HOME DEPOT GEORGE
Member
They're calling it a forearm brace but it sure looks like a shoulder stock to me with a 10.25 inch barrel LINK http://www.jgsales.com/yugo-zastava...x39,-with-stabilizer-brace,-new.-p-63024.html
Pushing the envelope on SBR regulations
- Thread starter HOME DEPOT GEORGE
- Start date
- Status
It's the same thing as the Sig Sauer Stabilizing Brace. Perfectly legal, comes with a letter directly from the ATF stating there is no problem and that it's still a pistol.
Hopefully it will lead to one day repealing at least the SBR portion of the NFA.
Hopefully it will lead to one day repealing at least the SBR portion of the NFA.
That's nothing new. The Sig arm brace has been used on pistols for a while now. The ATF has signed off on the design so they seem to be good with it. If I were to go the SBR route a pistol with a brace would be the way to go while I waited for the paperwork to go through.
Pushing the envelope on SBR regulations
They're calling it a forearm brace but it sure looks like a shoulder stock to me with a 10.25 inch barrel LINK http://www.jgsales.com/yugo-zastava-....-p-63024.html
So what's your point?
Are you angry that people are pushing the envelope?
Are you incensed that people seemed to be thumbing their noses at the law?
Are you jealous for not thinking of it yourself?
Do you think the ATF should clamp down on these types of things.
Do you think the SBR laws should be stricter or these arm braces be banned?
Just curious why you brought it up.
They're calling it a forearm brace but it sure looks like a shoulder stock to me with a 10.25 inch barrel LINK http://www.jgsales.com/yugo-zastava-....-p-63024.html
So what's your point?
Are you angry that people are pushing the envelope?
Are you incensed that people seemed to be thumbing their noses at the law?
Are you jealous for not thinking of it yourself?
Do you think the ATF should clamp down on these types of things.
Do you think the SBR laws should be stricter or these arm braces be banned?
Just curious why you brought it up.
Why bother doing the paperwork at that point? You essentially have the same configuration just called something else. Only benefit I can see of turning it into an SBR is being able put your choice of stock on it.
The benefit of leaving it a pistol is that if you have a CCW you can have it loaded in your vehicle if you so chose.
SuedePflow
Member
If anything, it helps point out the rediculousness in the idea that SBR's need to be restricted and regulated tighter than handguns and 16"+ barreled rifles.
HOME DEPOT GEORGE
Member
Wow mac66 who pissed in your cheerios this morning. I brought it up because there has been much confusion in the past regarding different kits/modifications from the atf one that comes to mind is the Mech Tech pistol carbine conversion kit. While I believe that was finally ironed out it would suck to buy a firearm only to have the atf change there mind about the legality of it.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
George, this is something I wrote in another thread recently on the current odd state of affairs, and what I think it might mean. Just posted for your consideration and thoughts:
For clarity, the thread was originally about the "slidefire" stocks and the new drop-in "bumpfire" trigger groups that allow you to "simulate" full auto fire pretty seamlessly.
For clarity, the thread was originally about the "slidefire" stocks and the new drop-in "bumpfire" trigger groups that allow you to "simulate" full auto fire pretty seamlessly.
Here's the thing: If these drop-in trigger kits (moreso than the slidefire type stocks) really can be worked seamlessly by a practiced shooter, then there's really no reason left for the machine gun portion of the NFA to exist. If the distinction does become FUNCTIONALLY irrelevant, then it quickly can be shown to be LEGISLATIVELY irrelevant, too.
And that's what's so awesome about the developments of the last year or three, regarding BATFE decisions on some of these factors (like that SIG not-a-stock).
Prime stuff for legislative challenges that will win.
See this?
Buy parts off the shelf, assemble, and go shoot. Perfectly legal. (Except for the vertical fore grip. Change that to an AFG.)
See this?
Buy parts off the shelf, assemble, and go shoot. $250,000 in fines and 10 years in federal prison if you're caught!
Both examples easy to find on ArmsList. Very common, and identical in all practical functions. One VERY illegal (without heavy federal government involvement) one quite perfectly lawful with nothing more than regular "GCA" rules.
Bring that before the federal courts and get the BATFE to explain why this dichotomy SHOULD be? One of the long-standing principles of good jurisprudence is that laws should not be arbitrary and capricious. There should not be vastly different legal consequences for exactly the same act.
Now how about this?
TacCon 3MR trigger. Drops into any AR-15 and lets you fire something around 400+ rounds per minute of "simulated"full-auto.
Buy it, drop it in, go shoot. Perfectly legal.
Or? A lightning link, DIAS, or M-16 receiver...
Make/buy one, drop it in, go shoot? $250,000 in fines and 10 years in federal prison if you're caught!
Again, if there are common (and quite popular) items on the market and approved as perfectly lawful by the BATFE, which do exactly (from all practical results) what the VERY BAD VERBOTEN! version of those parts and items would do, then the courts will be very hard pressed to uphold that a law creating an intense distinction (with huge legal repercussions) between them is valid.
This isn't the end of the NFA. But it is a VERY important lever in the toolbox we'll use to disassemble it.
Last edited:
If it's a brace that straps around your arm, then it's really not that good a stock. And at the extremely short length, you would need to be muppet sized to get any cheek weld on it.
Barbie toys. "I have an SBR and you don't." They don't seem to be the gun of choice for bear, antelope, deer, etc.
I understand the excitement of having an SBR, what's never discussed is that a barrel half the length has a severe impact on velocity, foot pounds of force, and effective range. It makes a rifle caliber gun act a lot more like a pistol carbine. The intent seems to be a close range high rate of fire weapon to spray and pray.
Stock or not, what's the real purpose of the overall weapon? Extreme niche application that simply attracts a lot of interest in the 18-30 male who has money to spend. I don't see many of these issued in the ranks of standing armies to soldiers, which reflects that it's not all that for actual two way shooting - where the other guys can stand off another 50 meters but deliver more punishment and turn cover into useless concealment.
So, if the OP didn't have an agenda, questioning him did open up the conversation. As a firearm, it's legal, yes, get over it if someone doesn't like it. As a firearm, no, it's not really all that, and a wrist brace doesn't effectively make it a rifle with 500m capability. The barrel already deleted that performance, so the brace won't add back the lost velocity or foot pounds of penetration.
Really, much ado about nothing. And yes, it does tend to push the BATF further into a corner, but Congress started it and they just have the unenviable job of trying to make sense out of it all.
Like, applying for a tax stamp to buy a piece of string.
Barbie toys. "I have an SBR and you don't." They don't seem to be the gun of choice for bear, antelope, deer, etc.
I understand the excitement of having an SBR, what's never discussed is that a barrel half the length has a severe impact on velocity, foot pounds of force, and effective range. It makes a rifle caliber gun act a lot more like a pistol carbine. The intent seems to be a close range high rate of fire weapon to spray and pray.
Stock or not, what's the real purpose of the overall weapon? Extreme niche application that simply attracts a lot of interest in the 18-30 male who has money to spend. I don't see many of these issued in the ranks of standing armies to soldiers, which reflects that it's not all that for actual two way shooting - where the other guys can stand off another 50 meters but deliver more punishment and turn cover into useless concealment.
So, if the OP didn't have an agenda, questioning him did open up the conversation. As a firearm, it's legal, yes, get over it if someone doesn't like it. As a firearm, no, it's not really all that, and a wrist brace doesn't effectively make it a rifle with 500m capability. The barrel already deleted that performance, so the brace won't add back the lost velocity or foot pounds of penetration.
Really, much ado about nothing. And yes, it does tend to push the BATF further into a corner, but Congress started it and they just have the unenviable job of trying to make sense out of it all.
Like, applying for a tax stamp to buy a piece of string.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Actually, it is closer to an M4 stock than it is to an effective "arm brace." The arm brace idea is just a clever work-around to the SBR stock question.
Shooting squared-up it seems to work very well for a lot of shooters.
Watch this to get a better understanding:
Or, in this case, "and I don't either..." which seems a strange argument to make.
No, certainly not. We're talking about intermediate rifle cartridges in assault-rifle clones. Not hunting rifles. Different application.
Odd. I'd have said that's the FIRST thing that's discussed. Everyone makes such a big to-do about the velocity loss. Again, got to understand what it's for. Don't buy one if you think you'll use it for hunting elephants at extreme range.
Well, sure. Spray and pray. Isn't that what all these assault weapons are for?
...
Odd. You do realize...no, I mean you DON'T realize... that a great many of our troops are issued the M4 carbine, which has a 14.5" barrel, and so IS an "SBR" in the USA? So actually you have seen MANY MANY of these issued to the ranks of our own standing army.
(Actually, as a machine gun it supersedes being an SBR, but you might get the point anyway.)
tyeo098
Member
I know my next build
I've got one so far and a second one started, very very fun. It comes with a copy of the ATF letter which I keep rolled up in the MOE+ grip. Although my guess is that after a few months/years the letter may become unreadable from being rolled up and squished in there.I know my next build
Oh, and not 'flimsy' at all, well worth the money.
tyeo098
Member
ny32182
Member
The accuracy and range of a 10.5" AR15 is WAY, WAY, WAY beyond that of any pistol caliber carbine.
Plastikosmd
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 828
I've posted this site before. Great review of velocity by inch of bbl length,
Here is 223 section. 2700 fps is good enough for me in a 10" pistol
( I love my 553p)
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html
Here is 223 section. 2700 fps is good enough for me in a 10" pistol
( I love my 553p)
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html
I imagine I got mine for much the same reasons as the military MK18 CQBR was developed.
In the "legal" section of the forum, one would get eaten alive if they mentioned there's no point to a certain firearm that isn't useful for hunting. In the "strategy and tactics" section, one would get eaten alive if they mentioned how they chose a rifle for self-defense due to how far away they could shoot someone.
Here in the "general" section, all of a sudden an SBR is just a toy to show off to other people because it can't be used for hunting and can't shoot long range therefore has no real world use?
Last edited:
FWIW, I've read that the arm brace was designed by a disabled gentleman who wanted to be able to fire an AR pistol. He actually intended it to be used as an arm brace, regardless of how they're getting used by anyone else.
So the inventor wasn't trying to skirt SBR laws. He was looking for a way to enjoy shooting with a disability.
So the inventor wasn't trying to skirt SBR laws. He was looking for a way to enjoy shooting with a disability.
Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread, but since we're in the realm...
Where do the VFGs come in? Judging by the pics Sam1911 put up, I would gather that it's legal to add VFGs to pistols?
Thanks for posting the video as well, glad to hear it from fellow Iowans too. After watching that vid, I'm pretty sure one of my next projects (assuming NFA is still banned in Iowa when I get round to it) is going to be a 9mm AR pistol with one of these forearm stocks .
Where do the VFGs come in? Judging by the pics Sam1911 put up, I would gather that it's legal to add VFGs to pistols?
Thanks for posting the video as well, glad to hear it from fellow Iowans too
. After watching that vid, I'm pretty sure one of my next projects (assuming NFA is still banned in Iowa when I get round to it) is going to be a 9mm AR pistol with one of these forearm stocks .Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Not that kind pictured there, but the angled forward "hand stops" are fine.
No, not quite. I built one on the AR platform and it sure isn't the same as an SBR with an adjustable stock. While you can throw the thing to your shoulder and shoot it that way if you want (just like you can with a tennis ball on the back of the buffer tube) it isn't comfortable. You can't adjust the length because it won't fit on an adjustable buffer tube. You end up with your nose against the charging handle. Your line of sight is short compared to an SBR. The balance is "off". The opening in the back digs into your shoulder if you shoot more than a couple of magazines (think about a sore shoulder after just a few mags instead of after a few dozen). For the folks that think it is a way cool way around the SBR rules, think again since it just isn't particularly fun to run that way.
OTOH, as an improvement to the AR or AK pistols they make for greater control and comfort in shooting them.
AND for people looking to own an SBR, instead of just looking at the thing laying in pieces or sitting at your local LGS while you wait months for your paperwork to come back from BATFE, you can put it together as a pistol and take it to the range and run it that way while you wait, and wait, and wait,...
Initially they were going include handguns under the NFA, so they included SBR. But they ended up taking handguns off the proposed NFA list but left the SBR.
"The original draft of the National Firearms Act of 1934 included ALL CONCEALABLE ARMS, including handguns."
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=123500
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You mean, basically a plug to fill the erstwhile arm hole?
- Status
