how is this not a SBR?

Status
Not open for further replies.
fireside44 said:
I have given these a close look, shouldered a pistol built using one. It definitely functions as a buttstock. In fact the idea of an "arm brace" is rather silly because it works better as a buttstock (though a bit short) than an arm brace imo. I'm VERY surprised the ATF gave the go ahead. They claim it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder? I know the ATF made up some conflicting rules and regs, but geez. You don't look at it and say "oh my arm goes through here" but rather, "wow, this buttstock is a bit short". It's a buttstock, not an arm brace but I like the way they appear to have sneaked it past the man for the time being anyhow.

My real question is if I installed one on an AK pistol would it be an SBR even though the basis for it's invention is the installation on the buffer tube? Does the SIG 556 have a buffer tube? I don't believe it does. Their letter would suggest I could indeed install it on an AK pistol and be legit. To me it seems like a good way to get your wires crossed up with the law, regardless of the weapon it's used on.
Click to expand...


No it's not, and Sig/Century didn't sneak anything past anyone. Have you read this thread or even viewed the video showing the history of it being promoted by a veteran?

If it bothers you that much, it's a free country and you're more than welcome to petition the ATF to change their mind. I doubt many of the amputees etc that are thrilled with it will appreciate your efforts though.

t
 
No it's not, and Sig/Century didn't sneak anything past anyone. Have you read this thread or even viewed the video showing the history of it being promoted by a veteran?

If it bothers you that much, it's a free country and you're more than welcome to petition the ATF to change their mind. I doubt many of the amputees etc that are thrilled with it will appreciate your efforts though.
Click to expand...

No reason to get angry with me. I was skeptical of the value of the item at first until I handled it and realized it is a buttstock legally disguised as a brace. Have you handled one? It's a buttstock, it functions as a buttstock far easier than it does as an arm brace as it's marketed. It says it's a quote foam type rubber, and it is rubber, but it is very solid as it functions much quicker as a buttstock than an arm brace. It is rigid more than it is pliable. So I was surprised, that doesn't mean I'm ragging on anyone's idea for any reason. My concern was legal in nature. I wasn't ready to petition, I was interested in where my rights might end up if I haphazardly applied this to a pistol of any sort, my interest being an AK.

If I'm caught using it as a buttstock, would I get in trouble? Is the ATF letter only good for use as designed as it were i.e arm brace? I would assume at bare minimum I should have that letter present if I'm enroute somewhere and the pistol it is mounted on is in my possession. I'm saying it seems sketchy. A law dog might err on the side of caution and you wind up in a world of hurt.

I think it's cool, cause it's an SBR without paperwork but at this point I'm not ready to take the risk for a to short buttstock. No judgement against anyone here, only worried about legal aspects.
 
Wow didn't think this would get that many responses, I see it now I thought that was a solid piece of plastic I dont see how it would be very comfortable... I just would be worried I would have to prove it's not a SBR since I worry to much!
 
No, there is a letter from the ATF out there. They ruled that it is not a stock because it is only made of foam. Just padding for a forearm brace that happens to look kinda like an M4 stock.
Click to expand...


Wow .An ATF opinion letter like that is not law it doesn't carry the force of law. What are you saying "no" to? Because nothing you typed after no refutes anything you quoted from me. Well let me correct you unless you are aware of some formal rule making or adjudication that I'm not, the ATF didn't "rule" anything. Some tech branch guy opined about it and that is radically different.

For those that don't know anything about administrative law an adjudication is very different in kind than an opinion letter like the one posted.

As to opinions of the ATF changing on a whim, they can, they have and they do. You can find conflicting letters on the 922r parts count of the saiga shotguns for example. There are a number of other examples of this.

Sig and century probably got their own opinion letters addressed to them. That won't do you too much good however if tomorrow the ATF decides to change their opinion or if some other power that be decides that the part in question meets the legal definition.

Oh and it's still a much less useful part than a real stock.
 
Last edited:
There are so many people who fit that niche that also need a weapon to fill the very small niche such a weapon would fill that I am sure that is the true intended target market. Might i suggest that it's also much less useful than an typical pistol in the vast majority of circumstances. If one is genuinely restricted to one handed firing a portly, front heavy sig 556 probably isn't the best option available.

Even for when these disabled vets and stroke victims who need to fend of multiple body armor wearing home invaders (sounds like a good movie) there are plausible superior options imho. For just about everything there likely is as well.

And of course my initial comments certainly should not have been ready in the context of the gun being used as a quasi SBR as was being discussed.:rolleyes:
 
Maybe the ATF is tired of the 40,000 plus NFA form application back log.
Click to expand...

Who could get tired of $8,000,000 ready and waiting for nothing more than a signature and stamp?

Really, you don't have to make a thing and folks are waiting in line to give you money.
 
Does anyone know what the length of pull is when installed on an AR pistol?

It might be a stopgap measure while dealing with the year-long and rapidly growing SBR process.

Mike
 
Interestingly John Noveske (RIP) would NOT sell me a Diplomat pistol with a normal bolt and buffer tube! He was hip to the foam wrap Carbine buffer tube and a crutch tip as being very shoulderable for CQB. So my Diplomat still has the shortened tube and bolt carrier.
 
Agreed, the Brady and Bloomberg bots are running amuck. I mean, it's not like Feinstein and Schumer need any help.

t
 
No one was trying to give them any help. Law abiding Joe Citizen just don't want to get hosed in a court of law because he did something supposedly legal and local law enforcement disagrees with it. All that has to happen is to be hauled in for it,charged, and the trouble begins, guilty or not. You still stand trial. Maybe just make a plea bargain for less time, probation, community service, fines, the works. Don't forget the loss of your gun rights, permanently. Tell me what that letter is worth then.

But hey, feel free to carry one concealed or in your vehicle. See what happens since some guys are so sure an ATF lettter will help. Who wants to be the guinea pig? Not me either, cause what amounts to a crappy buttstock ain't worth it. Best of fortunes and respect for anyone willing to go out on that limb.

I think buying it factory would hold up in court better than a build, just sayin. Caveat Emptor.
 
fireside44 said:
No one was trying to give them any help. Law abiding Joe Citizen just don't want to get hosed in a court of law because he did something supposedly legal and local law enforcement disagrees with it. All that has to happen is to be hauled in for it,charged, and the trouble begins, guilty or not. You still stand trial. Maybe just make a plea bargain for less time, probation, community service, fines, the works. Don't forget the loss of your gun rights, permanently. Tell me what that letter is worth then.

But hey, feel free to carry one concealed or in your vehicle. See what happens since some guys are so sure an ATF lettter will help. Who wants to be the guinea pig? Not me either, cause what amounts to a crappy buttstock ain't worth it. Best of fortunes and respect for anyone willing to go out on that limb.

I think buying it factory would hold up in court better than a build, just sayin. Caveat Emptor.
Click to expand...



Thank you for proving my point. It's not "supposedly legal", it's legal...unless you think you can prove Sig wrong.

here: http://www.sigsauer.com/

They have the SB15 on their front page, their contact info is there too, feel free to tell them what makes the world goes round.


good luck,

t
 
Thank you for proving my point. It's not "supposedly legal", it's legal...unless you think you can prove Sig wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn't know you had a point. You are assuming the authorities know what they are looking at. They don't work for SIG. Most are concerned with qualifying with their service weapon and little else firearms related. You are assuming they give a crap about a piece of paper which is supposedly signed by the ATF (from their point of view). I envision a "go explain it downtown first" rather than "have a nice day" should you cross a LEO, some of who may be ignorant or worse, vengeful. Regardless, they will likely err on the side of caution, meaning, your weapon is seized and you are handcuffed. I wouldn't expect your average DA to side with you either. I admire your optimism though.:)
 
it's not solid plastic, it's a semi rigid foam like used in neck braces and such. Keeps it lined up your your forearm, but wouldn't serve well as a short stock. would be too much flex in that position.
 
it's not solid plastic, it's a semi rigid foam like used in neck braces and such. Keeps it lined up your your forearm, but wouldn't serve well as a short stock. would be too much flex in that position.
Click to expand...

I've shouldered one. There is very little flex, the unit is pretty stout. It works nearly as well as a conventional buttstock albeit a short one.
 
I ordered an SB-15 and plan to give it a try on my pistol/carbine.

The ATF can change their mind and their technical rulings are not legally binding. Those with short memories recall the Akins Accelerator, those of us with longer memories remember RPB Industries.

BUT besides loosing valuable property and ruined businesses (as bad as that it), has anyone been prosecuted for relying on an ATF technical ruling? I am not aware of any.

Mike
 
You're fine as far as federal law is concerned. The ATF isn't going to start busting people even if they do change their minds... the worst case is that they will just ask for them all back. However, some states may have more restrictive laws on short barreled rifles, or their state courts may interpret state law more restrictively. That is the biggest legal issue I can see with this.
 
I think fireside is concerned about the "beat the rap, but not the ride" aspect. I.E.: you'll be detained and maybe even arrested while the cops sort it out. That's always possible. Having a copy of the ATF opinion letter on hand is not a bad idea. Not exactly a "walk free" card, but certainly could put a stop to some silliness.

As for the DA not being "on your side?" I don't buy that. You aren't going to be prosecuted for this. You won't even be held any longer than it takes for them to verify the authenticity of the ATF opinion. A state DA isn't going to try you for a violation of federal law that ISN'T a violation of federal law.

Don't duck and hide any farther inside the lines than you have to. If something's legal, what does it benefit us if you're afraid to own or use it anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Century RAS-47
Replies
1
Views
606
Jackal
Jackal
H
  • Locked
BAK/BAX AK Rifles At Atlantic Firearms
Replies
1
Views
403
Fishbed77
F
S
  • Locked
NFA SBS hack?
Replies
10
Views
1K
c4v3man
C
Dr.Rob
  • Locked
Heads Up: Colt 6721 under $900
Replies
7
Views
1K
M1key
M1key
2011redrider
  • Locked
CA Legal AR and AK's ready to go
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
BrocLuno
BrocLuno
Back
Top