FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH ACCESSORIES* commonly referred to as “STABILIZING

illinoisburt said:

The good news is if you make an ultralight build under 4 pounds with empty mag and sights then none of this applies. Pencil profiles and poly for the win!

Click to expand...

Apparently wrong. Read through the rules description and it specifically says underweight items cannot use a brace. Reading the proposed rules it isn't as confusing as the form seems to be, though most braced builds I've seen are going to fail the test. Suppose we will see a run on 16" barrels or a lot of long flashcans and brakes getting a tackweld. Of course once you hit the magic length people will ditch the brace for a more comfortable stock.

Enter the Olympic arms AR "over receiver" buffer tube system. That was only like 30 years ago.
Funny how quickly the atf forgets.

NVcharlie said:

This form is more than confusing. Are points from section 2 added to...

Click to expand...

It's meant to be confusing.

It's MEANT to be confusing.

Here's some de-confusion, the FIRST comment period is around 2 weeks old; the one where they want to BAN John or Tina from making their own firearm at home...

The 2nd comment period is a-coming, whereas some folk will believe it's ''about a brace'' but if your points add up, NO MORE PISTOL that's been around for...50+ years. Again, a BAN.

SO NOW IT IS NO LONGER confused, but alas, somekeep arguing semantics vs. listing your grievances in the COMMENT PERIOD, and, calling/ writing your FEDERAL REPs

The entire "Pistol Brace" idea was probably disingenuous to begin with.

It's a nice respite for those states that prohibit transport of loaded rifles in vehicles, though.

dogtown tom said:

The day I saw the first "arm brace" I said...."Tom, that's a crappy shoulder stock". Back then I was shocked that ATF had issued a determination letter saying it wasn't a shoulder stock. ATF isn't known for a liberal application of federal law.

Later, ATF said shouldering an arm brace constitutes a redesign of the arm brace, therefore don't do that. Then they backtracked and everyone was happy again.
Then, every gun maker and yahoo in America started attaching their version of an arm brace submitting to ATF for review.....ATF said OMG! Please stop it! We don't accept accessories unless attached to a firearm. So, no one bothered ATF again.

Since day one I've been skeptical of the legality of that first ATF determination letter. If it had said "when used as an arm brace, it does not make a handgun an NFA firearm".....I could understand that. But the gun community saw an inch of give, then assumed it had a mile. Without a doubt, ATF has been sitting back the last decade regretting that first determination letter. Sadly, determination letters aren't law, not a regulation, just someone at ATF's opinion at the time.

I am not one bit surprised. Nor will I be one bit surprised if this factoring criteria gets revised several times.

Click to expand...

And it sure doesn't help when 90% of the you tube videos you see have folks using that "arm brace" as a shouldering device - we were our own worst enemy in this regard as we gave then the ammo to use against us

George P said:

And it sure doesn't help when 90% of the you tube videos you see have folks using that "arm brace" as a shouldering device - we were our own worst enemy in this regard as we gave then the ammo to use against us

Click to expand...

Look!

A "disabled veteran..."

...firing a pistol...

...using the isosceles stance!

Still remember the original reason as to why the SIG brace was manufactured?

I always had suspicions that the "disabled veteran" part was used as a bandwagon to make the entire concept more acceptable.

Call me skeptical, er...

...skepticle!!!

milsurpguy said:

Enter the Olympic arms AR "over receiver" buffer tube system. That was only like 30 years ago.

Click to expand...

I had forgot those.

George P said:

when 90%

Click to expand...

Minimum.

Well, I measured and measured. One point in the upper and 2 in the lower if..... My pistol will be under the limit if..... I keep a naked buffer tube and replace the red dot with fixed sights. I can keep the handstop that way, small consolation that it is.

Let's just hope this mickey mouseketeer thing doesn't become a regulation.

berettaprofessor said:

I don’t understand what’s being written. Two different articles said the length of an AR pistol with a barrel over 7 inches (25 inches total) would be over the SBR line. My two pistols with 8.0 and 7.5 inch barrels are 23.75 and 23.25 inches respectively?

Click to expand...

I read a similar article, the expert told us it would take a 7" barrel to meet the new under 26" standard. 26" has been around a long time to determine other issue with pistols, like VFG etc. I measured mine when I finished it, it was 25.75" with a 10.5" barrel end of buffer tube to muzzle per ATF. (not flash hider, either.)

Now that the OP has posted a good link for us, the debate is still how to interpret some of then wording on a step by step basis. My pistol has iron sights, literally a clamp on FSB, clip in handguards from B5, a cut down carry handle issue rear sight, and almost no other accessories. My only concern is the blade style brace I finally added late last year, just in time for the ATF to start griping about it again. I feel like it's my fault, I held out so long they were waiting to zing me for backpedaling and getting one.

Worse comes to worse, it may become a .375 Socom deer rifle with 16" barrel, I don't see how many of us can really lose. AR's become other AR's and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over stocks and braces has been going on since the 90s. The ATF is fickle by definition - a regulatory agency commissioned by Congress who deliberately avoids making law in order to stroke their constituents yet still make things illegal in order to gain more power.

That is what is really going on - creating more criminals in order for government to justify even more control. Don't forget the entire point of the 1934 NFA was to outlaw handguns entirely. What they got has been very very good to them.

AT LEAST you can now use a BIPOD! [ SECTION III - Configuration of Weapon ; PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES ;
Presence of a bipod / monopod (2 points) ]

Thought that was previously verboten?

Don't go over that magikal / mystical 120oz kiddies!

I’m guessing my Tailhook brace is about to meet the same fate as my bump stock did. Boy, do I know how to pick ‘em!

How many points do you think this thing will score?

Tirod said:

I read a similar article, the expert told us it would take a 7" barrel to meet the new under 26" standard. 26" has been around a long time to determine other issue with pistols, like VFG etc. I measured mine when I finished it, it was 25.75" with a 10.5" barrel end of buffer tube to muzzle per ATF. (not flash hider, either.

Click to expand...

A turn of an Allen wrench and my 10.5" was also under the 26" (pistol buffer tube).
Unless they consider that an adjustable stock????? Geesh

I don’t care what ATF tries here. It will fail.

army_eod said:

I don’t care what ATF tries here. It will fail.

Click to expand...

Hope so.

WestKentucky said:

And still a single shot contender with brace seems likely to fall into the category where I need to send the government $200. Seems sillier each time I see it.

Click to expand...

Is yours a "cuff type" or fin? Could a non-adjustable cuff type get you to the points limit?

I'm likely just going to wash my hands of all of it as I don't want to have a point argument with people if I were to take one somewhere.

dogtown tom said:

Please don't blame those folks. NOTHING in federal law or ATF regs prohibit the technique a person uses when shooting a firearm. (thats why they backtracked on "shouldering")

If you can shoulder a Mares Leg? Good for you.
Like you nose snugged up tight on your AR charging handle? Good for you.

Its not flaunting a regulation, tweaking the tail of the tiger or thumbing your nose or any of that. Its using a firearm that ATF deemed a pistol with an arm brace. A lawful firearm.

Take an AR pistol with buffer tube only.......you sure as heck can shoot that pistol with the tube snugged up to your shoulder.......and it meets the definition of pistol.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I definitely understand why people think it's "poking the bear", etc but there is the law and you're either on one side or the other. Going 35mph in a 35mph zone isn't thumbing your nose at traffic police, you're traveling at a legal speed within the bounds of the law.

It's not so much the youtubers shooting braced pistols giving us a bad name as much as it is the people breaking the law. Ya know like killing people.....

I got a 68. Is this horse crap like bowling or golf?

Am I a felon when I open my safe or not?

Ohen Cepel said:

Is yours a "cuff type" or fin? Could a non-adjustable cuff type get you to the points limit?

I'm likely just going to wash my hands of all of it as I don't want to have a point argument with people if I were to take one somewhere.

Click to expand...

Mine is a fin and it did not come with a strap but I added one just to strengthen the point for arguments sake.

DustyGmt said:

Agreed. I definitely understand why people think it's "poking the bear", etc but there is the law and you're either on one side or the other. Going 35mph in a 35mph zone isn't thumbing your nose at traffic police, you're traveling at a legal speed within the bounds of the law.

It's not so much the youtubers shooting braced pistols giving us a bad name as much as it is the people breaking the law. Ya know like killing people.....

Click to expand...

True. And I think the whole barrel length & OAL thing in general is silly, to me. It like saying 10 rounds is ok but 11 is a menace to society


But it should come as no surprise.

There's countless examples such as vaping. Vaping emulates smoking but wasn't regulated the same for years. Once it became prolific enough, .gov rewrote the rules to include it with smoking.

Ohen Cepel said:

Is yours a "cuff type" or fin?

Click to expand...

What's the legal definition of both of them???

A tangled web.

GEM said:

It was low hanging fruit that might be picked without difficult to pass legislation.

Click to expand...

Well, they actually did pass that legislation almost 90 years ago! We're probably looking at this wrong; the error was when the technical branch first approved "braces" to begin with. Or at least down the road a bit when the manufactures stopped even pretending that they're braces. I realize gun owners are getting pretty emotional about this but it's hardly unexpected nor new. The first rumblings of this came during the previous administration (the one that banned bump stocks, natch). The party that's supposedly pro-gun had plenty of opportunity to "fix" this with legislation when they held all three "branches" but we got crickets.

Before the outrage begins and panties get bunched, understand that I too believe gun laws are stupid. But we can't really pretend they don't exist or don't say what they say. Who here as has ever seen anyone use a "brace" in the way they're supposedly designed to be used? I had an early SB brace on my Scorpion. It was very hard to strap to the arm and once you do the gun can't really be held with the sights in the line-of-sight. The human body isn't jointed in that manner. As as "braces" evolved it seems like they completely dropped even the pretense that it was supposed to be strapped to the arm. I have an SB3 "brace" and it's really hard to examine it and not conclude that it was meant to be a stock.

It sucks that ATF let this charade go this far. Now people have sunk a lot of money into these are understandably PO'd. I get that. At this point I hope the comments will impact the decision, and worst case I'd like to see ATF waive the fee for the tax stamp. Best case Congress would step and fix it but given they had almost nine decades to do so I'm not optimistic.

If the ATF is supposedly only acting in “good faith” (sure) in accordance with legislation passed years ago, I wonder what their excuse is for wanting to serialize hunks of metal and calling them firearms.

The whole thing is them simply doing what they can to inhibit ownership of firearms, while lying and trying to say it’s to prevent crime and help the police.

They’re just doing what a rabid anti 2A administration is telling them to do.