Stabilizing Brace on a PPS-43C?

[A.J. Holst]

Being thrifty, I have been looking at different ways to make my more functional.

I may have stumbled on to a solution using and AK brace. I'll need to do some more measuring and research, but here's what I have:

1. Remove buttstock and destroy

2. Extend legs of non functional stock and lock permanently.

3. Attach stabilizing brace to legs of stock.

Or, totally remove stock and see if I can attack a hinged type. More research and measuring needed.

Thoughts, opinions, advice?

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, Gotthegoods said:

Being thrifty, I have been looking at different ways to make my more functional.

I may have stumbled on to a solution using and AK brace. I'll need to do some more measuring and research, but here's what I have:

1. Remove buttstock and destroy

2. Extend legs of non functional stock and lock permanently.

3. Attach stabilizing brace to legs of stock.

Or, totally remove stock and see if I can attack a hinged type. More research and measuring needed.

Thoughts, opinions, advice?

 

I for one don't understand what you are trying to achieve? It's an SBR, right? You just want a brace instead of a stock for whatever reason? If so, why destroy the buttstock?  and what's the "thrifty" part?

- OS

Edited November 19, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[A.J. Holst]

It's not in SBR form.

The attached complete folding stock is still in permanently disabled configuration.

Being a novelty firearm of recent manufacture, a legal, un-restricted modification would be cheaper and easier to later transfer and/or transport than a trusted firearm

[Oh Shoot]

8 minutes ago, Gotthegoods said:

It's not in SBR form.

The attached complete folding stock is still in permanently disabled configuration.

Being a novelty firearm of recent manufacture, a legal, un-restricted modification would be cheaper and easier to later transfer and/or transport than a trusted firearm

Still confused.

So it's not an SBR? (posting in NFA forum and you said "remove" buttstock).

Is it indeed then just still a GCA ("title 1") pistol? If so, anyway you can get a brace on it is fine, though it might be iffy to use part of the buttstock to do it, if that's part of the plan.

- OS

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[Hershmeister]

SBR it. The Stock is already on it. You just need a stamp and a new correct size button to replace the non functioning one on it. $200 well spent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gjohnsoniv]

I saw a guy do a similar thing with an Uzi and a Tailhook where he removed part of the stock and welded on a section to mount it.  I say go for it, nowhere does it say you can't do it. 

[Chucktshoes]

36 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Still confused.

So it's not an SBR? (posting in NFA forum and you said "remove" buttstock).

Is it indeed then just still a GCA ("title 1") pistol? If so, anyway you can get a brace on it is fine, though it might be iffy to use part of the buttstock to do it, if that's part of the plan.

- OS

 

The buttstock on this model is just for looks. It is non-functioning permanently affixed in the closed position. 

[A.J. Holst]

To clarify, remove the butt plate, sorry. 

Retain the two legs

Attach brace to legs.

My original plan was to SBR it, just considering a possible and faster alternative.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Bring it by sometime, let me take a look.

[A.J. Holst]

34 minutes ago, gjohnsoniv said:

I saw a guy do a similar thing with an Uzi and a Tailhook where he removed part of the stock and welded on a section to mount it.  I say go for it, nowhere does it say you can't do it. 

Why does this quote from Atlas Shrugged haunt me:

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

[gjohnsoniv]

13 minutes ago, Gotthegoods said:

Why does this quote from Atlas Shrugged haunt me:

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Because we all know one day they'll get tired of seeing these "pistols" and change their ruling.