Not a product I'd care to own
I'm not utterly sure of the benefit (why not just buy a Ruger pistol?) but I'd agree that the legal risks are considerable. ATF's position is that the receiver is the gun, and a rifle receiver is thus a rifle, so one turned into a pistol becomes a short-barreled rifle. The Thompson Center case suggests this may not be right, but I wouldn't consider it 100% on point, and when a violation is a felony, I'd like more assurance than that.
UPDATE: Tom Gunn notes, in a comment the spam blocker didn't like:
"can someone explain how the ATF could consider this a SBR
And this is not?
That makes no sense what-so-ever but then . . ."
The images are of two virtually identical 10-22s. I suppose the answer would be that one left the factory configured as a rifle and the other as a pistol. It does illustrate the problems with maintaining that there are "rifle receivers" and "pistol receivers." In actually, there are "receivers," and what is attached to it -- barrel and stock -- should be the sole determinant of what it is at a given moment.
You can't make sense of most gun laws, and the NFA is probably the worst. Gangsters were misusing Thompsons and sawed off shotguns, yet they threw in rifles and "any other weapons." The last is a remnant of the original plan to require registration of handguns (with a small transfer tax), with "any other weapon" capable of concealment put in for good measure. Then Congress took the handguns out, leaving just "any other weapon." So you wind up having to register some strange palm pistol made a century ago for ammunition not made in nearly a century.
They actually had to change the rifle barrel length. Originally, the minimum was 18" for rifles and shotguns. Then after WWII the government realized it had sold as surplus a ton of M-1 carbines with barrels just a bit over 16". So it lowered the barrel requirement for rifles to 16"