Ive been trying to figure out how that brace, is any different than the standard slider "stock", and how one is a stock, and the other a "brace".
I guess its like the Shockwave shotgun you buy, is different than the one you assemble, using the same exact parts on a gun you already have.
Same only different.
Does look good on there though rws.
I understand all that. What I dont understand, is that there really isnt any difference between these newer braces, and an actual stock.some braces look very similar to the telescoping stocks you see on rifles but are designed to interface with your forearm generally with a blade like the KAK or cuff like the SB Tactical as pictured above
there was some question as to if you could legally shoulder a brace equipped pistol...at first the ATF said no but then reversed the decision in 2017 as long as you don't alter any of the features of the brace
see this link for more info on ATF pistol brace opinions
.
I understand all that. What I dont understand, is that there really isnt any difference between these newer braces, and an actual stock.
Its blatantly obvious that they are meant to be shouldered, no matter whats said about them otherwise. At least with the earlier KAK "Shockwave" braces, and some of the others, their intent was to be a brace, and not used as a stock. Some could be fixed in position, and others not, or not readily anyways.
Here you have a quasi "stock" that is adjustable for LOP. Im just not getting it.
Thats the one.Are you referring to the SB Tactical sba3 brace pictured above? If so it is easily distinguishable from a regular adjustable stock. It has a cuff that is split at the bottom and can be spread to be placed over the forearm and secured with a strap. The length of pull is adjustable but only to 13.5". It is clearly has the design features to be used as a stabilizing brace and has been approved by ATF to be used on a handgun. Whether you want to attach the brace to your forearm or place it on your shoulder doesn't seem to matter with the 2017 ATF opinion. A regular adjustable stock does not have any design features to be used as a forearm stabilizing brace. If you read the ATF link above carefully you will understand how they differentiate the brace from a regular stock.
It's a needle, purpose built to thread a loophole, left by thoughtless idiot legislators (but that's doubly redundant). There's nothing to figure out; it's an object that fills the negative space in a regulatory farce.Ive been trying to figure out how that brace, is any different than the standard slider "stock", and how one is a stock, and the other a "brace".
I know and understand exactly whats going on. It just pisses me off that we allow foolishness like this to go on, instead of calling them on it and telling them no. Wheres the NRA in all of this if they are so hot on defending our rights?It's a needle, purpose built to thread a loophole, left by thoughtless idiot legislators (but that's doubly redundant). There's nothing to figure out; it's an object that fills the negative space in a regulatory farce.
Stop complaining and enjoy it. If regulators weren't idiots, we'd be doomed in more important ways than this.
Thats the one.
I understand its a "brace", but its closer to a stock, than the Shockwave you replaced it with, and works just like a slider.
As far as LOP, most all of my military type rifles have a LOP of 12.5-13", as they should, and that has pretty much been a standard for over a century or longer.
Saying that the LOP is only adjustable to 13.5" really doesnt mean anything or make any sense either. Other than the ATF is saying its OK.
With pretty much everything being the same... a wide "buttplate" surface area (spreadable or not), a readily adjustable LOP to rifle length, and being able to shoulder it, how is the stock "illegal", and the brace "legal"?
Thats what Im not understanding. They perfom the same, and serve the same purpose.
And Im not bitching about it (well, I am), I just want to know why we just cant use a stock then, and stop all the foolishness, and wasting a lot of money on "get arounds". A standard stock is a LOT cheaper.
took off a KAK Shockwave and put on a SB Tactical SBA3
added features of being lever vs set screw adjustable for lop and a cup for quick detach sling mounting
View attachment 847197
View attachment 847198
View attachment 847199
View attachment 847200
That is correct if your using a standard carbine receive extension. You can get longer carbine style received extensions that are longer.I corrected my post above...the sba3 adjusts to a maximum 12.5" lop.
So it's legal to swap "braces"?
I was under the impression that a pistol with a brace had to stay in the configuration it was manufactured in.
The arm band is quite stiff, but if you try to shoulder it it'll flex.
It should be a bit better, but keep in mind, they aren't meant to be a stock, just an "arm brace"The SBA4 is a bit beefier. I wonder if that solves this issue?
You forgot the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink".but keep in mind, they aren't meant to be a stock, just an "arm brace"
Cough...………….. Umm, yeah I saw that once. In a place. You know they were following the law and stuff.You forgot the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink".
Just curious here, but has anyone actually ever seen ANYONE use a brace, as a brace?