Arm brace question

[armoredman]

So I read the letters from ATFE on the SiG "arm brace"...I have a couple of quick questions.
1) Does using the arms brace AS an arm brace work? I have considered getting a vz-58 pistol on occasion, and the arm brace thing might make it easier to shoot at longer range.
2) Who makes the things other than SiG, or are they only from SiG, and only for adapters they make? It would be nice if there were adapters for other popular pistols of the same type.
3) Is this as popular as it seems, or mostly hype?

 

[Theohazard]

1) It's terrible as an arm brace; absolutely awful. It's extremely awkward to use and you can't see through the sights unless you tilt the pistol almost 45 degrees. It's pretty clear to me that it wasn't intended to actually be used as an arm brace.

2) As far as I know, it's only made by SIG. But it doesn't necessarily need an adaptor, it will fit on any pistol buffer tube (though you do need an adaptor for any pistol that doesn't have a buffer tube; I've only seen adaptors for the SIG 556 and for the AK, but they might make others). It will even fit on a rifle buffer tube, but I recommend modifying the tube so it can't accept a stock (to avoid constructive possession of an SBR).

3) It's pretty popular here in WA. Until recently, this was the closest we could get to an SBR. And it still makes sense for someone who wants to avoid the $200 stamp and the annoying NFA process; it works just as well as a fully-collapsed stock when you shoulder it. And if you want it longer you can move it out a little bit on the buffer tube.

 

[wally]

Century also makes one for AK pistols.

 

[armoredman]

If this item were to be used outside of the factory recommendations, as listed on the ATFE letter, I have to wonder, being made of rubber, does it collapse under recoil? Does 7.62x39mm cause it to "deform" more than 5.56mm, or is there no difference? I'd like to use this arm brace with a 7.62x39mm pistol, if I get the cash to go through with my idea this year or next.

 

[hso]

I've followed it from the early crude stinky rubber "proto" being lugged around SHOT to today's offered product.

It was intended to assist disabled and physically compromised or weaker individuals shoot the AR pistol platform.http://vimeo.com/91273490 https://www.facebook.com/sbtacticalbrace/info http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/002253_sig-sauer-pistol-stabilizing-brace/

It works as intended and as advertised, but is most convenient punched out with the knuckle on top and the firearm rotated partly to the left or right with a light optic on the rail. It does stabilize an AR pistol better than not using it, but you have to be strong enough to hold an AR pistol out at arms length (not your average sort).

It is not a good substitute for an SBR, but it is a good alternative to letting your SBR sit around for 10 months waiting for your stamp to come in. At least this way you can play with your "pistol" while you wait to put a stock on it legally.

It isn't made for anything other than the AR receiver extension and the AKs. I'm not aware of any intentions to make it for anything else, BUT it wouldn't be difficult for an enterprising person to make an adapter for any slotted handgun so it would mate to the AR version. Unfortunately, you wouldn't have any protection from the ATF like the ATF letters provide (for the time being) for the AR and AK versions unless you submitted a request for interpretation from the Technical Branch and received a reply.

It handles 7.62x39 just fine out of an 11.5" 7.62x39 AR pistol.

 

[Theohazard]

It was intended to assist disabled and physically compromised or weaker individuals shoot the AR pistol platform.

I'm skeptical of that story. It just sounds like good PR to help convince the ATF to approve it. And considering it's so awkward to shoot it as an arm brace -- and it works so well as a pseudo-SBR -- I'm convinced that the whole intent from the beginning was to get around the SBR laws. And they've succeeded. Heck, it even looks like a stock.

It is not a good substitute for an SBR, but it is a good alternative to letting your SBR sit around for 10 months waiting for your stamp to come in.

I find it to be a pretty good substitute. If you're used to shooting with a partially- or fully-collapsed stock it's almost the exact same as shooting an SBR.

 

[wally]

I find it to be a pretty good substitute. If you're used to shooting with a partially- or fully-collapsed stock it's almost the exact same as shooting an SBR.

Me too, you can use a spacer or a longer buffer tube to get the length you want, other than not being adjustable it makes a darn fine SBR!

We've shot my pair of AR 9mm side-by-side, one is an SBR, the other is wearing the SB-15 while waiting for the stamp. Not a lot of difference unless you just have to have a vertical grip which you can't on the SB-15 pistol.

I suspect I've helped sell a few of these
It works well enough I doubt I'll be sending in for any more SBR stamps.

 

[barnbwt]

So I read the letters from ATFE on the SiG "arm brace"...I have a couple of quick questions.

4) If people keep talking about how the brace is being used exclusively and was intentionally purchased as a rifle stock, would they be criminally liable since intent to make a shoulder-fired firearm with a barrel less than 16" would be easy to construct?

Yes.

5) If people keep talking about how the brace is being used exclusively as a workaround to SBR laws, will the ATF rescind their approval and confiscate the braces without compensation or grandfathering?

Probably.

It all comes down to when the ATF feels like doing something about this, and as we saw with EP, they have tremendous latitude to plug what they feel are 'holes' in the regulations (and anyone and their dog who gets in the way, to boot )

TCB

 

[Theohazard]

4) If people keep talking about how the brace is being used exclusively and was intentionally purchased as a rifle stock, would they be criminally liable since intent to make a shoulder-fired firearm with a barrel less than 16" would be easy to construct?

No. The ATF cannot control how you shoot your gun. They can only control how it's designed, and the ATF has officially determined that it's designed as an arm brace. After that, you can use it however you want with absolutely zero risk.

5) If people keep talking about how the brace is being used exclusively as a workaround to SBR laws, will the ATF rescind their approval and confiscate the braces without compensation or grandfathering?

It's possible, but highly unlikely in my opinion. The rational for them allowing the arm brace is clear: SIG has exclusively marketed it as an arm brace and the ATF has accepted that. For them to declare that the SB15 is actually a stock would go against every bit of reasoning they've used so far in allowing it.

I'd be willing to bet they're not changing their minds on this. Heck, they already are well aware that people use it as a work-around to have an SBR-like pistol. They've even issued an official ruling saying it's OK to shoulder it.

 

[barnbwt]

"They can only control how it's designed, and the ATF has officially determined that it's designed as an arm brace. After that, you can use it however you want with absolutely zero risk."
Yes, SIG has absolutely zero risk. The guy who bought a stock with the intent to create a rifled firearm, intended to fired from the shoulder, with a barrel less than 16" ...I think that's an extremely grey area; too grey for my curious nature. The braces haven't been out long enough for the ATF to make trouble with them, but if people continue to use them overwhelmingly for something other than their stated purpose, to create an item that is subject to NFA purview (a short barreled rifled firearm intended to be shot from the shoulder), I only see a revocation of the approval in the brace's future. The ATF aren't big enough jerks that they'd nail someone on construction for installing one with intent to use one as a stock (maybe as an add-on charge they may try), but the Akins Accelerator saga should be a lesson to all about how fickle the ATF can be. Their job is to eliminate unregistered SBRs; why would they tolerate a workaround that is entirely at their discretion?

"They've even issued an official ruling saying it's OK to shoulder it."
I think the reason for that ruling is because the opposite finding would open obvious and enormous worm-cans, so allowing it to be used as a stock via essentially an informal-exemption (similar devices are not approved by default or by similarity) keeps them in the clear while they ponder their next move to somehow double back on their approval but not lose face in the process. I see the Akins Accelerator all over again.

TCB

 

[Theohazard]

They can only control how it's designed, and the ATF has officially determined that it's designed as an arm brace. After that, you can use it however you want with absolutely zero risk.

Yes, SIG has absolutely zero risk. The guy who bought a stock with the intent to create a rifled firearm, intended to fired from the shoulder, with a barrel less than 16" ...I think that's an extremely grey area; too grey for my curious nature.

No. It's not a grey area at all. The ATF cannot control how you shoot your gun. Period. All they can do is change their mind and ban the SB15 completely.

If it was illegal to shoulder a pistol, then it would also be illegal to use a two-handed grip on a pistol: Keep in mind that the official BATFE definition of a pistol is a firearm that's "designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand". But most people use two-handed grips when shooting pistols and it's perfectly legal, and that's because the BATFE can't control how you shoot a gun.

I've been correcting people when they spread this myth for a while now, and recently the ATF issued an official ruling that says pretty much the same thing I've been saying:

http://cdn5.gunssavelives.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2cht9he-640x853.jpg

There you go. That's the exactly same argument I've been using ever since the SB15 came out.

 

[armoredman]

And I must comment that my original post did not state, nor did follow up posts state that I am setting out to deliberately misuse such a device in a way not intended by the manufacturer, although I did ask about others who have done so.
ATFE can change their minds, but in this case it looks highly unlikely at this time, and i think properly used it might make an interesting accessory for a semi-auto pistol of larger size. I doubt, though, that I will find an adapter that could let me use this device on semi-auto pistols other than based off an AR-15 or AKM platform. It certainly would be interesting and fun to try, but I think I will likely be unable to make it happen in the near future.

 

[Theohazard]

And I must comment that my original post did not state, nor did follow up posts state that I am setting out to deliberately misuse such a device in a way not intended by the manufacturer,

It doesn't matter if you intend to or not. Either way it's perfectly legal and there's absolutely nothing the ATF -- or anyone else -- can do about it. They could change their mind and decide adding an SB15 makes a pistol into an SBR, but they can't tell you how to shoot your gun. Do you shoot your handguns with a two-handed grip? Because that's the exact same principle: You're using the pistol in a different way than it was legally designed.

I shoulder my friend's SB-15 all the time. I'm currently building a 300 Blackout SBR and I intend to buy an SB-15 while I'm waiting for my tax stamp. And I have absolutely no intention of using it as an arm brace, because it's terrible that way. I'm going to shoulder it instead. And that's 100% legal.

I don't understand why people get so worried about shouldering a pistol. They might as well tell people not to use a two-handed grip with their pistol, because it's the same idea.

 

[BrianM87]

I'm skeptical of that story. It just sounds like good PR to help convince the ATF to approve it. And considering it's so awkward to shoot it as an arm brace -- and it works so well as a pseudo-SBR -- I'm convinced that the whole intent from the beginning was to get around the SBR laws. And they've succeeded. Heck, it even looks like a stock.

It was. SIG bought the design from an individual after he had made the original prototype for a disabled veteran friend of his. The original was pretty ugly looking and slightly less "stock-like" and SIG prettied it up to create the existing version

 

[Theohazard]

^^^ I know that story. I'm just saying it sounds too perfect to be true. The cynical side of me thinks that some marketing guy made up the "wounded veteran" story to increase the likelihood it would be approved by the ATF. After all, who would rule against wounded veterans?

 

[justice06rr]

^^^ I know that story. I'm just saying it sounds too perfect to be true. The cynical side of me thinks that some marketing guy made up the "wounded veteran" story to increase the likelihood it would be approved by the ATF. After all, who would rule against wounded veterans?

You'd be surprised.

We are only speculating the wounded Vet story that allowed the creation of the SigBrace. IMO it was designed sincerely as a Pistol brace by the original owner, but when Sig bought the rights to produce them, they made it look a little bit "nicer". It also happens it looks pretty close to a M4 stock--which is a good thing.

Sig also did NOT spread any misinformation on the stock and held their tongue, that it can be shouldered if the shooter desires. This is a good move on their part, and resulted in the current popularity of the brace as a AR/AK pistol "accessory".

I would not call it a stock, nor is it one. It is not adjustable and is also not completely solid like the A2 stocks. The ATF cannot control how you hold or shoot a firearm which is why its ok to shoulder the brace.

Bottomline, I think the SigBrace is a great idea.

 

[AmEngRifles]

I have always wondered why it was illegal to have a second vertical grip on a so called "assault pistol" or otherwise? To my mind, one of the earliest style pistol made from a rifle design was the M1 carbine "Enforcer". You are allowed to hold that pistol with two hands as there is enough forearm to do so. Even earlier is a Luger Artillery model without the butt. It also has a forearm allowing for the weak hand to act as a second point of stabilization.

Now we have all sorts of assault pistols based on rifles. The out of production Leader Dynamics Devil, the AK Draco, the VZ58 pistol, the AR-15 pistol and many others. Up to this point, those could all be fired with two hands and that presented no issues. Those of us that have purchased any of these oddities know they are not great for much of anything except burning up ammo. The addition of a bipod, like on the Ruger Challenger, does give a forward stable platform for bench rest shooting and for some hunting scenarios. Have not seen a huge trend in putting bipods on AR-15 pistols or Dracos, but some have.

All this is used to illustrate that ATF has not really controlled the way we handle and fire these pistols, even though they break the mold of the single handed traditional handgun. So as long as things are not carried too far (which they probably will be), I would think ATF would be content with their decisions on the Sig Arm Brace.

I have noticed that the Magpul forward angled grip being added to some 15s, and wondered how that was to be received? As in any sport, pushing the envelop happens and then the envelope pushes back.

 

[Theohazard]

I have noticed that the Magpul forward angled grip being added to some 15s, and wondered how that was to be received?

The ATF says that a forward vertical grip makes a pistol into an AOW, and they've officially ruled that a Magpul AFG isn't a vertical grip.

I think the original rationale for that rule is that a vertical grip helps control a pistol in rapid fire. We all know that's BS, but it's not really any stupider than a lot of other gun laws and regulations.

 

[Big Shrek]

I think the old adage, "Don't P in the pool" applies here.
Anything that assists a Vet or Handicapped person use a firearm is a good thing in my book.

If lots of folks start talking about how it might be used as a way to get around the SBR,
some effing liberal will eventually glom onto it and raise heck...which will likely end up in it being classified out,
and then a TOOL that a Vet/Disabled person can use would go byebye.

OR, they may require that one submit their disablement paperwork to the ATF for a license/permit to use it.

Either way, don't mess up a good thing by being yappy about technically legal/illegal activity.
The more you discuss a grey area, the more likely it is that the grey area will be outlawwed.

Oddly enough, there are more than a few LEO's & BATF personnel reading these sites...
mostly for their own enjoyment and education...
rest assured, however, that a few may be liberals...and/or scumbags...
hence the reason to use caution.

 

[Theohazard]

If lots of folks start talking about how it might be used as a way to get around the SBR,
some effing liberal will eventually glom onto it and raise heck...which will likely end up in it being classified out,
and then a TOOL that a Vet/Disabled person can use would go byebye.

But it absolutely sucks as an arm brace. It's much easier to use an AR pistol one-handed without the arm brace at all. Besides, it's very difficult to even strap it on your arm without the use of a second hand.

The sole purpose of the SIG arm brace is to legally circumvent the SBR laws. That's it. Otherwise, it's absolutely worthless and makes an AR pistol much worse, even for someone with the use of only one arm.

effing liberal
[...]
a few may be liberals...and/or scumbags...

It drives me crazy every time someone uses the word "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". Why would you want to intentionally alienate potential allies? Just because the two main parties try to make guns a "left vs. right" issue on the national level, that doesn't mean it actually is. I know plenty of people who consider themselves left-wing Democrats who are also pro-gun and pro-Second Amendment; many liberals see gun rights as a civil liberties issue that fits right in with the rest of their political views. And intentionally alienating them is not only a terrible strategy, but it also shows a complete lack of political nuance.