Quantcast
Has the Arm Brace changed your mind about SBR-ing? - Page 9 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Tools and Technologies > NFA Firearms and Accessories

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 15, 2014, 12:26 PM   #201
bikemutt
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 2,747
A Rock River LAR-9 pistol I recently acquired is marked "Pistol Only" on the lower receiver, first time I'd seen that.

Also bought a Seekins lower recently, the dealer suggested filling out a WA pistol form as there is a category "frame", this could be helpful if the time came where I had to "prove" it was a pistol first. Of course it's now "registered" (in WA).
__________________
You cannot change criminal behavior by criminalizing lawful behavior
bikemutt is offline  
Old September 18, 2014, 09:07 PM   #202
dragon813gt
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 30, 2011
Posts: 722
This has me wondering how my lower was marked. I was specifically asked if it was for a rifle or pistol. But this is because I would have to fill out a separate form for the PA State Police if it was going to be a pistol. I'm thinking I should have gone that route. But that makes selling it a pain because I would have to have it legally transferred at a FFL instead of a FTF transaction. I think I might just buy a lower for a pistol build anyway.
dragon813gt is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 10:14 AM   #203
Tirod
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 24, 2008
Location: SW MO
Posts: 2,796
The end result is that the SB15 has demonstrated to shooters they don't need to get a stamp to enjoy the benefits of an SBR, if they are willing to accept the lack of a conventional shoulder thingy that goes up.

There are pros and cons each way, but a pistol at this time has less restrictions on possession and transport than the SBR. The proponents of the SBR claim a lot of work arounds, but that is the point - work around the laws to enjoy the same freedoms the pistol owners can exercise straight up.

It seems many challenge that, and I'll say it again - they are immersed in the process as a way to gain more reputation. They are a Stamp holder. To me it's really a matter of whether we prefer to cooperate with a restrictive government agency, and it seems there a lot who do prefer it. I posted the BATF Elimination Act thread and there seems to be ample proof - nobody much enjoying the prospect of eliminating a bureaucracy that as outlived it's usefulness. No support we need to go forward with the idea. No positive input this could be the first step in eliminating the NFA and GCA altogether.

We'd rather live with the evil we have than work to change it. I think we need an attitude check.

As for the guns, there is no substantial difference between shooting an otherwise identically equipped SBR or a pistol that is being "misused" by shooting it at the shoulder. Especially for the reasons they are built, close range defense. That is why the wrist brace has caught so many people's attention - it provides the same shooting experience without the hassles and with increased freedoms.

The pistol with a wrist brace is a better bang for the buck than an SBR. It can be built as fast as your budget allows, and you can be using it about 4-7 months earlier. It can sell just as quickly, no other parts swapped on, and no one much the wiser. What I read in all the denials is exactly that - defenders of a paid privilege that is only granted by government.

Isn't that the basis of the conflict between the traditional rifle shooter and MSR's? And exactly why the CMP will never sell any M16, modified or not, even if it means closing it down?

There are shooters out there who would rather defend their privileges than expand our freedoms to their Constitutional fullness - as it was for their grandfathers and forefathers.

Sad times when I read so many who pick up the forms to fill out rather than simply avoid cooperating with the restricters of freedom, especially when it's an obvious decision. We'd rather debate the nuances of the law than simply acknowledge the law is wrong to begin with.

Where is the High Road in that?
Tirod is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 11:50 AM   #204
dogtown tom
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 15, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Tirod The end result is that the SB15 has demonstrated to shooters they don't need to get a stamp to enjoy the benefits of an SBR, if they are willing to accept the lack of a conventional shoulder thingy that goes up.
And the lack of a REAL shoulder stock and the benefits it brings is important to many.


Quote:
There are pros and cons each way, but a pistol at this time has less restrictions on possession and transport than the SBR. The proponents of the SBR claim a lot of work arounds, but that is the point - work around the laws to enjoy the same freedoms the pistol owners can exercise straight up.
Do you feel those "work arounds" threaten your freedom? I don't. And having an SBR allows me to exercise quite a few more freedoms than does the owner of the arm brace.




Quote:
It seems many challenge that, and I'll say it again - they are immersed in the process as a way to gain more reputation. They are a Stamp holder.
Nonsense. It's a freaking $200 tax. Considering the amount of $$$$ folks spend on guns that $200 is miniscule. Where on earth you get the idea that it helps someone "gain more reputation" is beyond rational thought. If it's simply jealousy that someone paid $200 for a tax stamp and waited a few months vs paying $150 for the Sig Arm brace and waited a week.............that's plain weird reasoning.






Quote:
To me it's really a matter of whether we prefer to cooperate with a restrictive government agency, and it seems there a lot who do prefer it. I posted the BATF Elimination Act thread and there seems to be ample proof - nobody much enjoying the prospect of eliminating a bureaucracy that as outlived it's usefulness. No support we need to go forward with the idea. No positive input this could be the first step in eliminating the NFA and GCA altogether.
So your telling us you choose to cooperate only with those "restrictive government agency" regulations that you agree with?

It would be hypocritical for you to fill out a 4473 because that means you are cooperating with ATF..........right?

Your "BATF Elimination Act" is a joke. Unless the GCA and NFA are eliminated first those Federal laws would still be in effect.........and another agency would be tasked with the enforcement of those laws. Be careful of what you wish for, because eliminating ATF and folding their responsibility into another existing or even new Federal agency may not work out like you think. Eliminate the GCA/NFA and the firearms regulation will solve itself.





Quote:
We'd rather live with the evil we have than work to change it. I think we need an attitude check.
Where have you been the last decade? There is an all time high in states allowing concealed carry, an ever increasing number allow open carry, the Heller decision, firearms carry in National Parks and the list goes on and on......heck even ATF says you can put a crappy stock on a pistol and call it an arm brace and use it as a shoulder stock. Whoodathunkit?

Seems to me that Second Amendment advocacy is charging full steam ahead. The NRA and Second Amendment Foundation haven't been shy about the power they wield on Capitol Hill. Who in this thread said they would rather "live with evil"?......not a soul. You just invented a straw man.





Quote:
As for the guns, there is no substantial difference between shooting an otherwise identically equipped SBR or a pistol that is being "misused" by shooting it at the shoulder.
For some of us there is a HUGE difference......we don't like the Sig Arm Brace as a shoulder stock. If that hurts your feelings, sorry, but there is no need to question anyones "attitude" or denigrate them as a tax stamp snob.






Quote:
Especially for the reasons they are built, close range defense. That is why the wrist brace has caught so many people's attention - it provides the same shooting experience without the hassles and with increased freedoms.
My only argument is that the Sig brace can provide a SIMILIAR shooting experience. And the "hassles" are so few as to be nearly inconsequential.







Quote:
The pistol with a wrist brace is a better bang for the buck than an SBR.
I can swap shoulder stocks on my SBR........what options for length of pull, cheek weld, sling mounting, etc do you have on your AR pistol with Arm Brace?







Quote:
It can be built as fast as your budget allows, and you can be using it about 4-7 months earlier.
Form 1's are being done in under THIRTY DAYS. Your "4-7 months earlier" argument just got whacked by that evil ATF.








Quote:
Isn't that the basis of the conflict between the traditional rifle shooter and MSR's? And exactly why the CMP will never sell any M16, modified or not, even if it means closing it down?
Uhhhh........the CMP wasn't the one to decide that they couldn't sell M16's. Need to do some research on that one.







Quote:
There are shooters out there who would rather defend their privileges than expand our freedoms.....
Name them.
Not one person in this thread has advocated anything of the sort. On the contrary, there probably isn't a member of this forum that wouldn't be happy to see the GCA and NFA go quietly into the sunset this evening. For you to suggest that those who pay tax stamps are somehow less freedom loving or less patriotic is sheer, utter and complete nonsense. It is also hypocritical.






Quote:
Sad times when I read so many who pick up the forms to fill out rather than simply avoid cooperating with the restricters of freedom, especially when it's an obvious decision. We'd rather debate the nuances of the law than simply acknowledge the law is wrong to begin with.
Soooo.................you've never filled out a 4473? Applied for a concealed handgun permit?






Quote:
Where is the High Road in that?
Your rant is anything but the High Road.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me!

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military, police, firefighters or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 01:41 PM   #205
Elkins45
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 25, 2009
Location: Northern KY
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Sad times when I read so many who pick up the forms to fill out rather than simply avoid cooperating with the restricters of freedom, especially when it's an obvious decision. We'd rather debate the nuances of the law than simply acknowledge the law is wrong to begin with.
I will repeat for a third time because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: your beloved arm brace doesn't help me with my 10/22.

Copernicus just called---he said the world doesn't revolve around your AR pistol.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member

I don't own an assault weapon. I own a counter-assault weapon.
Elkins45 is offline  
Old September 28, 2014, 04:33 PM   #206
aubie515
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 22, 2006
Location: SE PA
Posts: 775
Too much talking and not enough pictures.

My first attempt at sponge camo.



aubie515 is offline  
Old September 30, 2014, 07:52 PM   #207
Artofgolf
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Philadelphia PA
Posts: 204
Looks good so far
__________________
"Let's just say anyone can pull a trigger, but it's where the bullets go that count". Source Unknown
Artofgolf is offline  
Old October 1, 2014, 06:43 PM   #208
MasterSergeantA
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 21, 2008
Location: Arizona Territory
Posts: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkins45 View Post
I will repeat for a third time because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: your beloved arm brace doesn't help me with my 10/22.

Copernicus just called---he said the world doesn't revolve around your AR pistol.
As can be seen in the photo of the AK a few frames above, it is obvious that the arm brace is not only for the AR pistol. If you were to take a Ruger Charger pistol, attach an adapter to the rear of the stock for a buffer tube, and mount the buffer tube and arm brace, you would have the same thing. Doing so with a 10/22 rifle however would not make much sense since you would still have to maintain the 16" barrel length as a rifle. I may just have to do that myself, come to think of it!
MasterSergeantA is offline  
Old October 1, 2014, 09:28 PM   #209
kimberkid
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 5, 2010
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterSergeantA View Post
As can be seen in the photo of the AK a few frames above, it is obvious that the arm brace is not only for the AR pistol.
Correct ... I've got Arm Braces on 1 AR, 2 AK's and 2 HK's ... One of the AK's and both the HK's are waiting on stamps that I applied for on 9-11-14

I'm not sure how you would put it on a 10-22; is there some sort of 10-22 stock that uses an AR collapsible stock? If not you could for sure put it on AR-22, HK MP5 clone or SiG-522
__________________
If you really want something you'll find a way ...
... if you don't you'll find an excuse.
kimberkid is offline  
Old October 1, 2014, 10:19 PM   #210
Elkins45
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 25, 2009
Location: Northern KY
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterSergeantA View Post
As can be seen in the photo of the AK a few frames above, it is obvious that the arm brace is not only for the AR pistol. If you were to take a Ruger Charger pistol, attach an adapter to the rear of the stock for a buffer tube, and mount the buffer tube and arm brace, you would have the same thing. Doing so with a 10/22 rifle however would not make much sense since you would still have to maintain the 16" barrel length as a rifle. I may just have to do that myself, come to think of it!
I own a couple of 10/22's already but I don't have a Charger. I could buy the $200 stamp and chop my existing 10/22 for significantly less cost than trying to find and purchase a Charger and then paying even more to engineer a brace.

Sometimes the economic advantage doesn't favor the workaround solution. In this case it would be cheaper for me to build the real thing than the faux one.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member

I don't own an assault weapon. I own a counter-assault weapon.
Elkins45 is offline  
Old October 2, 2014, 05:48 PM   #211
MasterSergeantA
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 21, 2008
Location: Arizona Territory
Posts: 536
I will agree with you on the cost. I intend to SBR one of my 10-22s for some of those reasons. But if a person lives in a non-SBR state, there aren't a lot of choices. I was speaking to the feasability of doing it, not the economy.

kimberkid: There are a few options for 10/22 stocks on the market that will allow the use of an AR stock. I believe that TAPCO makes one and Nordic Components does as well. Just a matter of putting on the pistol buffer tube and brace. As elkins said...not cheap.
MasterSergeantA is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.