I'm an old fart so forgive my asking. What's the attraction of these. I've shot only one gun so equipped and to me at least it was a non-event.

__________________
Who are those guys?

I'm with you on this one. They're not pistols, not really. You can't carry them in any real way as one. I have no problem with folks buying the firearms that light their fire but I don't see the attraction or utility.

__________________
Who watches the watchers?

I think maybe because a lot of folks that have them, use them as a short barrel rifle. At first ATF said it was an offense to do this, then later, they dropped that provision. I have seen folks at the range shooting them from the shoulder. And really, what damn difference does it really make? Most gun laws are really stupid anyway.

They'll be restricted by the ATF shortly so it really doesn't matter what the attraction is. If you have one it will become contraband. If you want one, forgetaboutit.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

In short, it was a way to get around the stupid law without having to pay for that tax stamp! I think they are ugly in most cases and impractical but to each his own.

Ya, I think ATF finally took the position of "we approved the configuration, we don't care how you hold it". This latest was "OH **** we shouldn't have approved them how can we change this" and they dropped that for now. If you want to hold a pistol against your forehead, so be it.

So if one were to purchase a nice HK SP5
The options are to shoot it as is with a one point sling.
Expose your self to the .Gov, finger prints, register, and Form 1 the Pistol, adding a stock and officially making it a reg. SBR
Or go the brace option, which keeps the classification as a "pistol" This allows all the travel and carry rights any other pistol has.
The brace allowed for a cheek weld in prior opinions, which of course migrates to the shoulder, which I think was deemed ok depending on later opinions. Confusion seemed to be the result.
Not everyone is down with the form 1 requirements.
Many feel the brace does not make the gun any more or less of a danger to the general public. You know that opens up the whole form 1 vs brace argument which seems only to divide gun owners.

The intent (?) is to give you extra support when shooting the weapon as a pistol (?). The result is a wannabe SBR. High scores for "cool factor", but otherwise totally impractical. It will go the way of the bump stock with little fanfare.

^^Comments like That also bring out the Fudd factor.
The I don't have one, or like them so taking them away is fine concept is garbage.
Taking away can cascade to all sorts of things you do care about, real fast.

I care about concealed carry and constitutional carry. Those are on the rise in many states. I wouldn't carry a pistol (SBR) even if I had one and I don't think many people do. I've seen a few at my range but never seen anyone shoot them like a pistol, they always use the brace as a stock. Like bump stocks, the popularity of pistols, using rifle cartridges, with braces will probably decide their fate.

Hardly anyone likes to see people driving 100 mph on the freeway, hence speed limits.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

I was amazed when I built a pistol from gun show parts and a psa lower parts kit for $300. The amazing part was the pistol brace is more comfortable than the standard AR stock, and it keeps me legal to own nothing but a fun gun to take to the range that to SBR would cost almost as much as the gun itself. It’s no different than owning every variety of smith pistol you can find and having a box with tools. It really doesn’t serve any purpose other than to please the owners desire to have something they enjoy to handle and look at.

Which is what it's all about! I don't hunt deer anymore, so should I take the position that YOU shouldn't hunt deer either? That's pretty hypocritical of me. I think that if you want an AR pistol with a brace, then by golly you should be able to own one! We better stick together on this, or we will find ourselves hanging separately, to paraphrase Ben Franklin. The administration-to-be doesn't care a tinkers damn about the Second amendment, and will take our guns in a heart beat, and put your butt in prison.

Difference is, driving fast isn't a natural right protected by the Constitution.

__________________
Who watches the watchers?

Driving, PERIOD, is not protected by the Constitution! Driving is a privilege, not a right. Apples & oranges.

As long as people aren't committing crimes, I really don't care what kind of gun they own. All of the NFA restrictions are basically arbitrary.

There's a lot of folks out there who think that 50 year old guns that only hold 6 shots are stupid. Who am I to judge what guns they like?

It's time for all of us to stand together against any infringement of the 2nd Amendment. It's probably going to get bad over the next few years, and have you ever seen the 'antis' satisfied with any 'gun control' they've ever enacted?

Divided we fall.

Let's get real --- the only real reason the braces exist is as a way around the SBR laws. Now those laws are stupid, granted, but they are the law at this time. Anyone who thought they'd let this loophole stay open forever has no conception of the nature of bureaucracy -- which is never-ending expansion of its power and, most importantly, its budget. If you own an AR15 "pistol" and want to keep it, best you fire off a message to your representative and pray a whole bunch of others do the same.

__________________
Pisgah

I have one, and I can tell you all, it is practical within its niche. I know a lot of these “pistols” have been sold. If one thinks it’s a range toy, fine. If another folds the brace and drops it in a day pack with some get home supplies and secures it in his truck, so be it.

This weapon is concealable, handles wonderfully with great balance, is easier to hit with accurately than a regular handgun, has high capacity, hits hard, not as inconvenient as a full size carbine/rifle, etc. I’ll take it any day over my 9mm M&P, which I love and carry. But a rifle caliber pistol has many advantages. I can’t think of a personal defense role inside 100 yards it could not solve.

Don’t be judgmental on what you don’t know. Shoot one that’s not a range toy and you may change your mind. However, don’t deny me my right to own and shoot a gun configured like this.

Attached Images

99AD34C4-F107-4677-BCA8-AD35A86626F6.jpg (34.5 KB, 177 views)

Quoted for emphasis.

How could it be? When the constitution was written there were no automobiles. Nor were there any aircraft, but we have the FAA regulating those.

Braces, as you will soon find out, aren't protected by the constitution either. Sorry if that rains on your parade but it's just a few senate votes away from becoming federal law. Actually, it may not even take that. If ATF rules it, they're gone, just like bump stocks.

The constitution says you can keep and bear arms for your defense. It doesn't say which arms. That ship sailed in 1934 with the Nat'l Firearms Act. We are now coming up on 100 years of federal firearms regulation.

None of this matters what I think about it. What matters is what the new congress and administration thinks about it.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

Actually what matters is what the Supreme Court thinks of an intrusive regulation. If the ATF pursues this independent of congress, they must show a compelling reason for infringing a Constitutional right, and one that the ATF previously allowed. That will be a tough row to hoe.

If congressional action tries to override a Constitutional right, the fight will also end up in the SC. The same factors will be in play: compelling reasons for anti-Constitutional laws.

Thank you, Pres. Trump, for giving us a fighting chance in the SC.

My 5.56 AR pistol trashes the ballistics of that round. My 300 Blackout AR pistol of the same length is superior in the ballistics department. My 9mm AR pistol is a hoot to shoot, and the extra length barrel improves performance.

At present, all 3 wear braces, and all 3 wear red dots. Even if the braces became verbotten, all 3 would still be worth having (possibly not the 5.56, but I digress), and a foam cover on the buffer tube would still allow a cheek weld.

__________________
Only a cold warrior

I think its wrong to think of pistol braces in the same light as bump stocks. Bump stocks were mostly an aftermarket item, that while popular, did not sell in huge numbers.

Pistol braces have been, and are offered on factory new guns by a large number of firearms manufacturers, and are in far greater use than the bump stocks ever were.

I think (hope) there would be a lot more push back on any ATF action then there was with bump stocks. I think the ATF would be hard pressed to show a pattern of misuse of these guns that is higher than a standard 16 inch M4 type carbine.

I own a Ruger AR pistol with the factory brace, and it is a useful and fun gun to shoot and own. Could I get by without it? Sure. Should I have to because some bureaucrat has a bug up his ***? No.

Larry

I'd be willing to bet that the folks who don't like braces have never actually fired anything with one.

__________________
Thread Killer.

Some people probably say the same thing about revolvers. Or lever actions.



Support all gun rights not just the ones you like. I could care less about pistol braces but I sure as heck not going to sit back and say nothing while other people's rights are infringed.

Merry Christmas from ATF



Federal Register
::
Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces”

__________________
213th FBINA

I just think they look weird. I bought a CZ Scorpion that came with one, but I bought a stock and made it a SBR.

The only ones that look OK to me are the Tailhook Mod 1 brace. It's metal instead of rubber and plastic. I put one on a Shockwave. If the ATF claims them illegal, I'll just stamp it, and put any kinda stock I want on it.

I don't own one, I have never shot one, I think they are ugly, I think people buy them only to impress others at the range thusly Idon't care if they are outlawed. I only care for what I own and shoot.

All these nearsighted I opinions play squarely into the anti's hands. What happens when an I statement maker discovers the government is now targeting what they own? Will they be running willy nilly screaming WE need to join together in union against this horrid action?

WE will lose, WE need to support the guy next door, across town and across country, period.

__________________
U.S. Coast Guard, retired CPO

Semiautomatic AR with a 16" barrel, classified as a regular rifle.



Semiautomatic AR with a 14.5" barrel classified as a NFA weapon.

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5" barrel with a welded on 4.5" flash hider classified as a regular rifle.

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5" barrel and a stabilizer brace classified as a pistol.

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5 barrel and a collapsible stock classified as a NFA weapon.

It's all arbitrary and makes no sense.

__________________
BTDT, Got The T-Shirt

The brace story is the a epitome of the slippery slope argument; but this time it worked in favor of gun owners.

The ATF has a tax stamp requirement and permission to buy/own
any rifle with a short barrel, i.e., under 16”. That is an SBR.

However, if the rifle barrel was under 16” and there was no stock attached to the receiver, it was classified as a non-controlled pistol. There were very few of these around.

The cry went up from manufacturers of the most popular semi-auto rifle platform in America, the AR-15 pattern, that this was unfair. The AR recoil system required an extension out the rear of the receiver, unlike most other rifle-like pistols.

OK, said the ATF, you can still call that a pistol. ATF will call that extension a stabilizing brace, as long as is it is not shouldered.

Then manufacturers went from a simple buffer tube covered with foam to more elegant “braces” with arm bands for stabilization and even vertical fins at the rear for better stabilization (Sig 2012). ATF said OK, as long as it was not “shouldered”(2014-15).

Then such braces progressed even more toward looking like rifle stocks, but they were made slightly differently and still marketed as braces.

Despite the 2014 ATF proscription against shouldering these new stock-like braces, people did it anyway.

ATF looked at it, and decided, eh, let them do it (2017), occasionally. So shouldering a pistol for firing, as long as it was with a brace rather than a stock and within the realm of the undefined term “occasionally”, was now OK. Sales of AR style pistols skyrocketed as the advantages to such a compact system were recognized.

Now the ATF thinks it went too far and is trying to climb back up that slippery slope. These have been arbitrary administrative decisions unsupported by any collection of public data showing such configured guns represent any more danger to the public than any other configuration.

Now, what’s the big deal? IOW, why should anyone care?

I noted in my post above a number of advantages of a rifle configured this way. Special forces have long used such short barreled rifles for CQB, but they didn’t have to deal with the restrictions ATF puts on civilians for similarly configured rifles.

In the space of a few short years, the concept of an SBR becoming an uncontrolled pistol by not having a fixed stock was a big deal. I don’t know how many hundreds of thousands of these “pistols” have been sold, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it approaches a million.

If you buy an AR pistol receiver, registered as a pistol, you can legally put any upper you want on it—and a stock—and it is a legal rifle. You can’t do that with a receiver registered as a rifle. Your same receiver can be a 9mm, .300 BO, 5.56mm, etc., with any barrel length under 16” you want.

Now, any enhancement to the uncontrolled pistol/rifle/SBR concept that makes it easier to shoot accurately and quickly with rifle cartridges is a hot seller for those looking for compact, high capacity, easily fired, more powerful than a pistol options. Modern “braces” do that. Take away the ability to shoulder that “pistol”, occasionally, and you lose about 80% of its utility.

Comparing the underpinnings of this ruling to the bumpstock is apples-to-oranges, IMO. There were very, very few bump stock configurations ever sold, and they were definitely only a novelty. A rifle caliber pistol with a 30-round capacity is a formidable, useful tool. We have it now, legally. Take it away without justification, and I believe there will be a case against the ATF that won’t even reach the Supreme Court with the ATF losing. If it does make it to the SC, I believe the ruling will be shown to be unnecessary government overreach lacking sufficient justification.

Can you tell me about any laws regarding the regulation of firearms that congress passed that they, the SC, found unconstitutional? Serious question. It seems that if they were about doing that, NAF, GCA and Brady would have been ruled on by the SC as a constitutional question. None of them were.

I know that SC has ruled and found some state laws to be outside the constitution, like Heller, but those were not federal laws.

I'm just not seeing the SC going against congress, or the ATF, here. They wouldn't hear a bump stock or magazine case. They won't even hear an AR restriction case. Several states have those. Why would a brace be different?

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

I want one of the Pistol Brace AR15 short barrel rifle/pistol.
I knew that next Stimulus Check would come in handy.

I think that Ruger Pistol Brace AR15 is what I need next. An
easy 100yd rifle, compact, easy to conceal, easy to travel
with, easy to operate,easy to get on target fast, easy to
accessorize, easy to find magazines, easy to find ammo,
easy to see if its safe, easy to take apart, and easy to clean.

It would be really handy around the Farm, getting in and out of
the Pickup or Tractor, or swinging it up and out the window to
take a shot at the varmints out there, while checking the cattle
or fields.

I mean what more could a guy want for a Farm Assault Rifle.
Great idea for a Short Rifle.

Best be buying one soon. Maybe if you have one when the ATF gets around to deciding which way the wind is going to blow in 2021 you can get an exemption from the cost of a stamp when you register it as a SBR.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

One COULD argue that it falls under "pursuit of happiness" in another of our founding documents.

__________________
Or something like that . . .

Didn’t ATF reverse this decision on Wednesday after 90 members of Congress reached out? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a temporary reversal to change once Biden takes office.

There are much more important issues in this country but ATF exists to rule things the way it sees fit.

Good luck with THAT argument in court! LOL

I have a brace on my IWI Uzi Pro pistol, I fired the pistol without the brace when I first purchased the pistol, not a conventional type of pistol to be fired in the so-called regular pistol firing stances or holds. I put several hundred rounds thru it and found that it is best fired from the hip/waist area. I also felt wrist and forearm fatigue from firing the pistol. I decided to buy and install the brace. Using the brace the proper way, the pistol shot more accurately, i had better control with no arm or wrist fatigue, and was just a more pleasuable experience. I fired the pistol using the brace as a stock, shouldering the pistol, not bad, but not my thing and also fired from the hip without my arm inside the brace, not bad at all. My conclusion and opinion, for this type of firearm, the brace is effective and worth it.

They are a way around paying the tax stamp for a short barreled rifle, and gun owners might have gotten away with them if it weren't for the hundreds of youtube videos showing them being shouldered and fired, so now they're on the hit list.

Yes, I have fired them. No, I wasn't impressed. I have no fantasies of bug out bags stowed in trunks for when the world ends. If you gave me one I'd sell it immediately and buy something else. Do I think they should be banned? Honestly, I'm not sure. But I surely know they are a way around the SBR rule. And while some may say that gun owners like me are "part of the problem", I say that the thousands of gun owners using them as shoulder stocks and posting videos on youtube are the problem. Honestly, I almost think that the anti-gun lobby pays these idiots to make those videos.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

__________________
Made it, Ma! Top of the world!

I fired one at our church's range day during the "just don't shoulder it" period. Any attempt to use it in any way other than arm's length gave the RO apoplexy. I never found "spray and pray" fun even when I owned a Sten. My days of clearing buildings are past, so whatever ATF or SCOTUS decides, I'm not a buyer. But then I don't have or desire a standard AR or AK.

That said, the whole SBR/SBS category was a result of an attempt to prevent criminals from making concealable weapons from long guns. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of handguns in either the legitimate or black markets and the sole remaining function of the NFA appears to be revenue generation. Time to ditch the whole thing so I can order a suppressed Shockwave to deal with gophers in the backyard.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

I actually like the look of it on my .45 acp AR pistol uppers and it fits my long arms and bad elbows. Would I buy another, probably not. The MP5 build is an Olympic Arms blowback parts upper while the other build is a CMMG rotary bolt parts upper. The lower is a CNC lower that uses greasegun mags.

Attached Images

	A9B8660D-F408-489E-AE10-31F54EDA51C1.jpg (43.3 KB, 44 views)
	90B2EDD3-D779-4789-9582-CF4F303D6E75.jpg (56.3 KB, 45 views)

Some are saying it is a "way around". As of now, it is legal. If it is a legal "way around", what is the problem?

__________________
Thread Killer.

This is one I built not long ago it's a .300 blackout. The reason for the build was my state has a alternative methods deer season for pistols, muzzleloaders Etc. and this setup will be nice for that. Tomorrow will be the first time trying it. The .300 blackout was designed to be shot in shorter barrels and still have good ballistics.

Attached Images

hb.jpg (117.2 KB, 33 views)

__________________
SWHF #595

My response will probably earn me a vacation, which I will accept with dignity, since I am walking into it with my eyes open!

Up until this thread, I have viewed my acquaintances here with respect, because they have viewed posts with a reasonably open mind. However, many of the responses here appear to be wrought with tunnel vision.

It is my understanding, the BATFE started to allow the pistol braces on a case by case basis in order to allow disabled individuals (read veterans) to shoot the AR platform. The allowance of the pistol brace was an accommodation for the physically challenged!

Last year (2019) I had the opportunity to fire a braced Sig prototype AR pistol in 9mm at the Adaptive Defensive Shooting Summit. There were a number of my fellow participants that had lost the use of an arm that thoroughly enjoyed shooting the braced pistol. While I have only limited use of an arm, I didn't enjoy the experience. Just because I didn't enjoy the experience wouldn't justify my supporting a call to deprive them of the opportunity to shoot an AR platform arm.

It does appear that pistol braces (as designed) have a place within the shooting community. It allows the disabled to either join, or continue to participate, in the shooting sports. The question that I would pose is, do those that abuse the availability of the pistol brace realize that they are placing in jeopardy the right of the disabled to enjoy the shooting sports or engage in armed self-defense?

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

I'll go along with that. I've owned a few braces, but not currently. But it shouldn't be mine or anyone else's business if you use a brace, what barrel length your firearm has, what you have screwed on the end, etc.

I have a Sig PM400 pistol with a brace in 300 BLK. I have a Sig MPX that I bought a $200 stamp for and converted to an SBR. I have a suppressor that will work on either gun and has its own $200 stamp. The reason I have them is I enjoy shooting them. They are FUN. If there were no laws and I had more money, I’d have an HK MP5 in full auto. Because they are FUN. I have a $200 tax stamp and suppressor for my S&W AR-15 .22LR. Then again, all my firearms stuff is a hobby. Which is FUN. For me. That’s the point.

__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615

The difference is named Gorsich, Kavenaugh. and Comey.

OK, I'll be watching for the next case that limits states rights or congress to regulate. I hope I'm not dead before it happens.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

On a par with putting a shoulder stock on a pistol. Looks neat, in practice,"turns a good pistol into a bad carbine." This is a good case of what happens when regulatory agencies are in effect allowed to legislate.

Let's step back a bit and talk about how ATF lets this stuff get started.

ATF, like most federal agencies, are staffed by a large percent of staff who have legal training - lawyers for the most part, most who who have never practiced law and maybe never taken or passed a bar exam. They go into government because law schools pump out far more lawyers that we can gainfully employ as lawyers, and they *think* that government with its laws and it's rule making is a good use of their legal training. It's not.

The problem is that these legally trained staff almost always have little or no experience in or knowledge of the thing or program that they are regulating. Lacking actual knowledge, and the common sense that comes with that, they revert to a narrow read of the law to try to determine both congressional intent (when there is an absence of sufficient committee notes) when writing regulations and when issuing subregulatory guidance in the form of responses to questions posed to ATF.

In other words when the original question was posed to ATF in the form of "can we attach this pistol brace to an AR-15 pistol?" The story - and it was indeed just a story - was that the straps on the brace would allow someone with a disability to hold an AR-15 pistol with one hand.

ATF determined that handguns are designed to be shot with one hand, and that since the intent of a brace was to allow someone to shoot one with one hand, a brace was allowable on an AR-15 pistol. Even though it looked like a stock, could be used as a stock and in fact was obviously going to be used like a stock.

In short, since it fit with a "narrow read" of the statute and regulations, the legally trained staff at ATF said "sure, it's obviously legal".

Had an ATF staff person with a knowledge of firearms and how they were used been in the approval chain, the common sense logic of "if it looks like a stock, functions like a stock, and will be used like a stock, then it's a stock" would have been applied and the answer from ATF would have been "No. A brace that looks like, functions like, and can be used like a stock, is a stock and makes it an SBR".

Fast forward a bit, ATF realized it had royally screwed up granting approval for pistol braces. So they tried to stuff the genie back in the box by saying that "how a firearm is used can determine its classification". In that vein ATF said "if you shoulder a braced pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches, it becomes an SBR".

There's a problem with that. If the same AR-15 "Pistol" had a barrel over 16", it wasn't an SBR, but it also wasn't a "rifle" because ATF has also said "once a pistol, always a pistol". So saying "once a pistol, always a pistol, unless it's an SBR" is massively lacking in internal consistency across the larger body of regulation. That's one of the fundamental flaws with using a "narrow read of the law".

A second issue is that the "use determines classification" is incredibly hard to enforce. It plays out like this in court.

Prosecutor: So officer, on or about <insert date here> you stated in your report that you observed the defendant fire his braced AR-15 pistol from his shoulder. How far away were you from the defendant?

Officer: 100 yards

Prosecutor: Where were you positioned relative to the defendant?

Officer: At about is 8 o'clock.

Prosecutor: So there's no way you could have observed whether the butt was in contact with the defendant's shoulder or 1/4" in front of his shoulder.

Officer: Well...I guess not.


Consequently, ATF backed off on that very quickly and decided that you could in fact put a pistol brace on an AR-15, and shoot it off your shoulder.

On December 18, ATF published a request for public comments on objective factors surrounding pistol braces and the comments were for the most part not supportive of ATF sticking it's fingers back in that particular pie. Negative responses were also received from key members of congress, clearly signaling "if we want to make pistol braces illegal, it'll be our call, not yours." As a result, ATF pulled the announcement down.

In short, I doubt the braced pistols will be going the way of the bump stock anytime soon.

----

I do however agree with you that braced pistols are functionally the same as an SBR. I don't see that as a problem. The ATF has about 90 people wasting their time approving Form 1s and Form 4s for NFA items that are virtually never used in crimes. Those staff would be far better used tracing leads on people who are in the process of preparing to commit crimes.

SBRs and braced pistols are virtually never used in crimes as they are still too large to effectively conceal and too heavy to carry on an daily basis.

Same with suppressors. It's ironic that European countries that have much stricter gun control than we have in the US, have no issues with people using suppressors.

----

I disagree with you about practicality. AR-15 pistols *without* a brace are certainly impractical. However, with a brace, and a reasonable length barrel ("8 to 12") make great little "carbines". I have one in 9mm Luger and with 115 gr XTPs and a max load of a moderate burn rate powder, I get excellent accuracy (1 MOA) and it's effective out to 200 yards. It makes an excellent truck gun.

Unlike and SBR, it's still a pistol and as such I can carry my truck gun loaded in my truck under the privileges of my concealed pistol permit. I cannot do that with and SBR. I can also take my braced pistol into states that allow pistols and have reciprocity with NC for concealed carry permits, but do not allow SBRs. I also do not have to file paperwork annually to cover states I plan to travel to with an SBR.

That makes a properly configured braced pistol extremely practical - far more so than an SBR.

Below is my 9mm AR-15 carbine with an 8.3" barrel, and a Burris 332. The reticle in the 332 is extremely well suited to a 100 yard zero with convenient hold points out to 200 yards.

Ok. What does "abuse the availability of the pistol brace" mean, exactly? Please, define "abuse" when:

A - It is currently legal to have a brace on AR and AK type pistols and 590/870 12ga pisitols.
B - It is appears to be legal to shoulder said braced pistols.

__________________
Thread Killer.