USA 1SHOT Non-NFA Pistol Buttstock

17-34_A_large

USA 1SHOT released a new pistol ‘buttstock’ they’re calling the APS, Accurate Pistol System. It looks like a buttstock but USA 1SHOT is calling it an ‘adjustable dynamic pistol rest’ as it doesn’t actually mount to your firearm at all, so it isn’t affected by the National Firearms Act (for now). It’s available for many popular handguns and retails for $349 at usa1shot.com. Check out the demo videos below.

pistol-rest

 



Ray I.

Long time gun enthusiast, archery noob, Mazda fan, Sci-Fi nerd, Whiskey drinker, online marketer and blogger. My daily firearms musings can be found over at my gun blog ArmoryBlog.com and Instagram.

Shoot me an email at ray.i@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • plingr2

    you have really stupid laws, why is the problem have stock for pistol or semi auto smg , it shoot same

    • HenryV

      They have to some stupid to balance out all the goodness. 🙂

    • gunsandrockets

      I now violate the spirt of TFB by discussing politics.

      You asked why. Because American gun control = arbitrary and capricious. American gun control does not accomplish anything good or practical, because American gun control is intended to harass common peaceful gun owners.

      • Ko I

        and/or get a politician “points” for being “tough on ‘gun crime'” while not reducing ‘gun crime’ one iota, and in many cases making it worse, so that, during that politician’s next election, their constituency still “needs” someone that is “tough on ‘gun crime.'” If they were to reduce ‘gun crime,’ the constituency would “need” them less and other facets of that politician, which were previously able to be overlooked, may make them less acceptable for re-election.

    • aka_mythos

      The NFA was originally drafted to keep everything except full length rifles and shotguns out of the publics hands; that is to say Handguns would have been NFA. One of the main concerns at the times was concealable weapons but at the last minute handguns were dropped because enough representatives thought it would open up the legislation being challenged in courts as a self defense issue since handguns were seen as an almost purely self defense weapon. The rationale on prohibiting stocks and forgrips was the belief that it made a handgun into a more offensive weapon. At the end of the day the laws did nothing to curtail the rampant crime of the time.

      • Bill

        The NFA was an unintended consequence of the rise of organized racketeering. Anyone could buy a Thompson SMG through the Sears and Roebuck catalog, and in a political move to be seen as tough on gangsters it was enacted, to no positive effect whatsoever.

        I don’t know if crime in general was more rampant during those times, but organized crime was sensationalized a lot more than it had been.

        • Ko I

          Yeah, I love how they thought that, even if a criminal organization was going to obey the law, a $200 fee would hinder people raking in millions of dollars from illegal alcohol sales.

          • JK

            I was watching the original “Scarface” from 1932 the other day. There’s a line – something like “Man, they really need to do something about these machine guns.” I about burst out yelling profanity at the TV. 😀

          • PrepAndShoot

            Proof that Hollyweird had been shaping politics to the left since the beginning . 20/20 also did a huge “exposé ” back in December of 1982 to inform/brainwash the sheeple that machine-guns needed to be banned. It of course happened 3 years later (any new ones for civilian sale).

          • Cymond

            The $200 tax effectively killed most of the NFA industry, which in turn restricted the criminals’ ability to get ahold of them.

            Also, a Colt 1911 cost about $7 at the time, and a Thompson was $50. That $200 tax was a LOT more back then. Yes, they could afford it, but it threw the cost/benefit ratio out enough to encourage most of them to switch to more affordable weapons.

            And don’t forget about the bureaucratic red tape and months-long wait time to take possession. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

            Did the NFA stop criminals from getting NFA stuff? No, but it made the whole thing a lot less convenient for criminals (and virtually impossible for decent folks).

          • Rusty Shackleford

            True. But why even bother with a tax when most of them stole their select-fire firearms from National Guard armories.

          • Cymond

            I’ve heard that Bonnie & Clyde stole their guns, but was that typical of organized crime? That makes about as much sense to me as stealing a bag of flour. It seems like it would actually be faster & easier to just walk into a shop and buy whatever they wanted (or simply order it from a catalog).

        • Tom

          I do not think crime was more prolific but it was far more visible. And as we all know its far more important to be seen to do something than do something which works.

          People (at the time) were less concerned about gangs of bootleggers shooting each other than the so called motor bandits. Think Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger etc. The former tended to restrict their violence to behind closed doors whereas the later often partook in shootouts down main street. Ultimately it would not be restrictions on guns which put paid to the motor bandits but better policing and technology. Once radios come into use with police departments it was not so easy to evade capture simply by out running one or two police cars. the police could coordinate their efforts and advise neighboring forces about criminals crossing into their jurisdiction. This together with very “aggressive” policing put paid to the motor bandits driving across the central US causing havoc. Of course people still robbed banks (as they still do) but the success rate has been in rapid decline.

  • thedonn007

    Those two videos are very strange.

    • Bill

      The first one has kind of a Dadaist vibe going on.

  • wetcorps

    Like many NFA hacks, this is both clever and silly. I dig it.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      At least this one I could see being useful! You know how many times I have students or friends or other people in classes claim their sights are off, and you can give the gun to three different shooters and still not be able to really positively nail down what the correction should be?

      A lot. Now, add a stock temporarily, seems like a fast way to remove some of the human error with handguns.

  • gunsandrockets

    Very sneaky. I expect the ATF to quickly rule against this device.

    The fact that two handed pistol shooting has been standard practice for decades now demonstrates how absurdly silly many ATF regulations are enforcing the NFA.

    I’m surprised the ATF hasn’t banned squared off trigger guards since most are intended to assist two handed pistol shooting.

    • Bear The Grizzly

      They will first allow it for a couple years, then after they realize they’ve proved how utterly pointless their entire organization is they will retract their ruling to secure their ridiculous sense of self worth.

  • iksnilol

    So it is a stock that doesn’t attach to your pistol? You kinda just slip it in and keep it there with your hand?

    Weird.

    • Muchas Mujeres

      A freagin plastic hand. Thats creepy man. I can imagine the laughter when they were smoking woops I ment brainstorming for device ideas. Hey wait a minute thats not my shade of skin dammit. I started to give you 300+ $$ but now forget about it. Hahaha a creepy hand, its so a joke think of all the “other” uses. It could really get dark mighty fast. I better just stop here.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    I’d pay $60 for this piece of plastic. Tops.

    • notalima

      Yeah. I might pay a tad more for the nifty factor (say $100), but $349 for that is WAY, WAY out of line for a basic plastic moulding.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        I’m tired of getting gouged on every damn thing firearms related. I can get a suppressor for less than some flashlights.

      • DIR911911 .

        especially when you could fashion your own out of just about anything ,some sticks and a little whittling

        • Budogunner

          Instamorph. I bet they even used that to make their prototype.

  • Joseph Smith

    Has the ATF written conflicting letters yet?

    If not, someone should send them a letter asking for clarification!

    (that last sentence was a joke)

    • lucusloc

      Actually asking for a formal letter is not a bad idea. Making them define their stupid laws into absurdity makes them easier to challenge in court. The further they wander from sanity the harder it is for even hostile courts to side with them, and the harder it is for politicians to justify continued support for the law. We are gaining awareness of the absurdity of the NFA even with the densest fuds. We may soon have enough political clout to challenge suppressors, and perhaps SBR/SBS soon after that.

      • Ko I

        Challenging SBR/SBS seems more likely, and honestly so logically simple that I can’t imagine why it hasn’t been successfully challenged already. Considering that several sections of the NFA were based on trying to restrict “concealable firearms,” and considering that every single state in the USA has a law allowing civilians to carry concealed firearms, is there even really any logical reasoning for making a rifle or shotgun harder to get because it is “concealable?” Especially when buying a far more concealable pistol is also easier?

        • Tom

          As I understand it the BATFE have the authority courtesy of congress to determine what is and what is not illegal regarding firearms (much like the BLM) they do not require specific legislation for each item. As such you can not challenge their decisions through the courts as they have the legal authority to determine legality themselves.

          I am not a lawyer and I may have this wrong but that is my understanding of why no challenge has ever been successful,

          • Bill

            Just about all federal agencies can make administrative rules that carry the force of law, but they can all be challenged, either through the right court or by legislation that overturns the rule. IANAL either, but it’s the basic principle of checks and balances. Agencies, being part of the Executive Branch, enforce laws enacted by the Legislative Branch, but the Legislature couldn’t function if it was kludged up having to pass every single rule required by every single executive agency. All it takes is money, in the form of lawyers and lobbyists.

        • lucusloc

          Oh yeah, logically that would make way more sense, but politically we seem to have more momentum behind suppressors. If you want to look at it logically nothing about the NFA makes any sense (unless you consider ulterior motives of course, then it all makes perfect sense).

          • John Daniels

            Laws never make sense, because they’re all based on the idea that a small group of people can send enforcers to force their own moral opinions on everybody else at gunpoint, which is only possible by delegating to a group rights which individuals do not possess. You can’t delegate a right you don’t have.

            Laws never make sense, and these ones are no exception.

        • AlDeLarge

          The NFA was initially upheld on the basis that a sawed-off shotgun has no use for a militia. I don’t know if there were any more challenges and I’m not a lawyer, but that seems like a truly idiotic reason to allow the (near) banning of military weapons.

          “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

  • Vitsaus

    $349 Is a top shelf rail system, a top shelf scope mount, or a ton of pistol ammo.

  • Nimrod

    There have been a number of similar pistol supports developed back through time. Most used a bent metal stock with a C shaped space for the person to hold the support against the back strap of the pistol. Most were used for pistol hunting. It’s only been a couple decades since all this tactical stuff has gotten popular.

    BTW, don’t forget that ATF doesn’t make the laws. They only interpret them based on the prevailing political climate at the time.

  • PrepAndShoot

    Back in the early 1980s, a wire stock was made for the Ruger MK1 .22
    pistols which was not attached. It was formed to the back of the grip and
    held in place by squeezing your hand. ATF later declared it a violation
    of NFA.

  • Squirreltakular

    This product is bad and they should feel bad.

  • I’M NOT TOUCHING YOUUUUUUUU

  • Southpaw89

    Bit steep for what it is, but I like the idea, now make one that doubles as a holster and either make it convertible or offer left handed version.

  • Tom Currie

    The absurd notion that this “doesn’t attach to the firearm” simply because it isn’t locked into place will last exactly as long as it takes for this to become popular in the gun media with people talking about it as a way to dodge the NFA provisions about stocks on pistols. You might remember way back when…. when an “arm brace” for a pistol was legal UNLESS you let the arm brace touch your shoulder instead of just your forearm.

    Several parts of the NFA are absurd, and the various often-conflicting opinions from the BATFE are even more absurd, but this nonsense takes “absurd” to a whole new level.

    There are only two things sillier than this “adjustable dynamic pistol rest” are the claim that it “doesn’t attach to the firearm” and the price for a plastic toy.

  • RevolverRob

    So the BATF(U) has not issued a technical letter on this device? Unlike what they did with the Sig Brace (initially at least)?

    I think it’s cool and yea three-fiddy is a lot to pay for something you can build with a 3D printer and an AR15 stock. That said, I’m intrigued, because I’ve always wanted a stock for N-Frame Smiths and Super Redhawks, but never felt like the process of SBR’ing a revolver was worth the trouble. Not too mention that there are very few companies that actually make/made stocks for N-Frames and none to my knowledge for Rugers. And seriously, are you guys saying you wouldn’t want to shoot a stocked 4″ .500 Mag? I’m ready right now.

  • steveday72

    The BATF will just say that if something touches both the gun and your shoulder/chest simultaneously then they’ll declare it an SBR. They’ll also add some nonsensical verbiage about resting your handgun into the device will count as “re-manufacturing”.

    Thereby they will have accidentally made long sleeved jackets, sweaters and shirts all NFA items.

  • SgtFgt

    Who did this guy suck off to get a letter back from the ATF? Because the Tech Branch just ignored my request.

  • scaatylobo

    at that price = NO WAY.

  • John Daniels

    *shrug*

    The market takes care of stuff on it’s own. I doubt people will buy at that price, and the product will just sort of go away…

  • Captain Jack

    I’d pay fifty bucks tops.

  • $349, no thanks.

  • Admiral Ackbar

    It’s a trap!

  • patrickiv

    That’s a big injection mold and machine to invest in. It might have been cheaper at their current scale to CNC mill them from blocks of recycled plastic.

  • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

    I’ll wait for the “Available on Amazon, made in China” version for $79.