The Draco Pistol: Another NFA Hack?
Center Balanced Systems have updated their AK-style Draco Pistol from a conventional pistol design (in this case a stockless short barreled rifle) to a bullpup design. According to them the BATFE have stated that the new design is a pistol, not a short barreled rifle, and therefor does not fall under the NFA.
Just looking at it I cannot believe how the BATFE came to that conclusion. If it does not have a stock then I obviously do not know what a stock is. Center Balanced Systems have hacked the NFA to a greater degree than Franklin Armory with their Franklin Armory XO-26b.
If you buy this gun make sure you get a copy of the BATFE letter approving the design.
[ Many thanks to Jeff for emailing us the link. ]
I hope centerfire systems got their quality up. Interesting designs, that unfortunately have the fit and finish of a mediocre garage hack.
That was probably true of the nylon-ish polymer stocks, but the new aluminum line is well made.
these dracos are fun little guns, i think they’d be good for home defense , that is if you live somewhere were over penetration wont injure anyone
Is the listed price for an actual firing weapon? It seems low.
No, it’s for the stock/chassis, whatever they call it. You need the gun already if you want to install it.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Whatever you’re smoking, can I have two?
Die spammer!
No, surely that should be Das Spammer?
Couldn’t resist, sorry
Rusty
Why use the term “hacked” ??
It makes it sound like they are doing something illegal.
I think it’s awesome that these firearm manufacturers are finding creative ways to get around these nonsense NFA laws. Not to mention that they are unconstitutional anyway.
We dont have to just sit back and take it from these Govt cowards. We can let them know that their regulations are not wanted/needed.
Sorry politics… but you get my point.
Didn’t read all the comments so my apologies if I parrot someone who said, “I’ll take one in .300 BLK”
Why? 7.62x39mm and .300BLK have identical ballistic performance, and you’d be giving up the ability to use cheap, plentiful, and reliable AKM magazines. You’d be losing a lot, and gaining nothing.
That just makes no sense at all…
If that’s the case, then what’s with all the hype over .300 BLK? It seems to be rising in popularity a lot lately.
Brian, it’s because you get AK type ballistics (with the added benefit of being able to go suppressed with subsonic, heavy weight ammo) in an AR package, all without needing unusual, hard to find or poor-functioning magazines. Same bolt, carrier and magazine as a 5.56 AR, just needs a barrel change.
@WoodenPlank Really? Huh…that sounds pretty nifty then. I don’t really care for the subsonic/suppressed capability myself, because suppressors aren’t really practical for me. The other benefits seem pretty nice, though. I hope it catches on even more soon, and I hope the price of the ammo comes down a bit more, at least. Then, I’ll consider getting something chambered for it.
I was actually kinda excited when I read the title, thought it might be a fun range toy… then I saw the pictures.
Sweet Jesus that is an ugly gun. I normally am a big fan of AKs… but this is an abomination.
Have you looked at Center Balanced Systems’ other models? I don’t know about you, but I like most of them. Their stocks are designed for a number of purposes, one of which is to place the balance of the whole firearm right where the pistol grip is, so that it may be comfortably held in one hand. They also help shorten the overall length by turning virtually everything into a bullpup type gun. My personal favorites are the Mosin-Nagant standard, Saiga-12 standard and spike, and SKS standard and spike models. Their stuff also seems pretty darn rugged.
Those SKSes and Saigas look real nice. The Mosin though.. that’s just ridiculous in my opinion.
Not sure if I’m a fan of the white stocks. Looks very space age, at any rate.
I actually kinda like the white/plain aluminum finish on some of the models, but you can have them give it a black anodized finish, so it’s not like white is the only choice.
Ehh, who cares what it’s classified as. IMHO just another useless firearm.
Let me fix that for you.
“Ehh, who cares what it’s classified as. IMHO just another FUN firearm.”
No, that can be YOUR opinion. Just because someone builds something that can fire a cartridge doesn’t mean it’s always fun. I can make a zip gun, but it’s not fun, and pretty useless.
I like the design. IT Would be a greatfun gun at the range.
What is differnt from this firearm tan the Bushmaster “arm pistol”?
Ergo…. It’s a handgun.
In the eyes of the ATF, obviously none. But remember these are the same eyes that, upon seeing a rubber band/shoelace/potato scream “MACHINEGUN!”
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe the reasoning behind this being considered a pistol is because the overall length and barrel length are short enough, and there is no foregrip/handguard in front of the grip and trigger guard, as you would see on a rifle.
No. The reason it is not a rifle is because a rifle is “designed to be fire from the shoulder”. Rifles are still rifles (or SBRs) regardless of barrel length, “designed to be fired with two hands” such as a foregrip on a pistol falls under AOW. Pistols that can be fired with two hands, like the Rossi ranchhand or any ar or ak pistol, still count as pistols till you add a foregrip. As you can tell, this law was written by a stupid person.
Ah, sorry then. Thank you for correcting me. But if pistols are designed to be fired with one hand, then why do most people use two hands when shooting one?
Two handed firing of pistols is a recent development, relatively. Back in the 60s-70s revolver days it was considered…let’s say “noob”ish… To use two hands to fire the gun. If you couldn’t hit the target with one hand you needed more practice. Keep in mind this was revolvers so getting a two handed grip ran the risk of blasting the end of your thumb off if you weren’t careful.
It wasn’t until the weaver position that two hands became the norm.
Really? I didn’t know that. I mean, I remember seeing an old instructional/training video on how to draw and shoot a revolver, from back in the days when revolvers were still pretty standard, and I did see that they only used one hand to fire. However, it does not seem very difficult to hold a revolver with two hands without risk of injury.
Yep, if you watch some old movies most everybody is shooting one handed. I dont really know WHY not very many people shot two handed when it is such a superior grip, but people have been doing stupid things since the first one stood up on two feet and promptly ran into a tree. I may be wrong but i think even the dirty Harry movies consisted mostly of one handed firing, it wasn’t just Hollywood who was stupid about gun handling back then.
When I say risky two handed grip i mean mostly for us weaver and isocoles(sp?) folks. For instance my pistol grip is VERY thumbs forward and would definitely result In thumb injury if I tried to shoot a revolver and forgot to adjust it. (that’s why I don’t own a revolver currently) I suppose if you weren’t trained In The thumbs forward grip it wouldn’t be much of a problem.
Ah, I see…. Well, I’d like to be proficient in both one-hand and two-hand firing, once I get my first handgun. I finally got a job recently, and I’m planning on buying my first handgun in the next couple months. So far, I’m planning on getting a Ruger GP100 and starting out using .38 Specials, and then trying out .357 Magnum. It’s been a while since I’ve shot anything, but I think after I get some practice with the .38′s, the .357 shouldn’t be a problem.
Oh, I see what you mean, then. I’ve seen how the thumbs forward grip style with a semi-auto can be risky with a revolver, but it doesn’t seem to me like it’d be a problem adjusting myself between the two. Then again, I’m not used to any one particular gripping style yet.
If you don’t check where your thumb is when you fire a revolver, you can get powder burns from the cylinder gap. This has happened to me a couple of times, but it was no worse than being scalded.
@RH: Yes, I understand that. The thing is, I don’t place either of my thumbs that far forward when holding a revolver, and I only just recently learned about the “thumbs forward” being the proper gripping method for a semi-auto, so it’s not ingrained into my muscle memory or anything yet.
Ugly looking thing. a Century AK-74 Bullpup is a better alternative to this thing.
Of course it’s ugly, It involves an ak-47.
Hey, AK-47s may not be the prettiest guns, but they’re no uglier/prettier than typical AR-15s.
I must disagree. The AR is not a beauty queen but the finish on my ar is better than any AK I have ever seen. That’s just talking about quality of production and finish, not even going into the aesthetics of the design which are somewhat subjective. Plus due to its popularity the accessories for the ar are much better finished than most AK accessories. There are exceptions of course.
Ah, I was speaking in terms of the design, not necessarily the finish of the two, although I suppose that is a factor to consider too. However, if you factor in the finish, I think the VEPR AKs look much better – aesthetically – than most ARs I’ve seen.
As I say design is subjective, I personally like the ar design asthetics better and the finish simply tops the cake but I can understand that all people are different and like different things. I certainly don’t dispose the AK and hope to own one soon but I definitely prefer the ar.
For instance I’ve always liked the straight line design shape of the AR. Kinda like a samurai sword I guess. While the “bent” look of the Ak stock setup always threw me off. Kinda like a…well, bent samurai sword I guess. Maybe I just have OCD.
That’s perfectly understandable. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I like the looks of AR-15s too. In fact, I’d love to own a HK MR556 someday (personally, I’d prefer their gas piston system over the original gas impingement system of the AR-15). I just happen to really like the aesthetics of a nice AK-47 more, myself.
As for the katana metaphor…I’m not really understanding what you’re getting at. Katanas normally are curved, and their curvature (or “sori”) is often a major factor in both their cutting ability and their aesthetics. If you’re thinking of a straight-bladed “katana”, I think what you may be referring to is a ninjato, which is essentially a typical “ninja sword”, which were regarded as being of lower quality than a traditional Japanese katana.
In my opinion, the AR-15 design is gorgeous, clean simple lines. The AK-47, aesthetically, looks like a mess, with the messy handguard, the chunky receiver and the bent stock.
@John Doe: Hey, to each his own, right?
By the way, this is the AK-47 I was referencing. I think it is aesthetically superior to just about any other AK-47, and they’re built pretty nice too.
http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct980.aspx
Im jealous Brian P you got a MR 556 form HK. Unfair.
What are you talking about? I didn’t say I have one. I just said I’d love to own one someday. There’s no way I could afford one right now. They really are awesome rifles, though. It’s probably one of the most well-designed modern rifles I’ve ever seen.
I’d just register it as an SBR, avoid any legal issue, and also be able to put a forward grip on it. My two cents.
Doesn’t work if you live in a state that doesn’t allow SBR’s, but does allow pistols!
Just to note the “stock” i actually a thin piece of polymer over the rear tang of the Draco receiver. In this case, there is no stock because there is no external shouldering device attached to the receiver like the Century Arms AK bullpup. Therefore, coupled with the short barrel, it is considered a pistol.
The receiver shroud is actually all metal with a nice textured finish on it.
Is it actually possible to fire this weapon from the shoulder? It seems to me that the sights are too low to use unless the weapon is held out in front of the shooter like a pistol.
The BATFE may have just decided that it’s a pistol for that very reason. A toprail would allow for higher sights, but that would basically turn it into a rifle.
Still, I find it to be further confirmation that the BATFE has completely gone off their rocker. A rifle with poor ergonomics does not a pistol make.
Go to their Products page and scroll down to the end for the Draco pistol. There’s a picture with the caption “This CBRPS Draco pistol is set up as an SBR with a Scoutscope read sight base. 10″ groups at 200 yards – better than the standard AK.” The only difference that I can see is the addition of the scope mount & scope. Maybe there’s a thin buttpad we can’t see.
As an aside, many AK fans will take offense at the statement that their rifles aren’t capable of 5 MOA. Many decent quality AKs are capable of 2 MOA (or better?) with good ammo.
Needz moar toprail!
Well, I thought the government’s definition of a stock is a “shoulder thing that goes up”, right? This doesn’t have one of those. I think.
Hah! A Carolyn McCarthy quote. Man, I hate her!
She was talking about a barrel shroud not a stock.
Just noticed this thing doesn’t have useable sights, unless you actually hold it out in front of you like a pistol.
Y U NO add toprail, Bernie?
so… just welcro the “receiver” and a piece of rubber pad
wala!!
instant buttpad!!
That would make it a short-barreled rifle. Unless you stick a 16″ barrel on it, doing that would be unwise.
on off 0.5 second~
SHHHHH`~~~
Grammar Nerd Alert:
Actually, what you wrote as “wala” is a French term, “Voila”, which can be translated roughly as “See there!” Misspellings of this word are common now, which points to the failure of the American government school system.
Considering he also said “welcro” instead of “velcro”, I imagine he spelled it that way on purpose.
No different in concept to the Gwinn Firearms Bushmaster pistol. It was classified as a pistol because it didn’t have a stock either.
I was surprised by the tone of this article. I little 2″x2″ square does not constitute a stock. Just like a buffer tube with foam on an AR pistol is no stock, nor is the truncated wood on a mare’s leg, nor is the larger back end on the Bushmaster bullpup pistol.
I have a Center Balance Spike kit for my Saiga12. It’s good stuff. 19″ barrel S12 in an overall 31 inches? Nice.
Since this doesn’t have a buttplate/recoil pad, what you’re looking at at the back is just the shroud for the receiver/trigger group. Put one of Bernie’s buttplates on the back, and you have yourself a SBR.
Personally I don’t think it’s as big a hack as Franklin Armory’s. This started out as a draco pistol, and is still a draco pistol, and you’re still in trouble if you add a foregrip.
“and you’re still in trouble if you add a foregrip.”
Are you? I don’t know quite enough about the law to be sure. I noticed someone below mentioned a “one point grip”, but I own a mare’s leg and it clearly is a two handed weapon. I’ve looked at the Kel-Tec PLR-16 and thought it would be incredibly easy to aim if you bought the quad rail and added a grip.
BATFE has made it pretty clear in the past that adding a vertical grip to any pistol without paperwork makes it an illegal SBR or AOW, I don’t know how Franklin got away with it. Everyone is confused right now.
Specifically though ATF rejected Bernie’s draco pistol design until he removed the integrated 3-finger foregrip like you see on his other Spike series rifles.
Thanks for the info – I was planning on getting a PLR-16 at some point and throwing on a grip. I don’t get why it’s OK to use your hand to grip the front like a rifle, but not OK to put a vertical grip….it’s still using two hands. But then again, we all know the ATF is a bunch of idiots, so that explains a lot. If they threw a rail on top of the new Draco I’d be interested….I’m not even slightly interested in the current model.
“I don’t know how Franklin got away with it. “
Franklin got away with it because the XO-26 falls outside all of the definitions: (1) Too long to be considered an AOW, (2) designed to be fired with two hands, so not a pistol, (3) no stock, so not a rifle. The OX-26 falls outside all of the definitions. Franklin truly found a loophole. This thing has just been designated a pistol.
Remy, about the PLR with grip: The difference is in the design intent. A handgun with a forward rifle-like handguard can be fired 2 handed, but it is not explicitly designed or intended for a 2-hand hold. Adding any kind of 2nd grip (even a tiny hand-stop bump) means that is is explicitly designed to be shot with 2 hands. I know, it seems like splitting hairs, but that’s how laws work.
@Cymond
I understand that, but they’re not consistent. As I said earlier, I own a mare’s leg ( http://www.legacysports.com/images/products/PUM_BH_Lo.jpg ) and it is clearly designed to be held with two hands (especially since mine is a .44 magnum), yet this is legally a pistol. That is why I don’t understand how changing it from a horizontal front grip to a vertical front grip somehow makes it “evil”. Just another great example of why the ATF needs to be disbanded.
What’s the quality like on your Saiga 12 stock? I’m curious about getting one of these stocks for a Mosin Nagant and maybe an AK.
I’m curious about that too. I’ll be getting a Mosin-Nagant 91/30 soon too, and I want one of Center Balanced Systems’ stocks for mine. They look pretty nice. I’m thinking about the SKS and Saiga-12 too.
After watching a review on Youtube and seeing it up close, I’m going to pass on the centerfire. The 91/30 is a great gun and cheap to shoot if you buy the surplus ammo.
The Saiga12 Spike is quite nice. Mounts up solid, is as lightweight as you can expect for machined and stamped aluminum. There’s a few small things that I would change on it (cut-out on the barrel shroud to allow for aftermarket gas plugs being the biggest, also profiling the trigger a bit, and adding a little more contour to the grip, scallop the back of the grip so it interferes less with loading some magazines) but they’d be nitpicking. It’s a very good kit.
@Sian: Please excuse my ignorance, but what are “gas plugs”?
Early bullpup designs were often referred to as ‘stockless’. Useful precedent perhaps.
Originally, when they submitted the design it had an integral fore grip and got rejected [fell under the nebulous AOW catagory]. They were going to scrap the whole thing till I, and others suggested to them to just pull the foregrip from the design and resubmit. One of the above commenters is correct, the shroud around the receiver is NOT considered a stock as its only purpose is to protect the back end of the receiver. Kinda the same argument that lets AR pistols have full length receiver extensions as long as there is no stock attached. Don’t bitch too much about it or the BATFE might change their minds again…after all, they DID classify shoelaces as machine gun parts, and recently, pot scrubbers as suppressor building materials because someone wrote them a letter and asked them a question.
Just because its approved today, doesn’t mean ATF won’t change their mind later…
Nice idea against an illogical law.
I suppose those NFA guys have never seen an OC-14 “Groza”.
If you look at their website you’ll notice the primary difference between the pistol and the bullpup rifle is the lack of the plastic ‘stock’ (Buttplate) on the rear of the pistol. My assumption is that the BATF considers that to be the actual stock of the weapon, while the rear section is considered the receiver (technically true). Since the gun isn’t designed to shoulder onto the receiver, that would make it a 1 point primary hold, which is in fact a pistol. I would be very careful about modding this gun once purchased, though, since even adding a recoil pad to the back of it could be considered adding a stock and would get you in a world of shit. It appears that after years of arbitrary and draconian rulings against civilian firearms, the BATF seems to be swinging the other way now.
As far as the weapons themselves go, they look absolutely stunning, and I am truly saddened to be unable to properly use them due to my left handedness.
If you’re interested, one of their models for the Mosin-Nagant can be equipped with something they call the “speed bolt”, which they claim can be operated by left-handed shooters too.
Put a longer barrel on that pistol, and I might find myself interested in owning such an item.
Take a look at the AK Civi and AK Spike further down the page.
http://www.cbrps.com/Products.html
I thought about an idea like this before, im glad someone made it reality. functionally this is definitely a way better loophole than the XO-26, but legally its still a pistol. Franklin armories weapon lies completely outside of classification. thats just awesome.
keltec should do a similar design with their plr 16.
What’s the NFA’s definition on what a “stock” is I wonder?
Shoulder thing that goes up?
The ATF doesn’t define “stock.” What makes something a rifle is if it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.
Also remember that “designed to be fired from the shoulder” and “capable of being fired from the shoulder” are two different things.
With no padding between you and the steel of the “pistol” i can’t say how this could possibly fit the description of a rifle.
Not a hack, just some fine legal work, amiright?