Previous Post
Next Post


If there’s one golden rule for firearms laws, it’s this: you can’t put a stock on your GLOCK (or any other pistol, for that matter) in the US of A without an NFA tax stamp. There are a couple manufacturers who make such GLOCK stocks, but they all require a tax stamp first or a friendly local ATF agent might come a-knocking at your door. That rule has been stretched to the breaking point recently by such innovations as the pistol arm brace, but the folks at Accurate Pistol Systems have taken it upon themselves to try and stretch it a little bit further with their 1SHOT system . . .

How is this legal? There’s a catch … the product doesn’t attach to your firearm.

It looks like the only thing keeping the stock and your pistol together is friction and the force of your hand on the grip. That’s a brilliant way to get around the NFA regulations: since the item is not actually affixed to your plastic fantastic, the gun hasn’t been “redesigned” and therefore is not subject to NFA regulations. For now. I’m taking bets on exactly how long it takes for the ATF to write another letter using flawed logic and making this illegal somehow.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Unlike the very similar item (a wire stock that was held in place by the shooting hand) that was produced years ago for the Ruger MK-II that was originally deemed legal but ultimately banned?

      I see the same future for this device.

    • If you used this device WITHOUT HANDS as IS shown in the trailer the company released, the ATF IS correct–it doesn’t attach to the stock and is not an SBR. BUT–and this is a big but–consider, if you used a shoelace to tie it onto the gun, it does become an SBR regardless of the knot you use or don’t use. Likewise, if you use your hand to prevent the stock from coming loose from the gun, you have attached it to the firearm likewise creating an SBR irrespective of how easy it is to detach. The temporary attachment, albeit with your hand, does create an SBR. Folks, just pay the $200 tax stamp and stay on the legal side of this.

      • What video did you watch? The one on this article shows them holding the pistol in a very normal manner with the part of the stock that fits around the grip between their hands and the gun. They are holding the gun into the stock.

        • Holding the gun in the stock is attaching it to the gun. Whether you use your hand, a cheap rubber band, or water soluble glue, it is attached. How easily it becomes unattached is a moot point.

      • “Folks, just pay the $200 tax stamp and stay on the legal side of this.”

        That is the same type of tyranny as when the British thugs said just pay the Tea tax.

    • Forget the “run-around the NFA” part of this. With a little modification, this could be a very useful training tool. It would need to be longer, so that the stock is against the shoulder with the gun in proper handgun stance position (weaver, etc.). That way, the pistol is more stable and a new and/or younger shooter can concentrate on proper trigger pull and sight alignment while the gun is not moving around as much. Teaching someone to shoot a handgun well is hard, something like that would be a good intermediate step of handgun controls and sight picture with rifle stability.

  1. It’ll be legal for 8 months, then a bunch of youtubers will go “hey its a stock on a pistol thats totally legal” and ATF will ban it.

  2. Very clever. What about a support brace that attaches right onto your hand? That wouldn’t even have to be touching the gun directly!

  3. Just when you thought it was impossible to make a Glock grip chunkier and less ergonomic… 🙂

    It’s an amusing novelty, I guess, but aside from maybe handgun hunting, I don’t see much serious use for it.

    • Handgun hunting. It’s a thing. And maybe a useful range accessory for someone who has trouble with handgun recoil and/or limp wristing issues.

      I want one. And a red dot sight for my Glock.

    • Yeah, seems like an item straight out of the “solution looking for a problem” files. Just ’cause you can doesn’t mean you should.

    • I don’t see why the government should have any legal objections to any device that makes it easier to hit what you aim at.

      Accurate fire is less dangerous to bystanders than inaccurate fire. Period.

      The entire SBR concept is laughable. It’s the kind of thing only an unthinking bureaucracy could decide is a good idea.

  4. Could have applications as an adaptive prosthetic device that would enable disabled persons to hold a weapon competently, as an extension of a hand/arm prosthetic. The real question is WHY are short-barreled weapons illegal? Just as every play in a football game is designed to score points or make incremental measured progress, ALL guns are designed to kill. We keep on dancing around the real problem – some people can’t accept this simple logic. No matter whether the gun is black, white or camouflage, the basic premise is clear, and anyone who doesn’t understand that the technology of killing keeps logically advancing along with every other technology and that any self-respecting citizen wants to protect themselves, their property and loved ones will want the latest and greatest tools of the trade. It is 100% logical, as opposed to the emotionally-distrought pleadings of the hoplophobes who choose to ignore the scientific proof that their position is flawed and untenable, both by modern findings as well as historical records.

    We aren’t making enough noise about the issues and as long as the louder voices of the media support new methods of gun control, the more useless laws will be enacted “behind our backs”. You read about it here every day, yet it appears most of the responses here are more worried about whether their opinion will be accepted, rejected or ridiculed by their online peers rather than whether their impassioned input will have any real actionable effect on the war against guns.

    I “invented” an open internet for trade associations back in 1993 when they were operating with fax machines to coordinate lobbying in both federal and state-level legislative affairs. Literally overnight these people were empowered with interactive resources that enabled them to efficiently respond to threats and address public relations issues in a timely fashion. Oh, the progress that was made in those early days! Now, those capabilities are being squandered by the very people who falsely hope that their personal opinions will somehow help to make things right in our country. You already know a personal opinion is just like an anus – everyone has one, it usually doesn’t smell good and nobody asked you for it so that they could better society with it. In other words, this platform, this forum is only beneficial to a point – but where is the next level we need to take this fight? Our legislators of course. Grassroots participation (meaning common citizen involvement) is what politicians pay attention to. I know there are several organizations that subscribe to the interests of POTG, but they are not the answer today. There are organizations that gather signatures to bully big abusive corporations into polluting less, to stop killing bees, whales and wolves, collecting 500,000 signatures to stop fracking or drilling for oil in the antarctic. When are we POTG going to take advantage of these same resources?

    Methinks now is the time. What say ye brethren – are we ready to commit our online signatures to a meaningful effort to reestablish our constitutional rights? We need a steering committee to establish a charter and mission statement that will keep us from trying to bite off more than can be reasonably masticated. My idea is to push the restoration of respect for all constitutional rights; is this too broad of an approach?

    • “…to commit our online signatures to a meaningful effort…”

      “online signatures” and “meaningful effort” are mostly mutually exclusive. The legislators you want to influence know that online polls and petitions are generally empty gestures, made by people who want to feel as though they’ve “done something” without actually doing anything.

      I agree with your premise that we need to press our advantage and push back against the stupid laws on the books, and try to get some of the dumber restrictions repealed (getting suppressors de-NFA’ed seems like a very good first bite of the apple), but I don’t think online activism is going to get us very far in that effort. It’s going to take real people in real places, demonstrating and making it clear that they value their rights. Online petitions usually aren’t even worth the paper they’re not printed on.

      • re: ““online signatures” and “meaningful effort” are mostly mutually exclusive.”…

        I beg to differ. I have participated in several activist campaigns and from time to time am reminded by the sponsors just how effective these campaigns have been by virtue of reversed decisions, strategies, sourcing and policies that have meant real meaningful change. I’m not talking about wishful thinking and speculation. So that’s empirical evidence of the medium working; I don’t invest my time in superficial BS petitions.

        So, thanks for your blessing of the mission need at least. I see it as we need to organize, get our position’s numbers known and start the telephone calls, letters and petitions to our legislators. We can collect and sort/distribute our signatures to the appropriate state and legislative districts so we can monitor our numbers and actions. Politicians DO pay attention to trends in their voter comments/submissions – they are experts in the “popularity contest” way of waging war over issues and voter backlash scares the bejeezus out of them all. Let’s find our voices. I’m sure the NRA & 2AF, etc. wants to do this too; maybe we can consolidate our assets, funding and resources to mobilize.

        Can TTAG set up a polling feature on WordPress? We need to start thinking strategically and use this board for what it is intended to do – elicit change. Enough with the flood of unqualified, unhelpful observations and opinions of trolls.

        • Mark Lee,

          You are on the right track. I have floated a very similar idea before with no apparent response/enthusiasm.

          We woefully underestimate the power of our First Amendment right to petition our government for a redress of our grievances. Imagine what would happen if 100,000 voters sent hard paper letters via First Class U.S. mail to a single U.S. Representative or Senator on the same day. Imagine what would happen if that same 100,000 voters sent the same letter in a large and bulky envelope via FedEx, UPS and coordinated their send date so that all of their letters would arrive on the same day. Along the same lines, imagine if those very same 100,000 voters called a single U.S. Representative or Senator on the same day. Both actions would be perfectly legal protected activity under the First Amendment. Both actions would bring that politicians ability to conduct business to a screeching halt. And both actions would send a very LOUD and CLEAR message to that politician.

          And that was just one day. Now imagine if those 100,000 voters sent a hard copy letter via U.S. Postal Service First Class mail each day for two straight weeks. And if we really want to press the issue, all 100,000 voters would send that same letter via certified letter, signature required.

          The beauty of this? We wouldn’t have to petition every politician. We only need petition a relatively few key players.

  5. Eh, not enough mall-cop flare for me. /sarc

    But seriously, cool idea I guess, but this just isn’t for me. Or anyone who likes using a pistol as a pistol. But hey, ymmv.

  6. If shouldering an attached arm-brace is redesigning, then how is bracing an arm to a shoulder not?

    Well, we all know its not. The arm-brace ruling is b.s. – and so will the ruling on this product.

    I’m still waiting for somebody to tell the ATF that they only owe $200 for a silencer stamp because attaching it to their SBR redesigns it into full-length rifle. Fuck you, ATF!

  7. We are to trust an agency that stated that holding piece of rubber to your shoulder is a redesign??????

    The same agency that declared all shoe laces to be machine guns???

  8. Oh c’mon. You couldn’t have come up with a pithy DR Seuss-ish title _ “Be the first on you Block to own an a stock for your Glock”….

  9. This just might be one area we have it over the US here in Oz. Chassis systems for handguns are quite legal here, no special permits required AFAIK. The only requirement is that the total length does not exceed 750mm (or maybe 650mm in some other states).

      • True, well sort of, handguns are easy enough to get, it just takes a few months to jump through the hoops. Having got one you can plug it into a chassis system though with no issues.

        I shot with one last week, they look a bit fugly IMO but it certainly worked well.

  10. I am going to try and grab one of these in anticipation of the ATF doing their (quite disgusting) thing and if I do, a Glock 40 (long barrel 10mm) will be in my immediate future.

    I live close enough to happy hog hunting land (Texas) that i could be out once a week trying it out.

  11. If you limp grip it and it flies back over your shoulder, would this finally be- “the shoulder thing that goes up”?

  12. Can’t wait for the old man to relinquish control die so that the company will finally make a carbine.

    Keltec and a slew of other cabine manufacturers probably send him daily gift baskets of vitamin pills and health foods.

  13. I’ve actually fondled these things quite extensively. These are made in Reno, designed in Reno and are supposedly used by Reno swat.

    While these devices look bulky, and uncomfortable, they are actually pretty comfortable. It is definitely a little weird holding it the first time.
    As to the legality, according to the lawyers in their group, this is legally a rest. Yes it is designed to hold one kind of gun securely, but it is a loose enough fit that the gun would fall without a hand holding it.

    The material is cast. It is a solid piece of material. They had a few different versions on display including fixed versions. They are solid. No flex, no wobble. Only wobble on the collapsible version was on the m4 stock.

    They also said that they might do custom orders for different guns. They said an s&w x frame was doable.

    • Seems like, if this thing holds up, it would be easy enough to design a “gun rest” that would fit nicely on an AR pistol, but loosely enough (or designed such that) it would just fall off if you were not holding it together by using pressure against your shoulder or, perhaps, with the grip of your trigger hand.

  14. ATF concerning this product: “Hey, guys, this little thing is totally legal because it doesn’t actually attach to your firearm. It’s held on by friction so you’re good to go.”

    ATF concerning sig brace: “You no-gooders. You can’t put a piece of rubber on a buffer tube and have it be held in position by FRICTION and expect us to not call it a stock. Thou can not shoulder!”

    So they’re going on the whole “it’s not attached” part or something?

  15. Instead of having to deal with these sorts of ridiculous convolutions, are there any gun groups — GOA, NRA? — who have made abolishing the concept of a short-barreled rifle part of their legislative efforts?

  16. I fully agree folks should be able to do this.

    I do not understand, at all, why they would want to, but right on.

  17. THis would work on AK pistols as well, no buffer tube, and hell, release a really thin grip with the not stock thingy to make it more ergo

  18. ATF will try to sig brace it. They will pretend it’s about intent and how you use it (i.e. fuzzy vague garbage) rather than its physical configuration (letter of the the law).

  19. It seems like an interesting novelty. A large part of the point in having a shorten firearm is so that it is easier to use in close quarters. I don’t think that I would bother with this whole getup where I to find myself in a situation that called for such a firearm. The pistol itself would be enough. If I have all of the room I need, just give me a larger carbine or rifle.

    This pretty much falls into the category of a range toy, and for that it is completely fine. If it increases someones enjoyment of their firearm, go for it.

    I think what got me most about the whole video was the soldier shooting the thing. Why bother trying to imply that the military would be interested in this? They don’t need it, they can have all the SBRs, SBSs, Machineguns and suppressors that they want. If they take an entire truck load of Glocks and put stocks and suppressors on them, it isn’t a concern of the ATF.

    Beyond that I would like for the whole damn NFA to just go away. The SBR/SBS and suppressor parts personally bother me the most but just get rid of the whole damn thing.

  20. I disagree, respectfully, that holding the device against the firearm by your hand is to “attach” the two. Attachment requires one to “affix” or “fasten” or “link” or “bind” or “tie”… and all of those verbs continue to cause connection regardless of if one’s hand is still present. Then, “affix” requires bolting, welding, locking, clipping, bonding, gluing, or pasting — again still connected sans hand.

    I wish I could cite an authority for this, but I am left with Websters dictionary for synonyms.

    Did ATF eventually issue a determination of any kind against the placement of this shoulder ‘brace’ in conjunction with using a handgun?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here