Slickdeals Saves U! Vote for our Slickdeals scholarship finalists! Learn More
Forum Thread

Sig Sauer SBX Gen 2 Pistol Stabilizing Brace $64.98 Shipped A.C gunmagwarehouse.com

kromix 650 599 September 19, 2016 at 08:48 PM in Sporting Goods (4)
Deal
Score
+7
3,325 Views
$64.98

Thread Details

Last Edited by kromix September 20, 2016 at 08:04 AM
http://gunmagwarehouse.com/sig-sa...brace.html

Sale Price $59.99
- 5% coupon (GMW16) = $56.99
+ 7.99 2-3 day priority shipping
= $64.98 shipped

14 Comments

1

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#2
Ironically I commented on a similar product a few years ago on SD, when I was looking for products to use a semi-auto in a larger round with a permanent rotator cuff injury. From the title then I thought that it might help with my infrequent off-hand pistol shooting. I ended commented that these are useless for aimed shooting of a pistol as the forearm brace would only really work if shooting from the hip one handed, and that their only intent (as shown by that manufacturer's video) was to try claim an AR-15/M4 with certain impractical hardware was a pistol, and then by adding this circumvent the SBR (short barrel rifle) laws by de facto making one, but claiming it is still a pistol.

Turns out I was right, or at least ATF and several State Governments have cracked down on them - which is very germane to the deal. While I really dislike the ludicrous extremes both sides are using to enforce/abuse the rules on these - do your research. The law on these things is constantly shifting, and I'd hate for someone here to get caught like the fellow did in Indiana for inadvertently violating in his case Straw Man Purchase regulations (yeah, he was sorta dumb - OK really dumb - about it but there was no criminal intent). Look at the most recent issues on these so-called Pistol Stabilizing Braces, and make sure the potential hassle and legal issues (how you hold the gun could put you in prison depending on the jurisdiction) are worth it.

BTW not intended as an argument over the SBR rules, but a headsup that these could land you in severe legal trouble. Since this is purely a case of regulatory interpretation - imagine what will happen with that "interpretation" if there is a large scale shooting with one of these. Note even Scalia voted to overturn the Federal Laws on SBR's, so just be forewarned this issue will not simply go away no matter who is elected unless much of the National Firearms Act of 1934 is repealed.

BTW I have a friend who is working on his firearm instructor certificate in LEO, so this is not just some anti-gun crap but info I've gleaned from his helping me on practical concealed-carry issues, i.e. how to use a pistol in emergency off-hand situations when I have a bum shoulder. We concluded a 9mm semi-auto works just fine, but I'm not going to be able to control a .45 ACP properly even though before the injury I had no trouble the one time I tried a long-barreled .44 magnum revolver on a range that a very nice fellow enthusiast let me try. However, as my friend put it - "So what, sunshine, it's about the shoulder you have now." Blush
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#3
Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
imagine what will happen with that "interpretation" if there is a large scale shooting with one of these.
What if there's a large scale shooting involving comfortable shoes, will we be destined to suffer hammer toes and calluses?

When a piece of plastic on the wrong end of a firearm alters the terminal ballistics of the projectile, let me know and I'll use one to take out the pigs flying overhead.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#4
nice find but illegal in CA
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by shamshizel September 20, 2016 at 01:52 AM.
Joined Sep 2009
L8: Grand Teacher
3,609 Posts
1,243 Reputation
#5
I don't think it's correct to say the ATF has "cracked down" on these.... they simply clarified their legal use.

They remain (outside of CA, which is a CA thing not an ATF thing) completely legal to own and put on a pistol.


Exactly zero people- ever- have been arrested for just for using a pistol brace as a pistol brace.


Here's the only thing that "changed" regarding the ATF...

In 2014 the ATF in response to an inquiry letter said this:

Quote from The ATF :
Certain firearms accessories such as the Sig Stability Brace have not been classified by [ATF] as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change, Using such an accessory improperly would not change the classification of the weapon per Federal law.

In other words- you could use put the brace up to your shoulder like a stock, and it still was totally fine.



Then in 2015 they changed their minds on the shouldering thing and the ATF instead said:

Quote from The ATF :
"The pistol stabilizing brace was neither 'designed' nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a 'redesign' of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item"

Meaning they are still completely legal to purchase, own, and mount on a pistol if used as designed and intended.

Or as the ATF themselves wrote in the most recent open letter about it-

Quote from The ATF :
ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm
You can read the ATF letter here-

https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download



TL;DR= Item is entirely legal (federally, but not in CA) to own and attach to a pistol. But only for its intended use as a brace, NOT as a shoulder stock.


So if someone "catches" you with a brace mounted on a pistol, there's no risk whatsoever of legal problems- because that ain't illegal and never has been.

The only legal risk would be someone catching you using the arm brace as a shoulder stock- since that use of it is not legal.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#6
Quote from Knightshade View Post :
...
So if someone "catches" you with a brace mounted on a pistol, there's no risk whatsoever of legal problems- because that ain't illegal and never has been.

The only legal risk would be someone catching you using the arm brace as a shoulder stock- since that use of it is not legal.
OK - I may not have put it well, but I believe the point I stressed was how your hold the device could put you at risk - so the device is not banned by the ATF, but the way they are used by over 90% of the purchasers use it is illegal. Confused. Your post appears to minimizes these risks, though they did reinforce my point even more and establish that it is nationwide - you CAN be arrested on SBR charges for the "improper" use of this stock.

Two problems. First, before this "work-around" was discovered by people wanting an SBR, sales for devices to help those with injuries or handicaps causing problems with shooting were a very small market. The number of sales over the last three years are massively beyond any such market..
http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/...sig-brace/

Secondly - mechanically, you understand that this goes onto the AR-15 "pistol" just like a normal stock. Straight line. Now plant the flat plate against the arm (from the pistol) anywhere. The only way to do that is with the arm crooked fairly close to 90 degrees from barrel (i.e. the long axis) of the gun, as that is how it is configured. Now try to do that one or two handed with a pistol. The only way to do that practically is to have the elbow bent roughly at the waist, and to be handling the "pistol" like some spaghetti Western shootout. Since the butt plate configuration at the end has no practical application, there was no need to make it like that except so that it can be used as a butt plate, i.e. turning the "pistol" into a SBR.

Now instead imagine the hole in the bottom of the butt pad of the adapter (which of course cannot be used as butt pad or you will be in violation of the law) over your forearm, the purported stabilization usage of these things. OK, now hold your arm in a standard one or two handed shooting stance (trust me, having a firearms instructor shooting errors with a pistol - I come from the hunting side of things - has made me very aware of technique).

The only way this thing works is if you have the arm it is attached to, locked/straight both up and down and side to side at the wrist. Plus you have to be holding it at shoulder level to have a clear sight-line down the long axis of the firearm. There may be some minor adjustments to this to get the only functional lining-up of everything, but there will be only one very narrow configuration. You might have to have the elbow very slightly bent for example, it just depends on how the adapter geometry works with your body measurements.

The ONLY geometrically possible exception would be that the wrist could be bent laterally (side-to-side) if the butt-plate-that-is-not-a-butt-plate of the adapter rotates in a circle, which does not appear to be the typical usage but there could be an exception (which I haven't researched, as you'll understand further on as it is next to useless). However, then it's also going to create an even more inflexible stance as any vertical motion of the forearm will rotate the hole and thus the "brace" that goes over the forearm in this purported usage.

If the hole/"adapter" butt plate can rotate around the forearm, then the sighting axis of the firearm tilts. As the hole rotates the long axis will tilt at the pistol grip, both tilting the long axis in the opposite direction of the adapter hole, and changing the horizontal angle and slewing the end of the rifle again, in the opposite direction pivoting again around the pistol grip. There is a reason the company that was selling them a couple of years ago that was linked on SD was only showing in the company video being shot from a ridiculous, one-arm straight configuration for a couple of seconds, while for several minutes they discussed how this was legal, and proceeded to spend several minutes using it from a pick-up truck cab as essentially an urban warfare SBR.

I've posted on how much I find the gun elimination lobby's ridiculous definition of a "assault riflte" which is almost purely a cosmetic issue (remember when the "Assault Gun ban" that would have included Revolutionary War reenactment rifles with plug bayonets?). This device is the same type of issue, trying instead to use a cosmetic makeover and standing on the "disabled" or "handicapped" label to shut down any close legal examination. I'm don't have much sympathy for either.

As I mentioned reference the guy who made a Straw Gun purchase inadvertently. He ended up in prision. Your update on the legal interpretation makes having one of these very foolish. If someone makes a cell phone video of you using this as a stock on an AR-15 type "pistol", and inadvertently posts, or someone with an agenda sees it and posts it, or if it gets auto-posted, or if that phone gets lost/stolen/hacked - you can go to prison, or at least have a very expensive legal bill if ATF decides to make you the example. So while purchasing one might still be technically legal - maybe it's a bad idea for the vast majority of people out there. If it had truly been for "handicapped" individuals, there would have been vertical and horizontal adjustment to the forearm brace, and there would have been no need for a butt plate, and that in fact could have incorporated the adjustment mechanism. The intent of this design is very clear by what it does NOT do.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by Mr. Harley September 20, 2016 at 03:07 PM. Reason: italics added
Joined Sep 2009
L8: Grand Teacher
3,609 Posts
1,243 Reputation
#7
Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
OK - I may not have put it well, but I believe the point I stressed was how your hold the device could put you at risk - so the device is not banned by the ATF, but the way they are used by over 90% of the purchasers use it is illegal. Confused. Your post appears to minimizes these risks
Mainly because it's a minimal risk.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
, though they did reinforce my point even more and establish that it is nationwide - you CAN be arrested on SBR charges for the "improper" use of this stock.
Can you cite anyone, anywhere, ever, who was arrested for this?


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Two problems. First, before this "work-around" was discovered by people wanting an SBR, sales for devices to help those with injuries or handicaps causing problems with shooting were a very small market. The number of sales over the last three years are massively beyond any such market..
In what way is that a problem?

On the contrary it's caused improvements in such devices, which are then a help to the disabled.

That's a benefit, not a problem.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Secondly - mechanically, you understand that this goes onto the AR-15 "pistol" just like a normal stock. Straight line. Now plant the flat plate against the arm (from the pistol) anywhere. The only way to do that is with the arm crooked fairly close to 90 degrees from barrel (i.e. the long axis) of the gun, as that is how it is configured. Now try to do that one or two handed with a pistol. The only way to do that practically is to have the elbow bent roughly at the waist, and to be handling the "pistol" like some spaghetti Western shootout. Since the butt plate configuration at the end has no practical application, there was no need to make it like that except so that it can be used as a butt plate, i.e. turning the "pistol" into a SBR.
There's tons of videos of people using the SIG brace properly without problems, so this doesn't really hold up to real world use...

Further, there's other braces that can be even easier to use (KAK Shockwave for example doesn't use straps and is smaller if you seem to be having trouble with the end piece of the Sig one to cite one example)



Further, while you can't shoulder either brace, you can use it as a cheek weld point (since that's legal on pistols too, and the ATF is very clear it's only SHOULDERING that's an issue with the brace).... which is another added bit of comfort compared to trying to do that with a naked pistol buffer.




Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
The only way this thing works is if you have the arm it is attached to, locked/straight both up and down and side to side at the wrist. Plus you have to be holding it at shoulder level to have a clear sight-line down the long axis of the firearm. There may be some minor adjustments to this to get the only functional lining-up of everything, but there will be only one very narrow configuration.
Again this is demonstrably false- there's a ton of videos showing people shooting with the brace NOT on their shoulder with no problem... including with the brace strap on AND with it used as a cheek weld....and there's more than one brace on the market now with different sizes/configs on top of that.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
This device is the same type of issue, trying instead to use a cosmetic makeover and standing on the "disabled" or "handicapped" label to shut down any close legal examination. I'm don't have much sympathy for either.
This device was actually invented by a veteran specifically to help a disabled friend of his... something your own link mentioned that you appear to have missed... so your suggesting that was not the real original purpose is.... not factually correct.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
As I mentioned reference the guy who made a Straw Gun purchase inadvertently. He ended up in prision.
Yes- because straw purchases are illegal.

Owning, mounting, or properly using this brace isn't.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Your update on the legal interpretation makes having one of these very foolish. If someone makes a cell phone video of you using this as a stock on an AR-15 type "pistol", and inadvertently posts, or someone with an agenda sees it and posts it, or if it gets auto-posted, or if that phone gets lost/stolen/hacked - you can go to prison

You are making less and less sense as you go on...


"If you use it illegally you could get in trouble- so it's foolish to even OWN it!"

That's your argument.

Which is also true of any gun. Or car. or baseball bat. Or basically any object in the world.

The trick would be- don't use it illegally.

There's multiple LEGAL uses for it after all, and OWNING it isn't illegal at all (outside CA).


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
[I]If it had truly been for "handicapped" individuals
Again... it was. Your own source even admitted that.

Increasingly it sounds like you've never actually seen or used one of these in person.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#8
Quote from Knightshade View Post :
...
Increasingly it sounds like you've never actually seen or used one of these in person.
Now, since you've chosen a reverse order to discredit me, let's try being factual. First, I posted on what I believe was the first deal on a similar device after watching in detail the manufacturer video kindly included with that OP. I WANTED the device to work for me for other issues. I clearly stated that, yet since we have come to heavily divergent conclusions you resort to "He obviously is lying. He cannot have seen these since he drew a different conclusion."

That device had exactly the aiming issues I discussed. It sounds like you do NOT understand the point of what I was describing, and I noticed you do not rebut any single one of the aiming/geometry issues I describe for using it one handed in any of the standard pistol stances.

That's because you cannot, they are a SERIOUS problem, unless you are using this to turn a so-called AR pistol into a carbine. It's a two handed "pistol" that cannot, with this adapter, possibly be fired practically one-handed. So it's a two handed weapon that you hold to your cheek instead of your shoulder. Since you hold it to your cheek instead of your shoulder, it magically is a pistol and not carbine. vomit

Quote :
Again this is demonstrably false- there's a ton of videos showing people shooting with the brace NOT on their shoulder with no problem... including with the brace strap on AND with it used as a cheek weld....and there's more than one brace on the market now with different sizes/configs on top of that.
OK - and there you show that you freely admit this is deliberate blurring of the definition between a rifle, SBR, and a pistol. Just for jollies I googled "cheek weld" and "pistol". That is a term only used for the AR so-called pistols. So in an effort to get around the SBR laws you hold it mostly like a rifle, including a cheek weld (I'll grant you that's a clever use of words, except - I've never heard of cheek weld EXCEPT with rifles and shotguns) but let's magically not touch our shoulder.

Quote :
This device was actually invented by a veteran specifically to help a disabled friend of his... something your own link mentioned that you appear to have missed... so your suggesting that was not the real original purpose is.... not factually correct.
And the link also talked about how the huge increase in sales has no relationship to the number of handicapped shooters. This from a review that states it is biased towards these devices.

So let's get this straight. They market this device for handicapped shooters, when it cannot possibly work one-handed - which BTW you never address. Also note the purported problem was due to lack of control by the handicapped shooter of an AR-15 "pistol", which is already playing fast and loose with the legal definition of pistol vs. rifle. The article which I note states the designer states that as his reason for designing it, which is suspect given the initial marketing and sales of these devices.

So now it's for handicapped shooters using it for "two handed" shooting of an AR - pistol, which is carefully only cheek-welded but never touches the shoulder so it magically is no longer a pistol.

Oh, and the sales vastly outstrip the target market, and the ATF who are the legal authority on this have started cracking down, implying that there IS a problem - after all these are the people who enforce these laws. That after a shotgun manufacturer was exploiting the same loophole (yes, that's also in the article if you bothered to read it). I guess you would support the existence of a "shotgun - pistol". Note a home defense shotgun is still a long arm, and is appropriately regulated that way.

BTW besides my own handicap, the individual I purchased my Weatherby .300 magnum (I'm a southpaw and at the time this was one of three companies marketing non-custom left-handed bolts) had all of the fingers missing from one hand, and most from the other. Handling a long arm when handicapped is not the monstrous, onerous deal you seem to be portraying. However, using something designed as a rifle as a pistol when handicapped might just possibly be a less than sterling idea. Just like me trying to shoot my Weatherby on my bad shoulder after I tore it all up.

Quote :

Owning, mounting, or properly using this brace isn't. (sic - illegal)
Except that making an inadvertent mistake means you are no longer "properly" using it, i.e. cheek weld vs. letting it touch your shoulder. We all know that nobody ever makes an inadvertent mistake. I worked in a safety-related field for over 20 years - anything that can "inadvertently" be used incorrectly, because it closely resembles a standard piece of equipment will not get certified for those reasons. Admittedly, this is not safety related like proper protocols on a firing range, but the concept is the same - except in this case you can end up in prison, instead of shooting someone or crashing an aircraft.

Quote :
"If you use it illegally you could get in trouble- so it's foolish to even OWN it!"

That's your argument.

Which is also true of any gun. Or car. or baseball bat. Or basically any object in the world.
Not true, and a poor misrepresentation of the facts. The minor shifting of the "non-butt plate" (FYI pistol with a butt plate - that already show an intention to blur the distinction between a long arm and a pistol) takes it from "legal" to "illegal". That's absurd.

There has been an very hard movement, among a small minority of 2nd amendment "enthusiasts" (or "extremists" depending on your bent) to push the limits of the various Federal Firearms laws. The simply existence of a "two-handed cheek welded pistol" shows problems (not my opinion, the ATF involvement shows the people tasked with the enforcement of those laws were having problems, too), as were the legal fictions that were attempts to get around the laws on background checks and special licensing for automatic weapons and sound suppressors. Anytime someone says something is "technically legal" (not your selected term, but definitely the spirit of your arguments) means they know they are skirting the edges of the law (as the ATF fully understood with their "clarification"). Again, rebut that the ATF got involved if you want to argue whether this is or is not pushing the limits of the appropriate legal terms.

I am all for a discussion about these laws, and honestly - some of the arguments about using suppressors during hunting I found intriguing, though the proponents cannot make a compelling argument about how this could make poaching very difficult for Game Wardens to catch, just like some LEO's have argued against any legalization of Cannabis due to the difficulty of enforcing DUI laws. You just couldn't resist though, using emotional labels to "discredit" someone who disagrees, while selectively ignoring the physics of the utter impracticality of using this device one-handed.

BTW I didn't realize how differently we were looking at things until you used the term "cheek weld" with pistol, which made me realize your intentions. All the geometry issues go away if you never use it one handed, which you conveniently ignore since to your two-handed cheek-welded pistol is "legal". The problem is, and I watched this happen with the stupid "assault rifle ban" - if instead of obeying the law as it was intended, you (as in 2nd amendment activists) can create a backlash that results in the majority deciding the laws have to "tightened" to stop individuals from exploiting so-called loopholes. Ironically, while gun control activists exploit emotional labels, it's people who hide behind "it's a two-handed only cheek-welded firearm is still technically a pistol" who cry foul, without realizing that is a major reason arguments against "assault rifles" succeed in the public sphere.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 1
Last edited by Mr. Harley September 21, 2016 at 12:31 AM. Reason: one instead of "on"

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#9
does this mean that, according to the atf, if i rest the back of the slide on my shoulder I've created an SBR?

but in all seriousness this kind of thing is why pro gun people are so fed up with regulations that don't actually stop crime.

this must be the shoulder thing that goes up.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#10
Good deal.

That is all.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Sep 2009
L8: Grand Teacher
3,609 Posts
1,243 Reputation
#11
Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Now, since you've chosen a reverse order to discredit me, let's try being factual. First, I posted on what I believe was the first deal on a similar device after watching in detail the manufacturer video kindly included with that OP. I WANTED the device to work for me for other issues. I clearly stated that, yet since we have come to heavily divergent conclusions you resort to "He obviously is lying. He cannot have seen these since he drew a different conclusion."
I didn't say you were lying.

I said you don't appear to have ever actually used the device in person- and your statement above seems to confirm that.

I have. It works a lot better, and more easily, than you seem to think it does from your having only ever watching internet videos of it.

That's not you "lying" that's you being poorly informed on the very thing you're trying to discuss.

Go hit a local gun show, there's tons of pistols with braces there so you can actually try one yourself and see it works better than you think it does.

Not only that- again, there's DIFFERENT models that work/feel different- another thing you seem to have been unaware of.





Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
That device had exactly the aiming issues I discussed.
Well not really, no....because again if you've watched all these videos you'd have seen videos of people using this brace (and the other types) and hitting their targets without issue.

Often mentioning the brace made it EASIER to hit them.

It's possible one particular model might not fit you well, specifically... but that's one reason there's multiple models offered after all.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
It sounds like you do NOT understand the point of what I was describing, and I noticed you do not rebut any single one of the aiming/geometry issues I describe for using it one handed in any of the standard pistol stances.
And I'm telling you I've actually used braces, unlike you, and they work fine.

If you want to ignore real life experience in favor of your guesses from internet videos knock yourself out.

But it's pretty weird given there's so many videos of OTHER people for whom it works fine too.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
That's because you cannot, they are a SERIOUS problem, unless you are using this to turn a so-called AR pistol into a carbine. It's a two handed "pistol" that cannot, with this adapter, possibly be fired practically one-handed.
Except, it can, and since the only evidence you accept is internet videos you can find tons of them with people doing exactly the thing you insist is impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alcRhUF90dI

Oh look, someone shooting one handed with the brace and the gun stays quite stable and steady!

it's almost like the device actually works as intended!


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
So it's a two handed weapon that you hold to your cheek instead of your shoulder.
Well no, it's not.

it's a pistol you can shoot one OR two handed (there's nothing illegal about shooting a pistol with 2 hands of course- in fact, that's how MOST people shoot them).

You can ALSO use a cheek weld- as again LOTS of people have ALWAYS done with things like AR pistols.

This just improves the cheek weld.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Since you hold it to your cheek instead of your shoulder, it magically is a pistol and not carbine. vomit
Well, yes, [B]literally by definition[B/] US law defines a rifle as something designed to fire from the shoulder.

Pistols on the other hand can be fired with a cheek weld, and that's always been true.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/fire...tion-rifle

"The term "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder"


Which part is still confusing you?


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
OK - and there you show that you freely admit this is deliberate blurring of the definition between a rifle, SBR, and a pistol.
No- there you show you don't understand the actual definition of those things.

because shoulder or not is literally in the definition of rifle.

That's why it matters.

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Just for jollies I googled "cheek weld" and "pistol". That is a term only used for the AR so-called pistols. So in an effort to get around the SBR laws you hold it mostly like a rifle, including a cheek weld (I'll grant you that's a clever use of words, except - I've never heard of cheek weld EXCEPT with rifles and shotguns) but let's magically not touch our shoulder.
Right, because again, that's literally how the law is written


I have to ask at this point if you have ever fired a gun at all?

Because the difference apart from legal is pretty huge too

Using your shoulder provides a solid recoil-absorbing stable base to fire a rifle from.

A cheek weld does not.... it's useful for sighting the weapon, but your face is not designed to absorb firearm recoil or stabilize shooting.

You seem to not understand the difference though... which anyone who had actually used any of the weapons he's trying to discuss should already know.



Go take a look at the Ruger Charger sometime.

It's also been around for years, and it's 100% legal.

And you can shoot it with 1 or 2 hands.

And cheek weld it.

And it's hardly the only non-AR pistol example out there.

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
So let's get this straight. They market this device for handicapped shooters, when it cannot possibly work one-handed
Except, it can. Because that's literally what it was designed for according to YOUR OWN SOURCE.

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
- which BTW you never address.
Yes, I did. Multiple times.

Including mentioning the device was invented by a veteran for his disabled friend

Did you miss that, or just ignore it because it proved you wrong?


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Also note the purported problem was due to lack of control by the handicapped shooter of an AR-15 "pistol", which is already playing fast and loose with the legal definition of pistol vs. rifle.
well no, it's not.

AR pistols have been around for decades and the legal definitions have been very clear to everyone... (except you apparently)

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
So now it's for handicapped shooters using it for "two handed" shooting of an AR - pistol, which is carefully only cheek-welded but never touches the shoulder so it magically is no longer a pistol.
... what?

First- the one/two handed thing makes zero sense.

PISTOLS are shot with 2 hands most of the time too.

Second, if it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder then by definition it's not a rifle.

You seem to keep not understand the actual legal difference between a rifle and pistol.


Which is pretty unfortunate given your original post was attempting to offer legal advice that was...ill informed.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Oh, and the sales vastly outstrip the target market

Not sure what that has to do with anything at all.

The AR platform to begin with was designed for military use, but sales far outstrip that now.

And it's hardly the only gun for which that's true.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
, and the ATF who are the legal authority on this have started cracking down, implying that there IS a problem
No, they haven't.

You can tell, because when I challenged you to cite anybody arrested for having a Sig brace on their gun... anywhere... ever... you had....nothing.

They are not "cracking down"

They simply issued an open letter clarifying their reading of existing law.

Which I explained in some detail and provided a link to in my original reply to you.

Did you read their letter?

Where it tells you exactly what I did? that this device is legal to own,mount on a pistol, and use as intended?


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
- after all these are the people who enforce these laws.

Yes they are.

And they explicitly say the device is LEGAL if used as intended.


So why you do keep claiming otherwise or implying there's some "risk" to doing that?


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
I guess you would support the existence of a "shotgun - pistol".
Of course I would.

Why wouldn't you?

Hell, S&W and Tarus have offered pistols that shoot shotgun rounds for YEARS.

And you can buy pistol-grip-only shotguns with shorter than 18" barrels, legally, all day long.

And have been able to for years.


Apparently it's yet another thing you simply didn't know existed?

Here's a link explaining WHY they are legal, and why the ATF has agreed they're legal pretty much forever.

http://shockwavetechnologies.com/...page_id=88



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
BTW besides my own handicap, the individual I purchased my Weatherby .300 magnum (I'm a southpaw and at the time this was one of three companies marketing non-custom left-handed bolts) had all of the fingers missing from one hand, and most from the other. Handling a long arm when handicapped is not the monstrous, onerous deal you seem to be portraying.

Well, I'm sure glad we have you here to speak for every handicapped person in the world! LMAO


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Except that making an inadvertent mistake means you are no longer "properly" using it, i.e. cheek weld vs. letting it touch your shoulder.

I'm again wondering if you actually have ever used a gun.

How do you "accidentally" shoulder a weapon and fire it 'by mistake'?

Any responsible gun owner doesn't even touch the trigger until the gun is properly held and aimed after all.

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
We all know that nobody ever makes an inadvertent mistake.

Sure- people shoot themselves or others all the time because they don't follow basic rules of gun safety.


That doesn't mean we ought to ban guns because a few people are careless though does it?


Same thing here.

Used properly it's perfectly legal to own, mount on the pistol, and use it.


It's that simple.


Further- I again challenge you to cite ANYBODY ever arrested for the fearmongering situation you're so on about....

Anybody... anywhere.... ever....got any?

Didn't think so.


it's a nonsense concern with no basis in fact or reality.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Not true, and a poor misrepresentation of the facts. The minor shifting of the "non-butt plate" (FYI pistol with a butt plate - that already show an intention to blur the distinction between a long arm and a pistol) takes it from "legal" to "illegal".
Except, it doesn't. Since the ATF, which you admit is the authority here, explicitly says you're wrong, and that this is legal to own, mount, and use, if used as intended.

In other words it's not illegal unless you use it illegally.

Just like a gun. or car. or baseball bat. or literally anything else.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
There has been an very hard movement, among a small minority of 2nd amendment "enthusiasts" (or "extremists" depending on your bent) to push the limits of the various Federal Firearms laws. The simply existence of a "two-handed cheek welded pistol" shows problems
No, it doesn't.

Because those ahve been around for decades with no problem.


Remove the brace entirely, and it's still a pistol you can fire with 2 hands and a cheek weld.


You'd know that if you'd ever fired, or even held, an actual AR pistol, which clearly you have not.

But hey, since you ONLY believe internet videos- here's one proving this again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x_FyPX7U0

AR pistol. No brace of any kind.

Fired with 2 hands. And a cheek weld.

As they have been for years and years with no legal issues whatsoever.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
(not my opinion, the ATF involvement shows the people tasked with the enforcement of those laws were having problems, too)

No, it does not.

someone ASKED the ATF for a ruling.

they gave one.

then later someone else asked for one.

They gave one that contradicted the first one (the ATF often does this, because different people there answer different letters)

This caused a lot of confusion among gun owners and manufacturers.


So they then issued an "open" letter to clarify the "official" answer.

they didn't 'crack down' on anything.

They just issued a letter restating the law and their reading of it.

That's ALL they did.

And NOTHING in it says ANYTHING against owning, mounting, or using this device.

or against firing a pistol with 2 hands.

or against a cheek weld on a pistol.

all of which remain legal as they always have.

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
, as were the legal fictions that were attempts to get around the laws on background checks and special licensing for automatic weapons and sound suppressors.

... what?

I almost think you're showing a total ignorance of how NFA interacted with firearms trusts... (which ALSO remain legal by the way, and always required a background check and licensing)....

but that's probably a whole other thread to correct your misinformation on that topic LMAO


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Again, rebut that the ATF got involved if you want to argue whether this is or is not pushing the limits of the appropriate legal terms.
Already covered.

They said one thing, then said the other, then clarified which was correct.

There was no "crackdown" of any kind, nobody has ever been arrested or even charged for just owning mounting or properly using this product.

You're scaremongering out of a complete lack of understanding of the law.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
I am all for a discussion about these laws
Then I strongly suggest you actually read them... come back when you understand why "shouldering" specifically is an important thing for example.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
BTW I didn't realize how differently we were looking at things until you used the term "cheek weld" with pistol, which made me realize your intentions.
My intention was to present practical facts and correct legal definiitons.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
All the geometry issues go away if you never use it one handed, which you conveniently ignore since to your two-handed cheek-welded pistol is "legal".

.... what?


really your obsession with one hand baffles me.

REGULAR pistols are fired two handed all the time.

The standard weaver stance that's been around since the 1950s uses 2 hands on a pistol.

So why are you so mystified that anybody uses 2 hands on a pistol?


that's apart from all the real world (and even on video!) examples of people successfully finding IMPROVEMENT in even 1 handed shooting with this brace.

Something you keep insisting is geometrically impossible despite being on film as happening.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#12
Quote from Knightshade View Post :
...
it's a pistol you can shoot one OR two handed (there's nothing illegal about shooting a pistol with 2 hands of course- in fact, that's how MOST people shoot them).

You can ALSO use a cheek weld- as again LOTS of people have ALWAYS done with things like AR pistols.

This just improves the cheek weld.
.....
Well, yes, [B]literally by definition[B/] US law defines a rifle as something designed to fire from the shoulder.

Pistols on the other hand can be fired with a cheek weld, and that's always been true.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/fire...tion-rifle

"The term "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder"


Which part is still confusing you?
This, from the ATF site and regulations-
Firearms Verification
Gun Control Act Definitions
Pistol

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11

The term "Pistol" means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:

a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);

and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

Note: This illustration shows the primary characteristics exhibited in the pistol category. Since pistol configurations differ significantly, various models in this classification may exhibit any of the illustrated components in a revised configuration, but not necessarily all components shown will be incorporated in any given design.


Quote :
No- there you show you don't understand the actual definition of those things.

because shoulder or not is literally in the definition of rifle.

That's why it matters.

Right, because again, that's literally how the law is written
And in your rush to prove your point, you literally ignored my point about what a pistol is. Which I comment on at the end of my post, and you conveniently ignore. Now, in your rush to justify your point and to prove me wrong, you have instead represent the "Let's see how far we can push the law as any question in a regulation must always be pushed in our favor." trope as perfectly safe.
Quote :
I have to ask at this point if you have ever fired a gun at all?

Because the difference apart from legal is pretty huge too
Yes, I have. Multiple pistols that fellow firearms owners have had at ranges that they have graciously let me use, as well as the various firearms I have owned - to be precise an Ithaca Model 37 12 guage, Dial-a-Chose Mossburg 500 guage, Mini-14 in .223, Mossbery 30-30 lever action, Remington 742 30-06, Savage Model 110 LH 30-06, Weatherby Mark V .300 magnum, .45 caliber and CVA .50 caliber black powder rifles, Ruger Old Army .44 Black Powder Stainless Steal, and a S&W 9mm. Note the last was the only recent purchase, for concealed carry, at the recommendation of the LEO who gave me some training for concealed carry. Which in my case was training on how to maintain control of your weapon in situations you are charged, which he insisted I train in since as far as he is concerned if someone is within 15 feet and your weapon is not drawn he CAN take it from you if you do not know what you are doing. In case you were incapable of figuring it out from the list, my interest has been in hunting, and a firearm is a tool to me, not a goal in itself. I am not diminishing the enthusiast viewpoint, but just carefully denoting where I am coming from.

I've also reloaded ammunition for them (almost a necessity to keep a .300 Weatherby affordable). I must admit I have neither reloaded 9mm or .223, as I do not fire a large amount of ammo for the former and for the latter purchasing 1,000 rounds of ammo, preferably surplus, makes the time and effort with reloading not cost/time effective for me. Since you're obviously throwing out creds, and again acusing me of lying since I obviously must be utterly ignorant to draw a different conclusion from you - since you don't reload you must not understand the fine points of choosing a spitzer vs. spitzer boattail vs.hollow-point boattail vs. Nosler ballistic tip. That's an absurd statement, but because there is this funny void - your quoting a definition of a rifle vs. mine of a pistol (and the axis part that I mentioned in my earlier post is in the ATF Definition of a pistol would seem to indicate that you are ignorant of the ATF rules and regulations, dangerously so. And NOT just IMHO.

Now, the awkwardness of these AR-15 "pistols" is not just my opinion, it's just VERY obvisous to anyone who shoots and is looking at these from a practical and a regulatory basis. In fact one of the writers in "The Truth About Guns" makes the same observation prior to these braces, and I quote from him later on about the necessity of these.
Only a few years ago I was happily scoffing at those who owned pistol versions of "proper" rifles. Their clunky form factor made for an awkward shooting position and a generally strange experience on the range. It was only with the introduction of SB Tactical's SB-15 pistol arm brace that these guns finally became both USABLE and somewhat attractive looking. (caps added).
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/...tabilizer/

Here are the first two videos that came up on a search, for your edification - dealing with exactly the geometry issue and others I mentioned.

First, that the weapon was never intended to be fired one handed. Watch it. There is no control. The sight picture verges on useless, The weapon is obvisouly NOT meant to be fired this way. Also watch how the stabilizer wanders while he shoots it (exactly as I described - unless the stabilizer is braced against something, it is going to wander). Also, if this wasn't significant - why do you need them for firing one handed given this viedeo? (edit to clarify) To spend $60-$100 to make your firearm pretty? Everything I cite makes that highly unlikely. Also look at the number of non-handicapped individuals using these in videos. Again, it's like a politician telling the truth - it theoretically happens, and actually does on rare occasions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_j_f12b8CI
Next, with the Sig Sauer brace. Note the weapon is NEVER shown as being practically fired one-handed, as per the deinition of the pistol (that pesky ATF reg I cited). Even when he holds it "one handed" the magazine is braced on the other forearm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtE9djpaRSI

Yes the ATF has determined it doesn't turn you AR-"pistol" in a class 3 firearm. "Unless you shoulder it." as per the title of the video. Funny thing, that's exactly what my point was, that if the usage of this "brace" is so problematic, sooner or later the people at ATF were going to look for an example. Funny thing, here's a link on exactly that. He also believes they are looking to make someone an example. BTW the site is a very pro-firearms site.

However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in tum, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. $ 58a5(a)(3); has been made. [emphasis added]

Confused? I thought so. Let me illustrate it a little better.

Say we have two budding firearms enthusiasts, Johnny and Jamie. They both think the idea of a pistol AR with an SB-15 brace is a great idea, so they each buy all the necessary parts and build two identical SB-15 equipped AR pistols. Because they assembled the firearms, under the NFA they are now the "manufacturer." Johnny posts some pictures of his new pistol on Reddit, with the title "Look at my cool new pistol!" Jamie posts a YouTube rant about how he out-smarted the ATF and got an SBR without the paperwork.

Johnny and Jamie are out at the range firing their new AR pistols from their shoulder (like a rifle) when the ATF rolls up and arrests them both.

In Johnny's case, the ATF doesn't really have anything. Johnny was the manufacturer of the firearm, but even though he was firing it from the shoulder there's no proof that he intended to use it in that manner when he designed and made the firearm. In the United States, the Rule of Lenity comes into play at this point and requires that any ambiguity in the law (such as the intent of the manufacturer, that being Johnny) be resolved in the favor of the defendant. So even though the ATF can prove that Johnny was mis-using the SB-15 and that he was the manufacturer, they cannot prove that he intended to fire the firearm from his shoulder when he manufactured it and must assume that he intended to use it as a pistol. Therefore Johnny satisfies all three definitions of a pistol in his firearm and is good to go.

Jamie, on the other hand, is screwed. Because he posted a rant about how using the SB-15 was out-smarting the ATF, he has given the ATF proof that it was his intent to manufacture a short barreled rifle and not a pistol. Just like the previous ATF letter recipient who wrote a love note to the FTB saying that he wanted to build an SBR using the SB-15 brace, without that ambiguity there's nothing for Jamie to argue and he gets thrown in the slammer.

My personal gut feeling is that this is the way the ATF is trying to move. They know that the barn door is wide open when it comes to the SB-15 brace, so they are looking for a poster child to prosecute and convict for building an illegal SBR with the brace. The problem is that this approach is extremely risky for all involved. To my mind there has only been one case where someone was put on trial for a technical violation of the National Firearms Act (some idiot put a vertical foregrip on a pistol) and the judge threw out the charge and called it ridiculous. If the same happens with the SB-15 and calling it an SBR, then those barn doors are edged just a little bit wider. On the other hand, if the ATF wins then it could kill the entire pistol brace market and send the AR-15 pistol back into the depths of uselessness from whence it came.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/...es-intent/

Unlike you, from your blasie attitude of only reading one part of the ATF regs and not the other, I have had an FFL. I rapidly discovered that for me, as the price increased during the Reagan administration and the idiotic rules over armories were adopted, potentially criminalizing owning too many primers for example (reloaders often purchase primers in 1,000 lots, and just getting one order each of large and small primers could have put you out of complaince - much safer for an individual versus a person holding an FFL, who is pretty much presumed to strictly understand the rules.)

Oh, you don't know about that...So these rules were going to be problematic for me, and I'd be better off paying a little extra rather than risk inadvertent non-compliance with a regulation. The author of the above article specifically cautions people to be very careful. Exactly what I did in my response you take such umbrage to, though he is a little more optimistic about how "accidentally" putting it to your shoulder in the right circumstances is not a problem IF you haven't been foolish about it. Remember my scenario. Someone takes a video (you have heard of smart phones and social media, right?) and posts it. You make a comment indicating not even that you intended to directly exploit a loophole, but one that brings it into question. Now, you need to hire a very expensive lawyer if you happen to hit the lottery and someone brings you to the attention of the ATF and you meet there "let's make an example of this one criteria." Wow, amazing that someone else who actually writes professionally on firearms drew these same conclusions. Enforcement lawyers LOVE people like you, as you are so busy being sure you are right that you walk right into a resource pissing match - you against the government.

I also worked for over 20 years in Aviation Safety, and halve had to worked with Accident Investigators, with the FSDO (Flight Standards District Offices). This is germane as I understand how to READ and comply (versus litigate, I'm not a lawyer) with a distressingly large at times number of regulations (both FAR and internal FAA orders and manuals). I stated that these buffer devices are becoming much more popular than their purported market demographic (again, as noted in the article and you conveniently ignore that - in case you don't understand it sales and the purported target market are hard numbers, and anything outside of that means something is off. In this case it is patently obvious it hugely outstrips the handicapped AR-pistol military veteran demographic, and now that people abusing it (i.e. non-handicapped people making it a de facto SBR) that there was significant risk of the ATF clamping down. Funny things, that - they are moving that direction, in the honest opinion of professionals. So I made a prediction, and upon further research - it's in progress.

The writer at "The Truth About Guns!" in fact makes this exact point on another page.
Unlike other new gadget manufacturers, Shockwave Technologies proactively asked the ATF to rule on whether their device is a stock or not. According to the ATF, blade stabilizer isn't a stock so long as its use is consistent with the intent of the manufacturer. The ATF even even went so far as to add a warning in the approval letter to that effect.

The problem is they've been known to go back and reverse their position on these rulings so that approval is worth less than the paper it is printed on, but for the most part their position (so far) is consistent with the letter of the law. The brace can only become a stock when the gun is "redesigned" to become a rifle, so as long as the manufacturer and the end user agree on how the gun will be used (as a pistol, not shouldered) everything should be A-OK.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/...tabilizer/


Quote :
Using your shoulder provides a solid recoil-absorbing stable base to fire a rifle from.

A cheek weld does not.... it's useful for sighting the weapon, but your face is not designed to absorb firearm recoil or stabilize shooting.

You seem to not understand the difference though... which anyone who had actually used any of the weapons he's trying to discuss should already know.
First - you do realize you said that a cheek weld is not designed to absorb firearm recoil or stabilize shooting. So instead, let me get this right, you create a weapon that cannot be used for aimed fire one-handed and that you have to add a recoil absorber and stabilizer to. You do understand the apparent absurdity of this - first you claim the cheek weld doesn't do this, and then you argue that adding this mechanical aid to the weapon to make it practical to shoot one-handed show that it is not really an SBR but a pistol. Heck, the writer I quoted from "The Truth About Guns" also notes the AR-pistol market could be ruined by an adverse ruling on this. A single varying interptation of legal definition predating this market (hint, I suggest you gain a basic understanding about rule-making and regulations. It's exactly what I am worried about.)

See the first video - these so-called pistols are NOT intended to be fired one-handed. They are an SBR - short barreled rifle - work-around for those who for whatever reason just have to have one. Law enforcement, not today's "gun contol lobby" put that into the 1934 National Firearms Act, along with short barreled shotguns, and other concealable weapons (and automatic weapons) perceived at the time as being a threat to law enforcement. If we can get the political will to change those laws, then I'll support the repeal. As long as there is proper data collection, and and a trial waiver that gets made permanet, or rescinded, based on whether the concerns of LEO professionals for over 80 years are germane, or overblown.

But making a travesty of the intent, and even having proponents pretty much explicitly admit that this market relies on a loophole ( sic between the definition of a rifle and the definition of a pistol) is a recipe for disaster. First, if the ATF gets a bee up it's bonnet, somebody will get to be the poster child and get prosecuted. Secondly, it will give the very large proportion of moderate voters who believe in the second amendment pause, and will give credibility to those who suggest stupid regulations (i.e. cosmetic alterations) between a legal semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine and a (gasp) assault rifle. The "mass shootings" response have provided more than ample proof that my concern is not overblown. In fact the only saving grace was the shooter in Dallas was a vet using a old Soviet carbine with a 10 round stripper clip firing a 7.62x39mm round. I frankly would not have predicted his success against the police, but given the ambush nature of the situation and his competency with his weapon I shouldn't have been surprised. Plus the fact the police were deployed for a peaceful demonstration, which it was - that man was not part of that at all, and in fact intelligently, albeit malevolently, realized he could use the lack of tension to his advantage. Note the protestor who offered his rifle to a policeman armed only with a handgun (open carry state) - if other cities had emulated that on both sides we wouldn't have the mess right now this has become.

Quote :
Go take a look at the Ruger Charger sometime.

It's also been around for years, and it's 100% legal.

And you can shoot it with 1 or 2 hands.

And cheek weld it.

And it's hardly the only non-AR pistol example out there.
First, it's a friggin .22 LR weapon. You are mixing apples and oranges. Oh, I guess you've never fired the AR-pistol one handed versus this weapon you are claiming is equivalent, because you obviously don't understand the difference in recoil (recasting you point about doubting I've ever fired a gun - you were being trollish there, you know) I don't even need to see a video, the round itself supports the one handed firing. BTW I also have an old 1940's LH .22 rifle - but I prefer my Mini-14 and the 22 has just sat around for years with mil-spec grease for storage.

Ever hear of the Remington XP-100? Since it stopped production in 1998, maybe you haven't. That is a true pistol that fired a round very close to a .223, but with about 90% of the energy. Since it is a bolt action, my guess is that it will actually have about the same recoil as an AR-pistol. The pistol was known as a handfull, and was considered a weapon for experienced pistol shooters, or for those who wanted to hunt with pistols. That is a direct comparison to the AR-pistol, and look at the "pistol grip" - oh, again a term you conveniently leave out. The grip on the AR-15 "pistol" does not support one-handed firing of a 5.56 Nato round, which has more energy than the vast majority of pistol rounds.

Also, speaking of intent and design. The AR-15 was designed as a select-fire primary infantry weapon that could be controlled while firing bursts (unlike NATO 7.62mm and the M14). You made the point about today's market - but you do realize you are arguing that a firearm designed from the outset as a rifle, is now magically a pistol due the fact it can technically be fired one handed and they've shortened the barrel by a two or so inches. Which it was NEVER designed for. Which cannot be done accurately (watch the video since you've obviously never done this, or are deliberately misrepresenting this as you know darn well it cannot be controlled properly). That's why the vast majority of people on videos - your favorite reference - are shown shooting this thing two handed. If it shoots like a rifle, recoils like a rifle, is built from rifle parts (i.e. walks like a duck... in case you are too dense to get the reference) - well, the ATF just might choose to show in court that you have an SBR without the proper paperwork.

Also as a side note, the videos show exactly the geometry issues I've mentioned. If you understood sighting in a rifle for longer range work, 300-500 yards, you would NOT profess puzzlement at the geometry issues I've mentioned, as they are similar geometry-wise to the issues of a cheap scope mount, a poorly designed scope, a non-parallex corrected scope being used at different magnification and further out than the scope was sighted in at, or a scope that has been had internal adjustments knocked slightly out of alignment (knocked seriously out of alignment you may crack the scope, and even if you don't it's pretty obvious after 2-3 rounds something is seriously wrong). My 4-12x parallex corrected Bushnell scope is one of the sweetest purchases I ever made, and since I don't shoot past 500 yards, in fact almost never beyond 300 - I don't need the hugely added expense of a Leupold with the same features...

Quote :
Except, it can. Because that's literally what it was designed for according to YOUR OWN SOURCE.

Yes, I did. Multiple times.

Including mentioning the device was invented by a veteran for his disabled friend

Did you miss that, or just ignore it because it proved you wrong?

well no, it's not.

AR pistols have been around for decades and the legal definitions have been very clear to everyone... (except you apparently)


... what?

First- the one/two handed thing makes zero sense.

PISTOLS are shot with 2 hands most of the time too.

Second, if it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder then by definition it's not a rifle.

You seem to keep not understand the actual legal difference between a rifle and pistol.


Which is pretty unfortunate given your original post was attempting to offer legal advice that was...ill informed.
Now, since I have quoted experts writing in exactly this area who voiced similar concerns, will you apologize? I thought not. Note again the ATF definition is different than yours. They are the people who will prosecute you if they choose to - but in case you need to see the illustrations from the ATF website, here it is - funny thing, it sure as heck does not resemble the AR-pistol at all.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/fire...ion-pistol

Note that the claimed purpose, i.e. to help a veteran shoot these, has not reflected the typical usage and marketing. That is a an extremely niche market. However, as pointed out in one of the aritcles I quoted, the ATF often looks at intent. The people making that device were very clever, and expanded on a questionable loophole to make a de facto SBR. Now that these devices are obviously being used to make a useful AR-pistol that is a de facto SBR versus a device for the handicapped, they are reexamining it. Exactly as a predicted
Quote :
And you can buy pistol-grip-only shotguns with shorter than 18" barrels, legally, all day long.

And have been able to for years.


Apparently it's yet another thing you simply didn't know existed?

Here's a link explaining WHY they are legal, and why the ATF has agreed they're legal pretty much forever.

http://shockwavetechnologies.com/...page_id=88
That last one is a new one for me, and note that is dated from 2010. It's interesing that by manipulating the overall length they are exploiting a loophole in the "Any Other Weapon" rules. It's quite clever. I will grant you, all of these devices that take advantage of loopholes would probably be upheld by the the Roberts/Scalia Court. I had always read about the law was based on barrel length, but I've never bother to research the finer points as from a hunting standpoint a weapon like that is stupid anyway Since my interpretation of what the ATF intentions may end up being are addressed by numerous pro-2nd amendent writers out there, I have one simple suggestion.

Do everything you've stated. If you are right, you get to own a de facto SBA, and/or a 12 guage firearm that is 1/2 inch longer the a AOW, is illegal for hunting, impractical for home defense, and kicks like the devil and that has no actual reason for existing except you believe you have a way around the regulations (for now). If you get unlucky and they do look for an example or three, you end up with a federal felony and can no longer own firearms, or you get really unlucky and end up stopped in a state with one of those in your trunk where they have declared owing them is a felony (I advise you read the enforcment of the NYC firearms laws for people driving through there - while I disagree with those laws and how they are enforced, the US Supreme Court has held tht they can do this,) You'll note I've never owned a questionable firearm (except my Mini-14 had a screw on flash supressor, and the "Assault Rifle" bans did not exist when I purchased it.) I, on the other hand, will continue to get a hunting license with my daugher and then my son when he is older, get around to getting my CWP (haven't made the time yet and I don't go into the metro area very often), and not be worried about ATF regulations in particular, as I am not going to violate any of them, and I cannnot see me driving to New York or California with mini-14.

BTW and I've written about this on SD - I'll actually be hunting deer with a crossbow due to an old rotator cuff injury with bone spurs causing me to have - drumroll - recoil issues. Pretty much all I shoot these days is an air rifle with my daughter, a crossbow, and my Mini-14. So I'm one of those people this would help. If I ever go with an AR-15/M4 platform, this kind of device could do me quite a bit of good, and a .300 Blackout is supposed to make a nice brush hunting round. Cast a 280-300 grain lead bullet and add a gas check, and put on a sound supressor (which is a NFA device) and you'll have a wonderful deer hunting weapon. BTW if you don't understand any of the reasons for that configuration, does mean that you are grossly incompetent to comment on anything concerning the AR15/M4 platform. Just checking on the rules for the discussion here. nod

Funny thing, though - devices like this existed long before there were AR-pistols, so I think "The poster protesteth too much." Don't assume I'm have no respect for the handicapped - it's just I recognize a BS excuse when I see one. They just renamed the thing from the alternate recoil absorbing shoulder stock to a recoil absorber and stabilier and carefully keep it off the shoulder (now that a simple letter from the ATF makes it illegal, maybe sort of). This will be worth it If one person sees this argument, and realizes this is not a particularly intelligent purchase, as they could easily end up violating a Federal Firearms law , and the fact they are perfectly legit for a full rifle version on an AR15/M4, so you don't need to stock up before they are made illegal. .The AR15/M4 platform is not going away, and yes, us handicapped folk will enjoy having recoil absorbers available. They already were.

To address one other silly claim you made, about my concern that if you fire one AR15 that your plant on the shoulder, and one very similar one you only cheek weld but can NEVER let touch your shoulder - you will inevitably make a mistake. That's why the military has standardized weapons, and standardized training. That's why similarities like that are often banned in situations where safety is paramount. I was a training specialist and was recognized for a training program I designed for Emergency Aircraft Orientations - you ALWAYS use a single, standard procedure unless the situation forces you to do otherwise, and then you try to make certain the procedures clearly change so you don't end up scrambling them. It's why Airbus standardized their cockpits, though that's also much easier due to glass cockpits. I believe Boeing was working on that, though since I left the industry I have not kept up on that.

That is also why the differences between the throat clearance between a .223 Remington round and the 5.56mm Nato were such a concern. The rounds are to all exterior appearances the same, yet 5.56mm Nato ammo in a .223 Remington could exceed SAAMI spec chamber pressures. Thankfully, in the 50 years since the .223 spec was made, metallurgy has improved quite a bit so it's more a theoretical issue at this point, unless you are firing an older .223 rifle with surplus military ammo. Admittedly, with your scenario it's only possible that you end up violating a Federal Firearms law and get prosecuted - and in my book that is just as likely to royally screw up your life as an overpressure rupture (something I've never done, I always loaded for accuracy, not FPS).
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by Mr. Harley October 11, 2016 at 06:53 AM. Reason: marked edit
Joined Sep 2009
L8: Grand Teacher
3,609 Posts
1,243 Reputation
#13
Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
This, from the ATF site and regulations-
Firearms Verification
Gun Control Act Definitions
Pistol

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11

The term "Pistol" means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:

a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);

and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

Note: This illustration shows the primary characteristics exhibited in the pistol category. Since pistol configurations differ significantly, various models in this classification may exhibit any of the illustrated components in a revised configuration, but not necessarily all components shown will be incorporated in any given design.
Which doesn't contradict a single thing I said and an AR pistol with a brace meets that definition when used as intended... as the ATF has confirmed over and over and over....shake head


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Yes, I have. Multiple pistols that fellow firearms owners have had at ranges that they have graciously let me use, as well as the various firearms I have owned - to be precise an Ithaca Model 37 12 guage, Dial-a-Chose Mossburg 500 guage, Mini-14 in .223, Mossbery 30-30 lever action, Remington 742 30-06, Savage Model 110 LH 30-06, Weatherby Mark V .300 magnum, .45 caliber and CVA .50 caliber black powder rifles, Ruger Old Army .44 Black Powder Stainless Steal, and a S&W 9mm. Note the last was the only recent purchase, for concealed carry, at the recommendation of the LEO who gave me some training for concealed carry. Which in my case was training on how to maintain control of your weapon in situations you are charged, which he insisted I train in since as far as he is concerned if someone is within 15 feet and your weapon is not drawn he CAN take it from you if you do not know what you are doing. In case you were incapable of figuring it out from the list, my interest has been in hunting
That probably explains why your knowledge of modern rifles and pistols was so poor... your experience is mostly in 100+ year old designs (shotguns, bolt guns, lever guns).



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
your quoting a definition of a rifle vs. mine of a pistol (and the axis part that I mentioned in my earlier post is in the ATF Definition of a pistol would seem to indicate that you are ignorant of the ATF rules and regulations, dangerously so. And NOT just IMHO.

... what?

The ATF rule you quoted says " a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore"

Which is what an AR PISTOL HAS

In fact, it's called a pistol grip LMAOLMAO

yet more evidence you've not only not owned (by your own admission) but never even held (and apparently never SEEN) an AR pistol.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Now, the awkwardness of these AR-15 "pistols" is not just my opinion, it's just VERY obvisous to anyone who shoots and is looking at these from a practical and a regulatory basis. In fact one of the writers in "The Truth About Guns" makes the same observation prior to these braces, and I quote from him later on about the necessity of these.
[B][I]Only a few years ago I was happily scoffing at those who owned pistol versions of "proper" rifles. Their clunky form factor made for an awkward shooting position and a generally strange experience on the range. It was only with the introduction of SB Tactical's SB-15 pistol arm brace that these guns finally became both USABLE and somewhat attractive looking

It may shock you to learn that what is uncomfortable for you might be comfortable for other people.

Weird huh?

It's almost like not every person is identical or something!

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
First, that the weapon was never intended to be fired one handed. Watch it. There is no control.
Oh, look, someone firing an AR pistol one handed WITHOUT a brace with no problem!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOrU2zx24zU

Just because you found a video of someone else who sucks at doing it doesn't mean everyone does dude.

Again, some people are different than other people. This is apparently shocking news to you.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
The weapon is obvisouly NOT meant to be fired this way.
Except for the part where it is and you can find tons of videos of people doing that effectively.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Also watch how the stabilizer wanders while he shoots it (exactly as I described - unless the stabilizer is braced against something, it is going to wander).
He's not even holding it straight and he's not using the brace (ie it's not ON his wrist as intended)

So yes, when you don't use it properly it doesn't work right.

You know- like we keep telling you.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Also, if this wasn't significant - why do you need them? To spend $60-$100 to make your firearm pretty.
There's people who spend far more than $60-100 to put a prettier stock on an actual rifle.

Who the hell are you to tell people what they can spend their money on?

But at to why one needs them- already established- the guy who INVENTED the thing did so for a handicapped veteran friend to make it easier for him to shoot an AR pistol... (which it did effectively)

And since it's a free country if people want to add one for looks, that's ALSO legal.

Why do you hate freedom?

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Also look at the number of non-handicapped individuals using these in videos.
Do you also get mad when people with working legs use automatic doors or walk up wheelchair ramps? bounce



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Note the weapon is NEVER shown as being practically fired one-handed, as per the deinition of the pistol (that pesky ATF reg I cited).

Except I have shown you video of people doing exactly that

You finding one guy who's really bad at it doesn't make the others who can do it find stop existing.

AR pistols existed for years and years before the braces existed- so obviously people were able to use them as normal pistols.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Yes the ATF has determined it doesn't turn you AR-"pistol" in a class 3 firearm. "Unless you shoulder it."

Right- which means the ATF ITSELF is telling you you are wrong to question if these are pistols or not.... they ARE


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
[B][I]However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in tum, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. $ 58a5(a)(3); has been made. [emphasis added] Confused?
You realize you're quoting the ATF letter that I linked you to weeks ago right?

I agree someone is confused, but it ain't me.

Because like I said weeks ago it's perfectly legal if USED AS INTENDED.

Use it illegally then it's illegal.

Just like it's legal to own a lever action rifle (to cite a gun you've actually seen before) but it's NOT legal to rob a bank with one.




Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Say we have two budding firearms enthusiasts, Johnny and Jamie. They both think the idea of a pistol AR with an SB-15 brace is a great idea, so they each buy all the necessary parts and build two identical SB-15 equipped AR pistols. Because they assembled the firearms, under the NFA they are now the "manufacturer." Johnny posts some pictures of his new pistol on Reddit, with the title "Look at my cool new pistol!" Jamie posts a YouTube rant about how he out-smarted the ATF and got an SBR without the paperwork.

Johnny and Jamie are out at the range firing their new AR pistols from their shoulder (like a rifle) when the ATF rolls up and arrests them both.

In Johnny's case, the ATF doesn't really have anything. Johnny was the manufacturer of the firearm, but even though he was firing it from the shoulder there's no proof that he intended to use it in that manner when he designed and made the firearm. In the United States, the Rule of Lenity comes into play at this point and requires that any ambiguity in the law (such as the intent of the manufacturer, that being Johnny) be resolved in the favor of the defendant. So even though the ATF can prove that Johnny was mis-using the SB-15 and that he was the manufacturer, they cannot prove that he intended to fire the firearm from his shoulder when he manufactured it and must assume that he intended to use it as a pistol. Therefore Johnny satisfies all three definitions of a pistol in his firearm and is good to go.
What's awesome here is you just admitted I was right

An AR-15 pistol with a brace, used properly, can't put you in prison

Thanks for finally agreeing LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
My personal gut feeling is that this is the way the ATF is trying to move. They know that the barn door is wide open when it comes to the SB-15 brace, so they are looking for a poster child to prosecute and convict for building an illegal SBR with the brace.

The ATF doesn't even have the manpower to visit actual FFLs more than once every few years to check they're not missing any guns.

You VASTLY overestimate their interest in chasing after regular people.

Especially since the brace has been on the market for years now with videos of people using it improperly all over the place--- and they've arrested a total of zero people as you suggest.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
The problem is that this approach is extremely risky for all involved.
Except, it's provably not. See above.

But as long as you use as intended there's not even THAT risk.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
To my mind there has only been one case where someone was put on trial for a technical violation of the National Firearms Act (some idiot put a vertical foregrip on a pistol) and the judge threw out the charge and called it ridiculous.
So in the 80+ years since the NFA passed there's been ONE arrest for such a thing and the judge threw it out.

But you're jumping up and down screaming how HUGE a risk it is?

Are you even listening to yourself? because you keep proving my point for me shake head


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
I rapidly discovered that for me, as the price increased during the Reagan administration and the idiotic rules over armories were adopted, potentially criminalizing owning too many primers for example (reloaders often purchase primers in 1,000 lots, and just getting one order each of large and small primers could have put you out of complaince - much safer for an individual versus a person holding an FFL, who is pretty much presumed to strictly understand the rules.)
In other words you got overly paranoid about yet another regulation you didn't fully understand and for which nobody got in trouble, so you quit your business instead.

Gotcha.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
. The author of the above article specifically cautions people to be very careful.
So did I when I mentioned like 20 times now to use as intended.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
Exactly what I did in my response you take such umbrage to

No, you incorrectly suggested people could risk arrest for owning one of these- which is explicitly untrue.

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
. Remember my scenario. Someone takes a video (you have heard of smart phones and social media, right?) and posts it. You make a comment indicating not even that you intended to directly exploit a loophole, but one that brings it into question. Now, you need to hire a very expensive lawyer if you happen to hit the lottery and someone brings you to the attention of the ATF and you meet there "let's make an example of this one criteria."

Yes and your scenario remains ridiculous.

First people don't generally shoulder a firearm "by accident"

Second- you YOURSELF just admitted there's been ONE prosecution (for a more intentional violation in fact) in 80+ years and the judge threw it out.

Third there's been HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of such videos posted online since the brace was invented.

zero of them have been arrested by the ATF.

It's almost like reality doesn't match your unfounded paranoia! LMAOLMAO



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
I also worked for over 20 years in Aviation Safety, and halve had to worked with Accident Investigators, with the FSDO (Flight Standards District Offices). This is germane as I understand how to READ and comply (versus litigate, I'm not a lawyer) with a distressingly large at times number of regulations

As you have demonstrated over and over in this thread- no, you really don't.

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
In this case it is patently obvious it hugely outstrips the handicapped AR-pistol military veteran demographic, and now that people abusing it (i.e. non-handicapped people making it a de facto SBR) that there was significant risk of the ATF clamping down. Funny things, that - they are moving that direction, in the honest opinion of professionals.

Except, no, they're not.

Has been on the market for years.

Has had hundreds if not thousands of videos of people using them improperly.

Zero arrests.

Ever.

And even your "professionals" agree that if you use it properly (like I suggest) you're FINE.

(and again using a device to help the handicapped without being handicapped? also generally legal.)



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
The writer at "The Truth About Guns!" in fact makes this exact point on another page.
[B][I]Unlike other new gadget manufacturers, Shockwave Technologies proactively asked the ATF to rule on whether their device is a stock or not. According to the ATF, blade stabilizer isn't a stock so long as its use is consistent with the intent of the manufacturer. The ATF even even went so far as to add a warning in the approval letter to that effect.
So 2 things here:

1) You're wrong YET AGAIN- The slidefire stock, for example, not only asked the ATF proactively... they include a copy of the approval letter with each stock they sell. There goes your profound ignorance showing again!

2) So you mean the ATF said the same thing I keep telling you? It's legal if used properly.


That's at least the third time you've admitted I was correct in this post LMAOLMAOLMAO



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
The brace can only become a stock when the gun is "redesigned" to become a rifle, so as long as the manufacturer and the end user agree on how the gun will be used (as a pistol, not shouldered) everything should be A-OK
And now a 4th time admitting I'm right Stick Out Tongue


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
First - you do realize you said that a cheek weld is not designed to absorb firearm recoil or stabilize shooting. So instead, let me get this right, you create a weapon that cannot be used for aimed fire one-handed
Except it can, and does, and you've been shown video of people doing it.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
and that you have to add a recoil absorber and stabilizer to.
Except you don't "have to" and in fact the weapon was used for years before the stabilizer even existed. And the tube used for cheek weld isn't a recoil absorber, it's for cheek weld. Something you JUST claimed you understood.

Facts! try them sometime!




Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
You do understand the apparent absurdity of this
Yes it's absurd you keep discussing a gun you admit you've never used and apparently never even seen in person.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
See the first video - these so-called pistols are NOT intended to be fired one-handed.
And then see mine.

Where are are and the shooter has no trouble doing it.

Again- you finding a guy similar to yourself who doesn't know how to use an AR doesn't mean everyone doesn't know how.

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Law enforcement, not today's "gun contol lobby" put that into the 1934 National Firearms Act

No, they didn't actually.

Seems you don't even know how laws are made.

This might help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

(Spoilier- the NFA was written by congress- which is the legislative branch... the ENFORCEMENT branch are the EXECUTIVE branch)


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
First, it's a friggin .22 LR weapon. You are mixing apples and oranges.
Except, I'm not.

Because you've now also been shown video of someone shooting a "real" AR that way.

In case you doubt what caliber THAT guy is shooting, here's ANOTHER one of a guy shooting .223 explicitly 1 handed with NO problems from an AR pistol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flqJCvjsOzw



You of course CAN use a second hand on it legally....just as you can with a "normal" pistol.... but you don't NEED to, and the gun was absolutely built to be able to fire with one hand without issue.

That's why the ATF, in YOUR OWN QUOTED WORDS agrees it's a pistol.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
I don't even need to see a video, the round itself supports the one handed firing.
right- just like AR-15 rounds do too. And now you've seen at least TWO videos proving it... (tons more out there if you want em)



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Ever hear of the Remington XP-100? Since it stopped production in 1998, maybe you haven't. That is a true pistol that fired a round very close to a .223, but with about 90% of the energy. Since it is a bolt action, my guess is that it will actually have about the same recoil as an AR-pistol. The pistol was known as a handfull, and was considered a weapon for experienced pistol shooters, or for those who wanted to hunt with pistols. That is a direct comparison to the AR-pistol, and look at the "pistol grip" - oh, again a term you conveniently leave out. The grip on the AR-15 "pistol" does not support one-handed firing of a 5.56 Nato round, which has more energy than the vast majority of pistol rounds.
Except, it does, and you've been shown that MULTIPLE times now.

Which part of reality do you not understand? LMAO

Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Also, speaking of intent and design. The AR-15 was designed as a select-fire primary infantry weapon that could be controlled while firing bursts (unlike NATO 7.62mm and the M14). You made the point about today's market - but you do realize you are arguing that a firearm designed from the outset as a rifle, is now magically a pistol due the fact it can technically be fired one handed and they've shortened the barrel by a two or so inches. Which it was NEVER designed for.

So... two things you are embarrassing yourself further on-


First- the current military rifle is the M4.

Which is an M-16 they shortened the barrel a few inches on


Second-that Remington pistol you mentioned earlier? It was based on Remington's short action bolt action carbine, the Remington Model 40X. OMG! Someone made a pistol designed after a rifle! END OF THE WORLD!!


Once again even YOU can't agree with you!



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Which cannot be done accurately (watch the video since you've obviously never done this)
Take your own advice and watch the multiple videos of people doing it accurately....and stop embarrassing yourself


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
If you understood sighting in a rifle for longer range work, 300-500 yards, you would NOT profess puzzlement at the geometry issues I've mentioned

Right now I'm expressing puzzlement at why you want to shoot a pistol 500 yards shake head

For the distances people generally shoot PISTOLS, the AR-15 PISTOL is just fine and there's no geometry problems using it with a brace.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Now, since I have quoted experts writing in exactly this area who voiced similar concerns, will you apologize? I thought not.

First- "guy who writes for a gun blog" isn't necessarily an expert.

Second, they almost universally agree with what I told you.

Used properly the brace is COMPLETELY LEGAL

So you're the one who ought apologize to everyone here for wasting everyones time with your baseless fearmongering and profound ignorance of all things ATF and AR-15


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Note again the ATF definition is different than yours.
Except it's not. At all.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
They are the people who will prosecute you if they choose to - but in case you need to see the illustrations from the ATF website, here it is - funny thing, it sure as heck does not resemble the AR-pistol at all.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/fire...ion-pistol
Guess you missed the ACTUAL TEXT IN YOUR OWN LINK where it says:

"Since pistol configurations differ significantly, various models in this classification may exhibit any of the illustrated components in a revised configuration, but not necessarily all components shown will be incorporated in any given design."


Further- YOUR OWN LINKS from the ATF repeatedly agree an AR-15 pistol is a pistol

Holy cow dude- you can't even understand YOUR OWN sources!


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
That last one is a new one for me
That seems to happen a lot laugh out loud



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
, and note that is dated from 2010. It's interesing that by manipulating the overall length they are exploiting a loophole in the "Any Other Weapon" rules. It's quite clever. I will grant you, all of these devices that take advantage of loopholes would probably be upheld by the the Roberts/Scalia Court. I had always read about the law was based on barrel length, but I've never bother to research the finer points as from a hunting standpoint a weapon like that is stupid anyway
Shockingly, some people use guns for things other than hunting!


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
If you get unlucky and they do look for an example or three, you end up with a federal felony
Except you don't, because the gun is explicitly legal to own and use by the actual letter of the law

Your desperate search for imaginary gun crimes is really weird.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
If I ever go with an AR-15/M4 platform, this kind of device could do me quite a bit of good
Good thing it's legal huh? Smilie


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
, and a .300 Blackout is supposed to make a nice brush hunting round. Cast a 280-300 grain lead bullet and add a gas check, and put on a sound supressor (which is a NFA device) and you'll have a wonderful deer hunting weapon. BTW if you don't understand any of the reasons for that configuration, does mean that you are grossly incompetent to comment on anything concerning the AR15/M4 platform

FYI- I actually own a 300BLK gun and a suppressor for it.

The bullet you suggest is way heavier than anybody loads in that caliber.

Most folks shoot/load subsonic in the 200-220 gr range...(Amax 208 is a popular hunting round for example)... In theory you can certainly do 280-300 but you'd want to be careful about barrel twist.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Funny thing, though - devices like this existed long before there were AR-pistols, so I think "The poster protesteth too much."

You mean just like AR pistols existed long before SB15 braces? Smilie


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
They just renamed the thing from the alternate recoil absorbing shoulder stock to a recoil absorber and stabilier and carefully keep it off the shoulder
Except, they didn't- because it's not a shoulder stock and is functionally different from one... (You can't generally stick your hand through a solid buttstock on a shoulder stock for example)


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
This will be worth it If one person sees this argument, and realizes this is not a particularly intelligent purchase, as they could easily end up violating a Federal Firearms law

Except the only 'not particularly intelligent' thing in the thread has been your repeatedly debunked claims to that effect.

This device is COMPLETELY LEGAL when used as directed and 0 people, ever, have been arrested for having one.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by Knightshade October 11, 2016 at 07:08 AM.
#14
Quote from Knightshade View Post :
...
Oh, look, someone firing an AR pistol one handed WITHOUT a brace with no problem!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOrU2zx24zU

Just because you found a video of someone else who sucks at doing it doesn't mean everyone does dude.

...
Assault rifles have a pistol grip attached to the "gun stock" which explicitly implies a rifle. On an assault rifle they have the grip behind the trigger so you use one hand similar to a pistol, but you have your other hand further forward. The express purpose of that kind of grip is speed of handling, which is important for military (and LEO) applications. Now, with that in mind, watch the kick with each shot of the muzzle with your own video!

From an LEO point, maintaining a site picture between shots is critical. He does NOT do it. From a hunting aspect, it's even worse. I'd very much like to see his target, which coincidentally isn't shown. You've given me no indication that he can hit anything with the firearm, just that he is not dangerous handling it and I would be mostly comfortable shooting beside him on a range. BTW you will never see an LEO nor a military soldier using anything like this except as a two-handed SBR. Again, it quacks like a duck...

Finally, you make my point for me - the so called recoil absorber does absolutely NOTHING while shooting it one handed, except possibly work as a counterweight, albeit very poorly. So the only reason to have the Stabilizing Brace is exactly as I described - for shooting it two handed. Which means the addition of that item is only intended to be used in a way that is NOT included in the ATF definition of a pistol, i.e. one-handed shooting. Instead the intention is to brace it at the back of the weapon, exactly like a shoulder stock but held to a different spot taking advantage of the lower recoil (compared to let's say a .308) to keep it slightly off the shoulder. This magically turns it into a "not-rifle."

Since it only serves the purpose of two handed shooting and bracing/stabilizing the firearm in the manner of a rifle but at a slightly different point of the body - the ATF could be first class jerks about this. Look at some of your case law on this. It's very, very murky about things that have a claimed purpose - stabilizing a pistol which is one-handed weapon as stated by the definition in the law- and then using it for a purpose that becomes very suspect and converts it into something illegal - an SBR. Here is another site confirming these issues, though I'll grant I dont' think they would get our disagreement here - and they err on the side of caution too
http://www.offthegridnews.com/sel...t-know-it/

You are correct, nothing has happened yet. I am also correct, with substantial numbers of professionals backing me up - this could very easily be declared to fall under different provisions of the law and be declared illegal I simply do not understand the venom with which people exploiting loopholes like this respond. I've watched things get shut down hard by government agencies, and especially with the death of Scalia this could happen here - remember as I've said before there are law enforcement agencies that want to have these controls (like the stupid local LEO class 3 sign off). Head Bang

By the way, if you would learn to read context, the quote about it being awkward, etc. was from a gun expert, not me. My point on this, explaining why these simply do not function for one-handed shooting, was much more involved explaining the actual geometry with words only. Coincidentally the man shooting in your example was holding in the ONLY possible way to shoot the weapon one handed, and it was awkward exactly like the expert said.

I'm not going to end up shooting one of these, because as a tool - given your premise it's a pistol it is of minimal utility, and as a hunting weapon a 30-30 will make a much better brush-hunting tool (and I don't think the .300 blackout is going to lend itself being fired one-handed, that would just be - idiotic.) It is an excellent SBR - except without proper class 3 paperwork those are illegal. So it's an SBR currently classified as a pistol - again, at least have the decency to be honest about it. When regular people who are not gun owners see gun activists playing games with loopholes, the anti-gun lobby then uses that as an emotional appeal to regular everyday voters after any of the "mass" shootings to try and ram through laws "closing" those loopholes. I know I'll never convince you, just like I'll never convince the anti-gun types, that firearms are not the cause of the killings.

No semi-auto's existed a 100 years ago. In fact several of the designs I own are less than half of that in age. BTW I'll even admit the current M4 platform (versus the AR15 which Ill use as the name for the initial types) is superior to my Mini-14 and the Remington 742. I'd purchase one today except the Mini-14 works quite well for me, and I don't have to worry about cleaning it in a combat situation - the bolt is a royal pain just like in it's namesake the M14. Time for me to go to bed, enjoy. ZzZZz
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Sep 2009
L8: Grand Teacher
3,609 Posts
1,243 Reputation
#15
Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Assault rifles have a pistol grip attached to the "gun stock" which explicitly implies a rifle.
Wrong yet again


First- civilian AR-15s aren't assault rifles.

Second- the pistol grip does not attach to the rifle stock.... at all. It attaches to the lower receiver.

the stock attaches to the buffer tube.

Seriously dude- stop discussing a gun you make it more and more obvious with each post you know nothing about.




Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
On an assault rifle they have the grip behind the trigger so you use one hand similar to a pistol, but you have your other hand further forward. The express purpose of that kind of grip is speed of handling, which is important for military (and LEO) applications. Now, with that in mind, watch the kick with each shot of the muzzle with your own video!
I have.

it's less than the kick someone gets firing a hot round from a 44 magnum revolver.

Which I'd hope even someone with as little gun knowledge as yourself would agree is a pistol.

(let alone the kick from the many more powerful pistols out there)


I can quote you specific muzzle energy measurements of the various rounds compared to .223 if you think it'd help you any- but so far no amount of evidence has done that.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
From an LEO point, maintaining a site picture between shots is critical.

That's probably why LEOs don't use AR 15 pistols a whole lot.

Good thing we live in a country where people are allowed to own guns for OTHER purposes too though huh?


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
From a hunting aspect, it's even worse.

And again- people are allowed to own guns for OTHER reasons too.

Some people enjoy guns just for fun even!

Fun... do that have that on your home world? bounce



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
You've given me no indication that he can hit anything with the firearm

Google shows 26,600 results for videos of people shooting AR-15 pistols one handed. You know- the thing you insisted COULD NOT BE DONE

Let me know when you've looked through them all and concluded NOBODY can hit anything.

We'll wait Big Grin


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
. BTW you will never see an LEO nor a military soldier using anything like this except as a two-handed SBR.

Sure you will.

In fact some of the people in those 26,000+ videos are LEOs or soldiers.

Once again reality does not match your claims about it.

Then again- it's another indication you don't seem to think people should be "allowed" to have guns unless they're military, LEO, or using it to hunt.

Maybe you need to give the constitution a second read?



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
Finally, you make my point for me - the so called recoil absorber does absolutely NOTHING while shooting it one handed

That's not your point.

At all.


Your point was telling us the pistol brace shouldn't be purchased because it's potentially illegal.

Which is false.

Hell you're the only person in the entire thread to use the phrase "recoil absorber"



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
So the only reason to have the Stabilizing Brace is exactly as I described - for shooting it two handed.
Wrong again

the reason to have it is to stabilize the gun when shooting one handed.

That's why it's called a stabilizing brace and not a recoil absorber.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
the intention is to brace it at the back of the weapon, exactly like a shoulder stock

No, it's obviously not.

Which is why the ATF said it's totally legal to use it as intended by the manufacturer as an arm brace

But not legal to use it as a shoulder stock.

You know- like we've been telling you since this began.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Since it only serves the purpose of two handed shooting

See- here's where you're showing gross ignorance of the law.


The weapon is a pistol. Period. Full Stop.

Even the ATF calls it a pistol. Explicitly.

Because the base weapon IS A PISTOL.


Adding a stabilizing brace in the words of the ATF itself that is used as a stabilizing brace does not change that


So if you could stop lying about that- that'd be great.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Look at some of your case law on this.

I'd love to.


Except there isn't any.


The ATF has never, ever, in its entire history, arrested or tried anyone in court for using a stabilizing brace on their AR pistol.

And there's no indication they intend to- since they've said it's LEGAL to do so if used properly.


Hell- the ONLY case law related to NFA you've brought up AT ALL- which was an EXPLICIT AND CLEAR case of a violation (putting a forward grip on a pistol), YOU told us was thrown out by the judge as being silly.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
It's very, very murky about things that have a claimed purpose - stabilizing a pistol which is one-handed weapon as stated by the definition in the law- and then using it for a purpose that becomes very suspect and converts it into something illegal
Except, it doesn't.

At all.


According to the ATF itself.

Used for its intended purpose it's completely legal.

Not sure why you didn't get this the first 30 times it was explained to you though.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
Here is another site confirming these issues, though I'll grant I dont' think they would get our disagreement here - and they err on the side of caution too
http://www.offthegridnews.com/sel...t-know-it/

Did you not READ your own link, or just not UNDERSTAND your own link?


That link doesn't even mention pistol stabilizing braces.


It does mention putting an actual rifle buttstock on a pistol.

which is of course illegal without an NFA tax stamp

The fact you can't tell the difference between those things is reason number, what are we up to now, 347? that you shouldn't be trying to discuss ARs or NFA/ATF rules.




Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
You are correct, nothing has happened yet.
And nothing is going to. Because it's not illegal.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
I am also correct, with substantial numbers of professionals backing me up

Utterly and completely false.

You don't even understand the issues- so you keep misreading (or maybe just NOT reading) your own sources.

None of which ACTUALLY support your claims, or disagree with anything I've said.

(also- several are just from "guy who posted on a gun website" rather than an "industry expert" so you're even overselling the sources you failed to understand)


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
- this could very easily be declared to fall under different provisions of the law and be declared illegal

Well, no, it can't.

In fact that's why the ATF issued the clarification they did- because there were conflicting opinion letters floating around- so they issued EXPLICIT guideance on stabilizing braces to make it clear to EVERYONE that they are- guess what?

completely legal when used as intended

You know. Like I told you from the start.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
I've watched things get shut down hard by government agencies, and especially with the death of Scalia this could happen here - remember as I've said before there are law enforcement agencies that want to have these controls (like the stupid local LEO class 3 sign off).
There goes your ignorance again!

There is no local LEO class 3 sign off requirement.

(and even back when there was one a trust completely bypassed it)


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
By the way, if you would learn to read context, the quote about it being awkward, etc. was from a gun expert, not me.

the only useful thing in there is you finally admitted what everyone else here knew-

You're not a gun expert Big Grin

Personally I find firing shotguns with only pistol grips awkward.

Some other people love them.

Both methods are valid and legal though- so one guy finding something awkward is relevant to.... literally nothing.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
My point on this, explaining why these simply do not function for one-handed shooting
Except for the 26,000 or so videos showing they do drool


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
Coincidentally the man shooting in your example was holding in the ONLY possible way to shoot the weapon one handed

Wait... you just spent the last like 90,000 words telling us you CAN'T shoot it one handed.


Now there's A MAGICAL WAY TO DO IT?


That's a really strange way to admit you were proven wrong.



Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
I'm not going to end up shooting one of these, because as a tool
I think we'd all agree you are certainly that...


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
the anti-gun lobby then uses that as an emotional appeal to regular everyday voters after any of the "mass" shootings to try and ram through laws "closing" those loopholes.
meanwhile back in reality support for more gun control has actually DECLINED in recent years-

In fact 2 years AFTER Newton Pew research had this to say-

Quote from PEW :
For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.


Quote from Mr. Harley View Post :
.
No semi-auto's existed a 100 years ago
Wrong again

Mannlicher was making semi-autos in the late 1800s.

By 100 years ago (1916) there were MANY semi-auto guns- pistols, rifles, and shotguns out there.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by Knightshade October 12, 2016 at 10:38 AM.
Page 1 of 1
1
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2016. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard