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

[Sistema1927]

Im still not sure if a higher score or lower score is better or worse.

Depends on your perspective.

If you want it to be a pistol, you want a lower (>4) score on both parts. If you want it to be an SBR, subject to $200 tax stamp, then you want a higher (=>4) on either part.

 

[F-111 John]

Im still not sure if a higher score or lower score is better or worse.

If you mean the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999, a lower score is better. Your firearm must first pass the criteria in Section I in order to qualify to even have a brace, then you cannot score more than three points in Section II, and no more than 3 points in Section III, in order to be "legal." If you hit 4 points in either sections II or III, you have an SBR.

But the ATF reserves the right to toss the scores if they feel like it.

 

[lsudave]

If you mean the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999, a lower score is better. Your firearm must first pass the criteria in Section I in order to qualify to even have a brace, then you cannot score more than three points in Section II, and no more than 3 points in Section III, in order to be "legal." If you hit 4 points in either sections II or III, you have an SBR.

But the ATF reserves the right to toss the scores if they feel like it.

Well, the one saving grace about this, is that if you make it past Section 1, you have a pistol. The BRACE is, like the form says, an ACCESSORY. If the worst case scenario happens, you remove and destroy the brace, and wait for something that does fit criteria to become available. And, you can be sure, if this becomes the actual template for what is and what is not, that a "good brace" will shortly come out.

This is not my only firearm, and I suspect that to be the case for most other owners. I've got plenty of legit handguns, and a few carbines. I will NOT be registering a SBR (or any other device that requires registration).

 

[F-111 John]

Well, the one saving grace about this, is that if you make it past Section 1, you have a pistol.

If you make it past Section I, you have a pistol that is potentially eligible to have a brace attached. If you do not make it past Section I, you may well still have a pistol, but if a brace is subsequently attached, it is automatically assumed to be an SBR.

For example, a Glock 19 is too light and too short to be eligible to have a brace attached, which would appear to make the micro RONI style chassis an SBR. But a Glock 19 would still be considered a pistol.

 

[scott511]

Does anyone think that the ambiguity in all this is NOT intentional?

 

[American_Fusilier]

The ATF can go pound sand. They need to be disbanded.

 

[P Flados]

And with help from OLNS, here is a 10.5" AR-15 in 300 BO with the brace adjust to be "too short" should it happen to come to rest against my shoulder:

 

[lsudave]

And with help from OLNS, here is a 10.5" AR-15 in 300 BO with the brace adjust to be "too short" should it happen to come to rest against my shoulder:

View attachment 1006972

So, does it matter if the brace is adjusted to be "short"?

The way I read it, you measure length of pull from the MAXIMUM possible, not where you set it.

LENGTH OF PULL - w/Accessory in Rear most “Locked Position”

 

[Sistema1927]

So, does it matter if the brace is adjusted to be "short"?

The way I read it, you measure length of pull from the MAXIMUM possible, not where you set it.

That is part of the ambiguity of this document. My fin style braces have always been at the shortest position, with the rear flush with the end of the buffer tube, and a correspondingly short LOP. However, 5 minutes and adjustment with an Allen wrench would make them much longer, even past the 13.5" mark.

This whole thing is a train wreck, and designed as a "gotcha" for anyone with a brace.

 

[lsudave]

That is part of the ambiguity of this document. My fin style braces have always been at the shortest position, with the rear flush with the end of the buffer tube, and a correspondingly short LOP. However, 5 minutes and adjustment with an Allen wrench would make them much longer, even past the 13.5" mark.

Problem is, I don't think this part is ambiguous. It doesn't just say "length of pull while attached", it says "length of pull while attached in REAR MOST locked position".

Unless you are trying to interpret that to mean an extendable/telescopic brace (which it doesn't specify), meaning the brace itself is capable of lengthening, regardless of attached location. And that you then measure the extended brace at the longest extension.
Does such a brace even exist?

This whole thing is a train wreck, and designed as a "gotcha" for anyone with a brace.

THIS I agree with.

Seems the fin style is the only "good" one, but then all the fins are too long.

 

[P Flados]

My "too short" was in reference to my desire to use that configuration. When I went to a shorter barrel (actually 8.5", not the 7.5" that I previously stated), length of pull went from 10.75" to 12.75".

I originally built this gun as a legal "braced pistol" consistent with my understanding of ATF rules and practices at the time. With either "new" configuration the brace location against my arm "works" and the gun is now "more appropriate" for one handed use. As I read the "new rules" this will allow me to keep the brace on the pistol. I have no interest in dealing with the extra rules that would come with making it an NFA SBR.

The 300 BO has more than recoil than a 223/5.56. I am shooting 165 gr cast bullets with a case full of WC 680 powder. I get close to 1740 fps in a 10.5" and 1660 fps in a 8.5". The brace / gun combination has let me know that a sloppy hold can easily result in a sore shoulder even with my configuration before the new rules were proposed.

With the 10.5" barrel, if I try to go for a two handed hold and no contact with my shoulder, sooner or later the brace will be too close and will impact my shoulder when fired (ouch). With the brace in contact with my shoulder, the 10.75" length of pull puts the charging handle right at my cheekbone. Again, sooner or later it will hurt.

With the 8.5" barrel (photo below), the extra 2" for length of pull makes a big difference for how the gun feels to me.

I do not know if I will keep it this way, but I know that I am not going with the brace adjusted for the new rule and a 10.5" barrel.

And from what I can tell the "extended" does not apply to guns with the brace secured in place with a setscrew.

 

[crestoncowboy]

make the micro RONI style chassis an SBR. But a Glock 19 would still be considered a pistol.

I've inquired with several people about the mck/mck2/roni/kriss etc etc braced guns. It's not just the AR and AK. several million of the caa kits have been sold as well for everything from 10mm/45 Glocks to the 226/M&P...

Is a Glock 26 in a chassis going to be an SBR? An SBR with a 3 inch barrel?? . Who knows

 

[dogtown tom]

Is a Glock 26 in a chassis going to be an SBR? An SBR with a 3 inch barrel?? .

Yes.
From that worksheet:

SECTION I - PREREQUISITES [Suitability of “Brace” use]
1. The weapon must weigh at least 64 ounces.
2. The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 inches.

* Weighed with magazine - unloaded / accessories removed
* Length measured with all non-operational accessories removed

Weapon must meet both Prerequisites in order to proceed to Section II

Who knows

ATF knows.