Coming soon to a store near you, the Tailhook brace by GearHead Works Stowed and fully opened. Seems like it would work nicely on an AR pistol, or anything with a compatible receiver extension (be careful not to shoulder it, of course )
I love how all these companies spend money to produce a component no one uses. (aka in this case the closing "hook") The Shockwave brace is about the only company IMO to figure out how to produce a product that does the same thing, cheaper, and with what i imagine less R&D costs.
Shockwave is the one that uses a thin blade at the rear, isn't it? Let me get back to you on which I'd rather have.
Yea that is the one. Now I don't own braces of any sort, I pay the evil tax man his fee to avoid them, but if I were to own one, anything but a shockwave seems like a waste of money.
Per a SHOT Show video on the ar15.com AR Pistol forum, it appears to have a suggested MSRP of $200! Granted, eventual street price may end up less than that but now you're competing against a $200 tax stamp (and 8 months waiting time). I agree with TITAN308. Shockwave found a reasonably priced solution (~$50) to a problem. I have one on my MK18 while waiting on my Form 1 only because of the price and it allows me to actually zero the gun in a fairly normal way. Yes, I shoulder the damn thing. That's how you zero a rifle!
The price is rather steep if that's accurate, but then again that's the difference between injection molded plastic and forged/machined aluminum.
Yes, and? What's the lawful distance between the brace and my shoulder before I'm in violation of this opinion? To definitively claim someone shouldered a brace is going to be very difficult to prove. I can't recall reading anything about anyone being accused and convicted for this as a stand alone charge.
The ones that really get me are the companies that push a "its for the disabled" sales routine. No its not, you liars. That is not who you are marketing it to... at all... But what do I care at the end of the day? Nothing I guess. If people want to spend $100-200 on a product they only use 50% of the materials involved, okie dokie.
Don't forget that the original SB15 Pistol Brace was developed for disabled shooters of AR15 type pistols. What they've morphed into since is another story once Sig Sauer got involved.
I fully support them calling it whatever they need to call it to get the ATF sign off so we can have non-stock attachments that are more comfortable to not shoulder, because screw the ATF. Any way that we can flip the bird to the ATF without receiving a prison sentence in return needs to be taken full advantage of.
That is fine and all, it just doesn't sit easy with me when companies use the handicap card as a means to an end. That is just me personally.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yeah, it would be difficult to prove without the owner bragging about the arm brace making a great stock and posting pics or vids of him using it on social media. But, remember, the prosecutors and sentencing judge aren't going to be lenient on you if your attitude is "screw you, ATF, you can't prove my exploitation of your loophole is illegal."
Unless you work for the government. In which case exploitation of legal loopholes, and even outright ignoring the law, is SOP.
General anti-government rants are off-topic to this thread about do-it-yourself suppressors. The "off topic" forum is available to sound off about how much contempt you have for the government.
Vacuous micro-rants are also off topic. And yet you posted one anyway. Now back to the brace.... "5. Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace: Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and therefore its attachment to a handgun did not constitute the making of a short-barreled rifle or “any other firearm” under the National Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter, however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock, such use would constitute a “redesign” that would result in classification of the brace/handgun combination as an NFA firearm (i.e., the “use” would be a “redesign” and making of a short-barreled rifle). ATF has not made another NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon. While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with future requests based upon the firearm’s individual characteristics. " Federal Firearms Regulations Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations White Paper (Not for public distribution) Ronald Turk Associate Deputy Director (Chief Operating Officer) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 20 Jan 2017 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...d-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations.pdf
This white paper is a wish list. It is an expression of "how I would like things to be in the future." it is not the agency's position of how the law is now. ATF's position is that these so-called arm stabilization braces are a bullsheet lie designed to give people short shoulder stocks without having to go through the SBR hassle. And if they catch you using one as a shoulder stock, that will be proof that you redesigned the thing from an arm brace , and now it's a shoulder stock for you . See post 8 above. PS: if the author of this white paper gets to have his way and ATF completely changes its mind on arm braces, I would like an arm brace for myself. Except I would want the length of pull to be about 3 inches longer measuring from the face of the trigger to the butt plate of that stock. Er, excuse me, I mean the end of the stabilization "brace" .
Yes and there are people who live their lives in that spectrum and deserve the fruits of their stupidity. I don't and don't advocate that anybody else should either. A little common sense. A little discretion.