgun first, can swap back and forth between handgun and rifle as much as you wish.
The way I read it..............there are rifles and handguns...............the main categories.
Paying the $200 stamp for SBR allows one to have an item that can exist as either. A specialized instance.
So.....
Can a SBR legally exist in handgun FORM (even though it is still a rifle) and if so, does the state recognize/allow it to be sporting used ?
I see nothing explicit about SBR legal for deer, in rifle form only.
Or an exclusion of handgun form within SBR.
Some states used to just say no SBR for sporting.
Indiana said to me (when I checked yrs ago) that they would allow a SBR in handgun form, for deer..........but since it was a rifle first, it had to go by rifle cartridge spec.
I argued that made no sense if they recognize it in handgun form and won't allow handgun cartridge spec.
The gentleman got rather irritated.
It appears the state has since changed to let the FORM of the SBR dictate what cartridge may be used.
THAT the reason for the new wording in 2015.
If not, then they need not have said a thing.
Paying the $200 stamp for SBR allows one to have an item that can exist as either. A specialized instance.
So.....
Can a SBR legally exist in handgun FORM (even though it is still a rifle) and if so, does the state recognize/allow it to be sporting used ?
I see nothing explicit about SBR legal for deer, in rifle form only.
Or an exclusion of handgun form within SBR.
Some states used to just say no SBR for sporting.
Indiana said to me (when I checked yrs ago) that they would allow a SBR in handgun form, for deer..........but since it was a rifle first, it had to go by rifle cartridge spec.
I argued that made no sense if they recognize it in handgun form and won't allow handgun cartridge spec.
The gentleman got rather irritated.
It appears the state has since changed to let the FORM of the SBR dictate what cartridge may be used.
THAT the reason for the new wording in 2015.
If not, then they need not have said a thing.
Last edited:
I'm going to pop a beer, to celebrate my long awaited possible victory 
(and start looking for a donor 7600).
IIRC, while handguns need no special paperwork to be made into rifles (legal as long as they don't fall into SBR form during build process).............would the state recognize such a rifle as a handgun only? Since it was sold initially as one?
While the cartridge specs have one within the other (one direction progression OK)................what about areas that don't allow handgun hunting?
It was a handgun, and now is a rifle............no documentation declaring a difference. Does FORM then in that type of conversion trump manufacturer's classification?
It appears so.
Now the state looks to me to say it can go both ways.................but of course not everybody is paying $200 for a stamp and going on a Federal registry to play this game.............regular handguns and rifles are expensive enough. Good ones anyway
Think this such a small group, call it special interest.............even the state figured it not a problem and just changed it to follow Fed stuff.
Could be wrong, but then why did they even have to say anything this yr?
$200 for a tax stamp..................and how much are lowers these days?
One could go the much cheaper route without the hassle.
How long ago was the change to the 4473 where a stripped lower was sold as "receiver/other" and not declared handgun or rifle from the start?
By this new ruling it has made the law enforcement officers job easier.
Per the old rules one would have to run the serial number, to see what the lower was.
Now it doesn't matter.
Form dictates classification (as long as a rifle by initial classification does not go handgun outside of SBR).
Makes sense (finally).
If it's the way I read it anyway.
(and start looking for a donor 7600).IIRC, while handguns need no special paperwork to be made into rifles (legal as long as they don't fall into SBR form during build process).............would the state recognize such a rifle as a handgun only? Since it was sold initially as one?
While the cartridge specs have one within the other (one direction progression OK)................what about areas that don't allow handgun hunting?
It was a handgun, and now is a rifle............no documentation declaring a difference. Does FORM then in that type of conversion trump manufacturer's classification?
It appears so.
Now the state looks to me to say it can go both ways.................but of course not everybody is paying $200 for a stamp and going on a Federal registry to play this game.............regular handguns and rifles are expensive enough. Good ones anyway
Think this such a small group, call it special interest.............even the state figured it not a problem and just changed it to follow Fed stuff.
Could be wrong, but then why did they even have to say anything this yr?
$200 for a tax stamp..................and how much are lowers these days?
One could go the much cheaper route without the hassle.
How long ago was the change to the 4473 where a stripped lower was sold as "receiver/other" and not declared handgun or rifle from the start?
By this new ruling it has made the law enforcement officers job easier.
Per the old rules one would have to run the serial number, to see what the lower was.
Now it doesn't matter.
Form dictates classification (as long as a rifle by initial classification does not go handgun outside of SBR).
Makes sense (finally).
If it's the way I read it anyway.
Last edited:
While the Feds allow SBR to exist in handgun form, and the state does as well...........does the IDNR recognize an SBR for sporting use, specifically deer?
If so does it sporting recognize the 3 forms within SBR ( SBR can be configured to rifle, short barreled rifle, and handgun)?
If not all 3 then what form must it be in for sporting use?
AND does FORM dictate cartridge spec?
(tried to simplify my prev posts on the matter)
With the stripped lower thing...........the change on 4473..............it appears the state kinda had to follow along.
If not then they would have had a lot of policing to do (for nothing).
There are bigger fish to fry.
If so does it sporting recognize the 3 forms within SBR ( SBR can be configured to rifle, short barreled rifle, and handgun)?
If not all 3 then what form must it be in for sporting use?
AND does FORM dictate cartridge spec?
(tried to simplify my prev posts on the matter)
With the stripped lower thing...........the change on 4473..............it appears the state kinda had to follow along.
If not then they would have had a lot of policing to do (for nothing).
There are bigger fish to fry.
Last edited:
Just looked at the code again.
Sure looks to me to read.............
Stripped lower build, handgun or SBR...............in handgun form it looks like it now goes by handgun cartridge spec.
As it should.
And a few yrs back it didn't.
An 80% 7600 would save me $200 bucks though. Aint gonna happen. Big Green I won't even ask again. The Custom shop aint all that custom LOL.
My build will have to go SBR.
Sure looks to me to read.............
Stripped lower build, handgun or SBR...............in handgun form it looks like it now goes by handgun cartridge spec.
As it should.
And a few yrs back it didn't.
An 80% 7600 would save me $200 bucks though. Aint gonna happen. Big Green I won't even ask again. The Custom shop aint all that custom LOL.
My build will have to go SBR.
jblomenberg16
Grandmaster
Bumping this thread as I have re-read the regulation a few times. Doesn't sound like we ever definitively determined if a legal SBR would qualify as a handgun under current Indiana code, and thus be considered a handgun and subject to the handgun specs.
I've been using my 300BLK on a dedicated pistol lower just to be safe, but it would be nice to not have to swap it over and also be nice to use the stock vs. having to shoot it like a handgun (not shouldered) with my pistol lower.
I've been using my 300BLK on a dedicated pistol lower just to be safe, but it would be nice to not have to swap it over and also be nice to use the stock vs. having to shoot it like a handgun (not shouldered) with my pistol lower.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- Eagle21
- BehindBlueI's
- 308jake
- Splagt
- KMaC
- Iurobz
- LuckyOne
- Principal Skinr
- melensdad
- VERT
- 357 Terms
- tommy-t
- NyleRN
- rkwhyte2
- Bosshoss
- Codyf44
- Calvin
- Flingarrows
- WhitleyStu
- wabashman
- ChrisK
- ACR
- Chip
- pokersamurai
- Itchytriggerfinger
- Hkindiana
- hans1911
- jwamplerusa
- Mikey1911
- nucular
- CheeseRat
- gds
- jzwhts
- gunsisgood
- mcapo
- JRR85
- Rafterman
- jgarcia87
- knutty
- dieselrealtor
- Wolfhound
- STAGE 2
- medavis428@
- mcoppers
- Gabriel
- stack23
- Cameramonkey
- Ltrain37
- jamin
- yeahbaby
