Can Cannon B.A.T.F.E Determination Letter and the answer isn’t good!

Can_Cannon_Production

Okay everyone, rev up your discussion typing fingers…  X Products submitted to BATFE for determination and received a response.

in the Can Cannons current configuration it is considered an SBR Short Barrel Rifle when placed on a rifle receiver, and an AOW Any Other Weapon when installed on a pistol.

Open letter from X Products:

Dear Customers,
We recently received a complete evaluation from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms on the legal status of the Can Cannon dated: August 26th, Received September 11, 2015. The evaluation of the Can Cannon as currently produced is in and of itself not a firearm and not controlled, however when placed on a riflereceiver is considered a (SBR) short barrel rifle, and when placed on a pistol (AOW) Any Other Weapon.
We are submitting a revised design to address the issues in the B.A.T.F.E’s determination letter. We will updateour customers throughout this process.

For questions or inquiries about this matter, please email warranty@xproducts.com
A copy of the determination letter will be available on our site shortly.

The determination letter is here: Can_Cannon_Determination_Letter

Who here has had the chance to play with one?  I have.  They are a ton of fun.  So, if I read this right, BATFE considers it an SBR or AOW once it is assembled and useful?  Thoughts?



Tom is a former Navy Corpsman that spent some time bumbling around the deserts of Iraq with a Marine Recon unit, kicking in tent flaps and harassing sheep. Prior to that he was a paramedic somewhere in DFW, also doing some Executive Protection work between shifts. Now that those exciting days are behind him, he has embraced his inner “Warrior Hippie” and assaults 14er in his sandals and beard, or engages in rucking adventure challenges while consuming craft beer. To fund these adventures, he writes medical software and builds websites and mobile apps. His latest venture is as one of the founders of IronSights.com; a search engine for all things gun related. He hopes that his posts will help you find solid gear that will survive whatever you can throw at it–he is known (in certain circles) for his curse…ahem, ability…to find the breaking point of anything.


Advertisement

  • Tyler McCommon

    I had a feeling that was going to be an issue….. regardless can’t they just lengthen the “barrel” and it should be fine?

    • Doc Rader

      Sounds like X Products has a plan.

      • Otm Shooter

        You can add rifling grooves to the very front inch or so of the bore and that should qualify. I believe thats how some of the derringers that shoot .410 get by. The benefit of only rifling a small section is to save manufacturing cost and to prevent to premature detonation of the soda cans. Just my guess.

        • Cymond

          That would make it legal on a pistol lower. It would still be an SBR it you put it on a rifle lower.

    • Sianmink

      They’ve just got to drill a hole, so it no longer has a 1.05″ smoothbore barrel.

  • Walter

    BOO!

    • Doc Rader

      Why can’t we have nice things… 🙁

  • PK

    It accepts and fires ordinary 5.56x45mm ammo. The barrel is smooth. It’s under 18″ long. Of course it’s NFA, did they not see that coming?

    • Hail Mohammed

      The reason is infringement on the right to bear arms, and criminal ATF agents.

      Back in 1776, there was a remedy for that.

      • PK

        Can’t we keep politics out of here? This is just a legal and technical discussion of what was classified as what, and why. Cheers!

        • Hail Mohammed

          It would be nice, but all ATF rulings that anyone actually discusses are not ‘technical’- they are just dubious, political, legalistic interpretations of an unconstitutional law.

          • You’ll have to back off the politics. All of the comments posted so far have political content. Politics is just not allowed.

          • TheDude

            Yea no politics. Stand by and be idle while the industry you blog about gets destroyed with regulation. Sooner rather than later that ad money is gonna dry up when your hobby is legislated out of existence while the industry is destroyed. Smart move! That’ll keep the blog goin.

          • You should know by now our main rule is no politics. There are plenty of places to engage in political conversation just not here.
            What we do individually outside of TFB is another matter.

      • Lets not go there. The agents have nothing to do with it. Revolution over what is essentially a toy is kinda silly.

        • Hail Mohammed

          Federal agents choose to ignore violations of nonsense laws all the time, so, their actions do indeed have a bearing on it. If they choose to comply with the constitution and ignore unconstitutional laws, more power to them… They won’t be going out and murdering people at sites like Waco and Ruby Ridge. Good stuff!

          If unconstitutional laws are not a problem when applied to harmless toys/grenade projectors, when do they become a problem exactly? There is no real distinction between an arbitrary ruling on this, and an arbitrary ruling on the ‘sig braces’, or an arbitrary ruling that all AR-15 lowers could accept full auto parts with a couple hours machining and welding and thus should all be illegal.

  • iksnilol

    Can’t they just lengthen the barrel and be fine?

    • Giolli Joker

      The chamber should already prevent the use of normal ammo.

      EDIT: Apparently I stand corrected… it seems dumb.

    • Sianmink

      Specifically, the first machined hole in the ‘barrel’ is 1.05″ from the chamber, and this length without holes constitutes a barrel and makes the can cannon a rifle or AOW depending on what flavor of lower it is attached to.
      What they’re doing, apparently, is drilling a small hole in their diffusor tube right at the end of the chamber, so that it can not be classified as a smoothbore barrel at all. That should take care of it, along with making the set screw at the end of the cup non-removable.

      • Some Guy

        would the bit that acts as the barrel for the can constitute a muzzle device?

        If so make it slightly longer and make sure it’s pinned & welded.

        • Sianmink

          It would, If that was 16″ then there would be no issue either way, and may be something they want to look at in the future. 16″ is awful long for this purpose though.
          But since it’s 11″ and change, the ‘quick fix’ is a little different.

      • Travis Jennings

        Just run a tap down the one inch barrel. Add some threads and it ceases to be a smooth bore. Sure it the twist would be 20:1 , instead of 1:12, but blanks dont care. So no longer aow and legal on pistol lowers.

      • Holes in the barrel don’t define barrel length. If they did, anything past the gas ports or welded on flash suppressors wouldn’t count towards barrel length – and they do.

        But you can look at this and see that it is too short to make a Title I longarm.

        I’m surprised they are calling it an SBR/AOW (depending on configuration).

        It seems to be more of an SBS/AOW or even a DD (bore size, but not “sporting” ad ATF defines the term).

        Or, they could stop being stupid and accept that it isn’t a weapon, and therefore should be exempted by direction of the AG. (I know, I chuckled while I typed that myself…)

    • YS

      It’s over .50 cal. Even if the barrel length was 16″, wouldn’t it be considered a DD?

      • iksnilol

        I dunno. I am thinking if it can fire regular 5.56 wouldn’t the 5.56 barrel be the bore considered? If you consider the can barrel then it isn’t firing a fixed projectile, so it would fall under the same stuff that muzzleloaders fall under.

        NOTE: Take this with a truckload of salt, I don’t live in the US. I am just guessing based on my understanding of American laws and the stupidity of bureocracy in general.

        • You know what – you’re right. The bore size of the chamber would be the legal caliber.

          Rifle that, and its a legal pistol. Extend the length of the permanently attached bits of barrel are at least 16″ (bolt face when closed to muzzle), and its a legal rifle.

          Honestly, would 5″ longer and the stubby barrel section just past the chamber being rifled be a deal killer to anyone using it? Especially since those extra inches can practically be so perforated that you can watch a movie through the side of the barrel?

          • Cymond

            Alternatively, if it were unable to fire normal 223, that should do it as well. Currently, the stubby 223 barrel is capped with a removable screw. Closing it in a permanent manner should suffice.

          • In a reasonable world, yes. Probably easier to make the whole “barrel” either 16″ long and at least partially rifled, or 18″ long and unrifled, than to get ATF to accept that it is only capable of blank firing, without risking dangerous pressure spikes if someone uses anything not tuned for the designed blank (because ATF could require that it *physically* not be able to accept a live round).

            The adjustble (and thus removable) screw is probably something you’d want to leave in the design, because it allows you to tune for different blanks and different projo weights – boh for performance and safety.

          • Frank Szabo

            I was thinking about welding the set screw at the small barrel’s end and making a new large launch can from AL the legal shotgun length of 18 inches. The thing would work better anyway. Would that solve the issues or must the widget be “redetermined?

      • LetsTryLibertyAgain

        You just gave me an idea. A Can Cannon add-on for my 50 BMG. I could be the first person to launch beers into orbit.

        • Rooftop Voter

          Shaken, not stirred.

  • nobody

    >in the Can Cannons current configuration it is considered an SBR Short
    Barrel Rifle when placed on a rifle receiver, and an AOW Any Other
    Weapon when installed on a pistol.

    How the hell does that work? It doesn’t fire fixed ammunition and therefore doesn’t even fall under the NFA, unless there’s nothing to keep you from loading and firing normal .223/5.56 out of the thing in which case this will be an easy fix.

    • PK

      It accepts and fires regular ammunition. Read the determination, they were very clear on that point. That’s exactly the problem.

      • Ken

        It’s got that spigot on the inside that directs gases to the side rather than directly into the can (will destroy it). I don’t know if it will chamber regular ammo, but if it does, it’s not going to expel that bullet. It will either destroy the spigot or get trapped in it.

      • Phaideaux

        I thought the end of the “barrel” was capped and the gas came out ports in the side. Wouldn’t that make firing live cartridges impossible?

        • PK

          No. It’s possible, just wouldn’t work like a normal firearm. The law only determines legality, not whether it’s a good idea or not.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        SO where does the bullet go when you fire it?

        • PK

          By the law, that doesn’t matter. It wouldn’t work, but the fact that it can chamber and fire does matter.

          • Brett

            So, all powder tools should be regulated under ATF regulations??? They operate under the same concept.

          • PK

            You’ll note that all currently produced and sold versions of power nailers that use blanks cannot accept any commercial ammunition, only the specially made blanks.

          • And, ATF can issue case-by-case exemptions where they feel it is appropriate.

          • PK

            Exactly, such as the regular .45-70 chambered line launchers. They’re not even considered firearms, so long as the line holder is never removed… 14″ barrel, smoothbore, but accept any .45-70 round quite happily. Exempt.

  • Alex Agius

    It uses non fixed ammo and should not be a firearm under the NFA/GCA. This has no barrel, so legally it should be akin to having a fake barrel of less than 16 inches on a rifle or no barrel (like when the lower is removed from the upper). It does not meet the definition for an SBR.

    “(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

    (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;”

    This can cannon meets none of these definitions, again it has no barrel.

    • Joe

      This is a unique argument.

      So, their opinion would be that an AR without a barrel installed is an SBR?

      Or does the tube constitute a “barrel” even when the projectile doesn’t contact it?

      • NDS

        The chamber is the issue here, not the can launcher tube.

      • Joe

        Ah, I wasn’t paying attention, thanks.

      • kyphe

        legally the barrel is measured from the rear of the chamber so the chamber is classed as a barrel.

    • NDS

      The chamber is considered part of the barrel. Also I think X products response is wrong, this is a Short Barreled Shotgun, not Rifle.

      • Alex Agius

        Unless a live 5.56 round can be used (which may be their entire argument) then surely its non fixed ammo and so not a rifle/sbr (like a muzzleloader would not be an sbr)?

        • NDS

          It apparently can chamber a live round… but even if it was blank firing only I’m not sure if it matters since the can launcher isn’t a firearm – The AR15 lower is.

          • Alex Agius

            That’ll be it I suspect, the live ammo part. I cannot see it affecting it (looking at the letter of the law which this would not be an svbr or an sbs) if it is blank ammo only as it’s not really a barrel

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Didnt Pepsi that coming.

  • David

    So what, every video featuring these has been an illegal SBR?

    • dshield55

      A felony for you… a felony for me… a felony for him…. Felonies for everybody! Government is handing out felonies like crazy today.

      • marathag

        “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power 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 to live without breaking laws.”
        – Ayn Rand

      • BryanS

        Going by every federal law, we all commit felonies daily, we just dont know about them. Luckily, we dont have our own federal persecutor to deal them out like tictacs.

        Yet.

    • lowell houser

      Yep, retroactively. Because according to DOJ, ATF has that power. I expect that X-Product will issue a recall notice and owners will get back a “compliant” can launcher and that will be the extent of it. At least until someone actually designs and prototypes a grenade and then posts the test vid on Youtube.

    • Bill

      No, trying to apply a law or regulation retroactively almost never works. You can’t prosecute someone for doing something that wasn’t illegal when they did it.

      • BryanS

        Until you are the federal government.. and you find a way. All the power is in their hands.

        I seem to recall a founding document that mentioned arms, but for some reason , it doesnt ever apply.

        • Bill

          I beg to disagree. Administrative rules may be one thing. Theoretically the BATFE could amnesty these things and give owners the opportunity to file the appropriate paperwork. However, it’s a basic legal principle that statutory criminal laws can’t be enforced retroactively. “All the power” is NOT in the hands of the “federal government,” that’s why we have the checks and balances of the three branches.

          • BryanS

            You confuse actual law, with how a federal regulatory agency sets regulation and policy.

            I agree, it should be a different way, but try and change that, and they burn your house down and run it over with a tank.

          • Bill

            I’m not confusing the two at all. And why do some people insist on citing an event that occurred in 1993? If this is the pace the government is taking to reach totalitarianism, it should get there somewhere around the years 3078.

          • BryanS

            Same reason lawyers cite case law. We cannot predict the future, but do know how the past has happened.

          • Bill

            Wrong. Our legal system is process based on precedent, but flexible, history is not. Apples and oranges. Some people do indeed try to contend that an isolated incident that occurred over 2 decades ago is predictive of what will happen in the future.

      • That would only apply if ATF had previously approved the use of this device as a nonregulated “not a firearm” or a Title I firearm in *exactly* the configuration used.

        True, if they formally approved an exemption from NFA status for a specific configuration, and then change their minds, the criminal penalties cannot be applied retroactively, but if you set it up differently than they approved, that approval doesn’t necessarily provide you a safe harbor.

        Remember, the NFA and GCA do not require the ATF to determine that something falls into a prohibited or more heavily regulated category for them to be illegal. They require the ATF to have issued a specific exemption for anything that falls in those statutory categories that ATF wants to exempt from that regulation.

        If certain configurations are SBR or AOW, then they have *always* been an SBR or AOW, and always will be, *unless* the ATF approved *those exact configurations* as being exempt for some reason.

      • Bill

        Someone should research this, because in a land where anything firearms related can be declared illegal without the benefit of an actual law being passed it’s probably been done.

  • Edeco

    I hope nobody gets charged with can-structive intent

    • Vhyrus

      Somebody might get popped for this one. I would hate to wind up in the can over an upper. You soda known better to not buy one.

      • Todd

        BOOO!!! to both of you!

        Actually, your puns were dead on.

      • Ross

        *stops typing witty comment.
        **bows

  • USMC03Vet

    Just another example of an out of control ATF which needs to be overhauled and a unconstitutional NFA which needs to be abolished.

    Thank you, unaccountable government bureaucracy from saving us from soda can firing devices.

    • LCON

      I think you mean “Just another example of an out of can-trol ATF which needs to be overhauled and a un-Can-stitutional NFA which needs to be abolished.”

  • nobody

    Just read the letter, what the hell, are they actually saying that .223 is a shotgun shell? US gun laws are completely bizarre.

    • Sianmink

      +1. totally bizarre.

    • PK

      The barrel is smooth, so the ammo is shotgun ammo. Makes sense to me.

      • Sianmink

        They aren’t calling it a short barrel shotgun.

      • The law discusses smoothbore “handgun” barrels, and *explicitly* says that a handgun type gun with a smoothbore is an AOW. Without mentioning the ammo.

  • KestrelBike

    Ugh, now that the letter’s out people are just going to attach a pistol barrel to the rifle lower and the crime rate is going to skyrocket! Oh wait…

  • Vitsaus

    Even if they meet compliance, I think this will be a short lived product. The arbitrary nature of BATFE rules coupled with the inherent “weaponizability” of this product will be a major impediment to its future. It will be a matter of time before some you tube clown gets creative with what is inside of the soda cans and draws unwanted (but not unsolicited) attention.

    • PK

      I disagree. Muzzle-attached golf ball and grenade cups have been legal for ages. Comply with the laws in the same way and a soda can launcher is the same thing.

      • Vitsaus

        Logic. But then the back bone of most firearms bans relates to the “potential” for what could be done with them, rather than the amount of mischief or the ease at which mischief might be done. Again, consider the likelyhood that people will be filling cans with things like nuts and bolts, and posting such McGuyvereque innovations online.

        • PK

          It would be legal, as the non-fixed projectile isn’t the issue at all. I fire all sorts of projectiles out of grenade-cup launchers.

          • Yup, its the *barrel* that matters here.

            The projo itself is wholly outside the NFA and GCA (unless it is explosive, as explosives devices are DDs in their own right, even if they aren’t launched), because the projo is not part of the fixed ammunition.

          • PK

            I’d like to add that explosive devices aren’t always DDs. They must meet certain requirements, one of which for explosive projectiles is have more than 1/4oz of explosives (either high explosives or low explosives such as black powder) total. I know this like the back of my hand, as I enjoy making non-DD exploding rounds for 40mm. 🙂

          • Very true.

        • Bill

          Bluntly, if you’ll pardon the pun, I’d love to have somebody do the energy calculations on those. Amazingly, I don’t have a can of beer or soda to weigh or measure, but I also wonder how close to 37 or 40mm they are.

          I know for damn sure I wouldn’t want to be hit by one of those golf balls fired out of a launcher.

          • PK

            Not close at all. The 40mm 718 practice rounds are vastly more energetic in terms of kinetic energy.

    • Goody

      There ain’t a damn thing you could put in a soda can that would make me prefer to be shot by 5.56 instead. 😉

  • Hail Mohammed

    “So, if I read this right, BATFE considers it an SBR or AOW once it is assembled and useful? Thoughts?”

    There are references to ‘constructive intent’ below but let’s just clarify this.

    If you have one of these in your possession, and you also have a AR-15 lower, the revenuers have classified similar scenarios like that before as constructive possession. If you hand over your property, they MIGHT not prosecute.

    If you attempt to defend your rights by pointing out that that’s ridiculous, they WILL prosecute. If you attempt to defend your rights by pointing out that that’s unconstitutional, they WILL prosecute. If you are affiliated with anyone ‘naughty’ (and relevant to TFB contributors, these murderers straight out of Waco/Ruby Ridge do go after decent law abiding owners of automatic weapons) they WILL prosecute.

    They don’t have a right to do this under the constitution. Just make sure that if you try to argue that, you don’t do it in some stupid ‘sovereign citizen’ way- “Am I being detained? Am I being detained?”- but ask them why they are violating your rights in the same way as your forefathers did in 1776.

    • PK

      Enough already, this isn’t the website for politics.

    • Bill

      We get it, you hate the government, the Trilateral Commission is behind it all, Obama has months left to put us all in concentration camps, and now you can’t have a toy. I’ve got jackboots to polish, those puppies won’t stomp themselves.

  • TJ

    so if they rifle the 1.05″ ‘barrel’, then it ceases to be an AOW, and becomes legal on a pistol lower? they dont have to rifle it well, just for decoration, as if a projectile ever touched it, the whole thing would blow up.

    • Hail Mohammed

      That would depend on an arbitrary illegal determination by the same people who murdered 76 people- mostly black Carribeans- at Waco have to say about it.

      Do you trust them?

    • Yup. And it they also make sure the barrel’s overall length of permanent bits, from bolt face to muzzle, is 16″, its legal on pistol *or* rifle lowers.

      Really, would 5″ or so of heavily perforated steel added to the end really be a deal killer for anyone who wants to chuck generic soda downrange?

  • Otm Shooter

    If the upper on a pistol lower has an OAL of over 26″, shouldn’t that make it NOT an AOW? Isn’t how that Black Aces not shotgun, not aow thing get by?

    • Hail Mohammed

      The Black Aces ‘non full length shotgun’, ‘non short barreled shotgun’, ‘too long for an AOW’ is currently deemed to be exempt, yes. However, that argument might not stick when they’re scraping your blood off the floor after an illegal raid.

      • Otm Shooter

        Personally, I’d use a mop. We aren’t here to discuss folks getting killed over something that was completely legal yesterday.

        We are discussing the technical classification of the device in its current available configurations.

        • Some people just won’t listen even when you give them a chance. That discussion is over.

          • Otm Shooter

            Good lookin out. Thanks

          • Bill

            Besides, there’s something like Oil-Dry you put on blood that absorbs and congeals it for easy cleanup. Then a 10% bleach solution spray and your back in business.

            I think it’s probably the same stuff they use when someone barfs on a carnival ride.

          • I used to just call the fire department for a wash down. No I’m not kidding. Some homicide scenes can be intense.

          • Bill

            Indeed, and I may have or have not done the same thing, depending on how bad it was and where I was at – if that particular FD didn’t have an issue with washing biohazards, or car crash leakage like blood, glass, gas and battery acid into the storm drain, or more likely the roadside ditch. 😉

          • You bet–glad to do it—

  • me ohmy

    defund these dumbasses already… enough

  • InfiniteGrim

    You can thank the laziness of X Products for this. They used a rifled barrel and just put a removable plug in the end. So technically, which the ATF is saying, you can remove that plug and use it to shoot live ammo making it an SBR. They need to weld the plug and I’m also surprised they sold these before getting a determination from the ATF.

    • Travis Jennings

      No, its not rifled. Thats the point. If it was rifled, then no AOW. Since its always going to be under 16″ it will always be SBR on a rifle lower. The only place it would ever be legal is on a pistol lower, and only if its not an AOW– smoothbore makes it AOW, rifling make it a pistol.

  • Anonymoose

    BS! It’s not designed as a lethal weapon, same as 37mm flare-launchers!

    • Bill

      It’s amazing that those 37mm launchers are still around, given the 37mm rounds that they could be adapted to.

  • Kivaari

    Is a M1903 fitted with a grenade launcher a DD when a practice grenade is fired? Didn’t they just rule that 40mm practice grenades are now NFA? I saw a letter a few years back that even sponge and wooden projectiles from 37mm smooth bore (gas guns) and 40mm rifled bores (M79-M203) had the ammo reclassified as DD-NFA for each round. Did I see that?

    • No, a cup, muzzle, or spigot discharger with an inert projo is not a DD. This is just a cup discharged, as have been around since the 1500s. The only restriction on shooting a cup discharged (under DD) rules is if the *projo* itself qualifies as a DD because it explodes.

      The ruling on solid projos from 37mm launchers isn’t that the *ammo* are DDs it is that you’re using “antipersonnel” ammunition (as opposed to “signalling”) ammunition from a device determined to not be a DD when it is firing signalling ammunition. (The ATF exemption from DD status for 37mm is for *flare guns only*, although they also permit the use of ammo that doesn’t have a significant antipersonnel effect.)

      The ruling on 40mm ammo that I’ve seen a copy of is a *lot* more limited than people claim- it discusses a particular model of IR flares (which, being IR illuminators, are of limited use as *flares* in a civilian setting). I’ve seen anecdotal, third hand claims of ATF telling individuals that chalk practice rounds are being regulated as individual DDs – but haven’t seen a letter on chalk rounds.

      • Kivaari

        OK

  • Kivaari

    In the photos I’ve seen I thought it did not have a bore, but several vent holes along the short “barrel”. I think the ATF is using parts of the GCA ’68 where we could not have grenade launchers other than the WW2 types found on American and German rifles of the era. It seems silly that a pop can grenade is something for the ATF to fear. If anyone wanted to and had the shop tools to use, a functional grenade and launcher would be within reach.

  • RICH

    These idiots have to quit asking all of these ‘Can I ‘ and ‘What if’ questions that they are addressing to the B.A.T.F.&E. ! ! ! As i said…. IDIOTS ! ! !

  • Mike G

    I said this from the very beginning and was astounded that it was being sold without any consideration as to its status.

    Xproducts should stick to what they know, legally and technically speaking.

  • J.T.

    Shouldn’t they have waited to receive the complete evaluation results before they started selling them?

    • Yeah, just like Akins should have waited for an actual determination letter. (What he relied on was a letter with a semantic total of static – they never actually approved the Akins Accelerator as sold… read the actual letter Akins relied on – its a wonderful example of bureaucratese saying nothing – ATF *never* said it was legal, they said, “We couldn’t get it to work, so we couldn’t actually evaluate it. But unless it is illegal when it works, then it is legal.”)

  • Travis Jennings

    The ATF doc clearly says smooth-bore 1.05″ barrel several times. What does a plug have to do with it? Whether its a 10.5″ barrel or a 1.05″ barrel with a plug you can not use a rifle lower or it’s an SBR- plug or not makes no difference. The smooth bore barrel is what gets it into AOW territory.

    • InfiniteGrim

      If it were permanently welded shut, it wouldn’t be a barrel. Instead they put a set screw type plug in the end that is easily removed.

      • David Sharpe

        Would that not be for cleaning? Blank ammo can corrode the inside of the barrel.

        In addition to having a welded on plug they should drill and tap it so you can put a blackpowder cleaning nipple on it.

  • LCON

    Well I am Glad to know that X Products is keeping the CAN of Do Attitude, De-Sprite the Rulling. Hope That MOXIE is enough to pull it off.

  • Isaac FluffyWolf Rader

    I CANnot believe this.
    …I wonder if you can make improvised soda can grenades though. Maybe that’s what they were thinking

    • The grenades would be separately regulated as DDs in that case.

  • Andrew

    I HAVE ONE AND THE ATF CAN SUCK MY “LOWER” UNTILL THERE LIPS FALL OFF!!!!
    using there “logic” or lack of logic, if you build a potato cannon with a 9 inch long barrel it would be an AOW or SBR at a minimum.

  • Brett

    Well, this is total BS!

  • Frank K

    Yo Bro! Pay the two hundred for the tax stamp and FORGETABOUTIT…

  • Jason Bourne

    I think the key is addressed in anther article on TFB. QUIT ASKING THE BATF ANYTHING!! Let them rule as they find the item. As gun owners, we know we want to be responsible and legal and all for the most part. But, the Sig Brace ruling and, it seems, this ruling came because some person/compamy brought it up to the ATF. I think we are hurting ourselves by doing the job of the ATF for them. Let me explain.

    WE (Gun Owners) find items that might be questionable based on our current laws (however right or wrong they may be). Then, WE ask the ATF if something like this or the Sig Brace is OK. Then, the ATF says, “Hey! Here is something else we can attempt to control!” Our problem is we are doing all the “leg work” for the ATF.

    I realize that some companies may be required to submit products to the ATF, so that may be unavoidable.

    This discussion is besides the fact that the ATF is slightly unconstitutional in its essence. If something has to be licensed, it is no longer a right, but rather a privilege.

    Anyway, just my two cents worth. Contact me if you want a refund 😉

  • Bill

    Just because you CAN, doesn’t mean you should. See what I did there?

  • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

    Thoughts? BAN THE BATFE.

  • Slobberjaw

    If it were designed as a muzzle device like a golf ball launcher perhaps? Make the end thread on the muzzle but make it extend over the handguard and attach via picatinny for support. Or just make the whole thing slide over the rail and attach.