Do we really need months of waiting and an expensive stamp to own an SBR?

[old11bravo]

There have been some recent introductions to the AR pistol "brace" market that almost make getting a stamp for an SBR obsolete, and owning an AR pistol much more appealing.

These new AR pistol "braces" come very close to competing with any SBR stock out there in both comfort, weight, style and adjustability for LOP. The SBA3 is an example that comes foremost to mind when I ponder this. The SBA3 can be had for anywhere between $120-$150. I think these advanced design "braces" keep getting better each time a new version comes out. Some of the recent "brace" designs are so innovative and similar to an AR stock that it leaves me scratching my head in wonder and amazement that it would have been approved by the ATF. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining at all. These same "braces" also have me wondering why I would ever want to bother with the long wait and the money currently necessary to obtain a stamp for an SBR.

There are also many EDC or "carry" advantages to consider by owning an AR that is categorized as a "pistol" as opposed to owning one categorized as an SBR.

I am unsure why anyone would waste time and money for a stamp anymore with the advent of the newer innovative "braces" like these.

Read More

 

[nehalemguy]

It's the journey, not the destination. Some of us like waiting month after month after impossibly long drawn out month.

Plus, once we finally do receive that stamp we gather together, look your direction, and quietly snicker to ourselves "brace".



E

 

[Stomper]

It's the journey, not the destination. Some of us like waiting month after month after impossibly long drawn out month.

Plus, once we finally do receive that stamp we gather together, look your direction, and quietly snicker to ourselves "brace".



E

PURE gold!

My pistolero "trunk monkeys"...

 

[nwslopoke]

I went from not seeing the need of AR styled pistols to it makes a lot of sense. I don't have one at this time, but, considering the legalities over function, yes, sign me up.

 

[arakboss]

It only takes one letter from BATF to make you wish you had tax stamp for your Shorty. A future administration or (a current one) could say, hey what's with these jokers flooding through this loophole around the spirit of the SBR ban. Said administration whispers something to BATF and voila pistol braces are no more. Sure the people can write in comments to BATF before the ban and sue them after the ban but the tax stamp holders will yawn, stretch and get back to their nap. Being the cheap bast...d I am, I will take my chances with the pistol braces.

 

[Stomper]

Hold on.... first, there's no ban on SBR's, and second, the "arm braces" (as far as a product catagory are concerned) only enable a broader range of users with physical "conditions" to utilize an AR pistol, not increase its rate of fire.

The ATF only vacillated on the "method of use", but unless there's an ATF agent behind every tree and under every rock, the old ruling is/was unenforceable.

 

[arakboss]

PURE gold!

My pistolero "trunk monkeys"...

View attachment 485026

Nice, do you dual wield these monkeys?

 

[Diamondback]

The other thing is, even if you Stamp, you can build your SBR up as a pistol with brace and get on with function-testing and enjoying it on the range while you wait, then slap the stock on when the papers come through and the engraving's done.

Personally, I'm content to stay Pistol because my CPL doesn't include SBR, but that's just me.

 

[nwslopoke]

It can be argued, nothing is legal if the judges or new law say it isn't. The current wave is to say, can not posses. Their idea of a loophole is any law they don't like.

I have seen an uptick with police agencies across the country sporting AR pistols during tv news footage. I ask, why not SBRs? They have laws supporting them breaking the law (speeding, assault, burglary), why would they need a tax stamp?

 

[The Heretic]

It only takes one letter from BATF to make you wish you had tax stamp for your Shorty. A future administration or (a current one) could say hey what's with these jokers flooding through this loophole around the spirit of the SBR ban. Said administration whispers something to BATF and voila pistol braces are no more. Sure the people can write in comments to BATF before the ban and sue them after the ban but the tax stamp holders will yawn, stretch and get back to their nap. Being the cheap bast...d I am, I will take my chances with the pistol braces.

This^^ - e.g., the letters/etc. about shouldering the brace - still unclear on that one. Not to mention state laws (*cough* California *cough*) can still be changed to define them as something else altogether - of course, in that case, most of those states would prohibit a SBR/SBS too.

Also, I am given to understand that there are rules about the configuration and LOP of the "brace".

That said, I don't have any NFA firearms and given the increasing availability and quality of bullpups, and the poor performance of 5.56x45 out of short barrels, I am less inclined to have an AR 'pistol' in 5.56 than I am one in a chambering that performs better out of a short barrel (I might consider one in 7.62x39 or 7.62x51). And even then, again given bullpups, I would probably only want one because it would could be carried "concealed" legally.

What I want are non-NFA suppressors.

It is all a bunch of bovine fecal matter legally - ridiculous, and just goes to show how useless those laws are.

 

[Diamondback]

It can be argued, nothing is legal if the judges or new law say it isn't. The current wave is to say, can not posses. Their idea of a loophole is any law they don't like.

I have seen an uptick with police agencies across the country sporting AR pistols during tv news footage. I ask, why not SBRs? They have laws suppoing them breaking the law (speeding, assault, burglary), why would they need a tax stamp?

There was a writeup by a cop in one of the AR mags a month or two ago... a lot of department brass and lawyers don't like SBR's for liability and other reasons, and pistols provide a less-paperwork discreet alternative for the Stakeout, Plainclothes, "Other Discreet Needs" guys. (This is exactly the role Mk 18 Mod Briefcase was envisioned for, in fact...)

 

[arakboss]

Hold on.... first, there's no ban on SBR's, and second, the "arm braces" (as far as a product catagory are concerned) only enable a broader range of users with physical "conditions" to utilize an AR pistol, not increase its rate of fire.

The ATF only vacillated on the "method of use", but unless there's an ATF agent behind every tree and under every rock, the old ruling is/was unenforceable.

I was suggesting that SBR owners with tax stamps would avoid any negative ruling on pistol braces. It is not much of a reach to assume that the BATF/DOJ under influence from a hostile administration could do to pistol braces what they are attempting to do to bump stocks. Those agencies are masters at torturing the english language to support their goals. They have already flip flopped on the shouldering of the braces and that flip flopping could be expanded. Lot's of rules are unenforceable and that hasn't stopped them in the past. If we get a few shooters who engage in mass killings using AR pistols with braces you can be sure the spotlight will be turned on high and pointed towards AR pistols in general and the braces.

 

[arakboss]

This^^ - e.g., the letters/etc. about shouldering the brace - still unclear on that one. Not to mention state laws (*cough* California *cough*) can still be changed to define them as something else altogether - of course, in that case, most of those states would prohibit a SBR/SBS too.

Also, I am given to understand that there are rules about the configuration and LOP of the "brace".

That said, I don't have any NFA firearms and given the increasing availability and quality of bullpups, and the poor performance of 5.56x45 out of short barrels, I am less inclined to have an AR 'pistol' in 5.56 than I am one in a chambering that performs better out of a short barrel (I might consider one in 7.62x39 or 7.62x51). And even then, again given bullpups, I would probably only want one because it would could be carried "concealed" legally.

What I want are non-NFA suppressors.

It is all a bunch of bovine fecal matter legally - ridiculous, and just goes to show how useless those laws are.

I want free ownership of suppressors too. As far as poor performance of 5.56 out of shorter barrels. I think it holds it own in 10.5 inch barrels, especially short range. In the home or yard, I would trust 5.56 to outperform most pistol calibers even in short barrels. The laws are too complicated and leave much to interpretation. It's sad when even FFLs are seem to disagree on the various issues around the regulations.

 

[arakboss]

There was a writeup by a cop in one of the AR mags a month or two ago... a lot of department brass and lawyers don't like SBR's for liability and other reasons, and pistols provide a less-paperwork discreet alternative for the Stakeout, Plainclothes, "Other Discreet Needs" guys. (This is exactly the role Mk 18 Mod Briefcase was envisioned for, in fact...)

Yep it makes since that SBRs would be a hassle for LEOs too. The AR pistol with brace or "Other Weapon" with brace and vertical grip should do everything the SBR can do. And save on department resources both labor and dollars. Let's pray that the shortys are not used in any mass shootings, especially where they were concealed and the concealment lead to greater casualties. We can thank that A-hole in LV for bringing the ban hammer's aim on bumpstocks.

 

[Diamondback]

I want free ownership of suppressors too. As far as poor performance of 5.56 out of shorter barrels. I think it holds it own in 10.5 inch barrels, especially short range. In the home or yard, I would trust 5.56 to outperform most pistol calibers even in short barrels.

10.3 is really the effective minimum, below that you're better off running .300BLK IIRC. But, I could see even a 9" 5.56 with a good load beating 5" .45 under some conditions...

Yep it makes since that SBRs would be a hassle for LEOs too. The AR pistol with brace or "Other Weapon" with brace and vertical grip should do everything the SBR can do. And save on department resources both labor and dollars.

Tax-stamp sub-26" AOW or 26"+ "Other Firearm"? If I was "going longer" my next mid-step would be a 12.5" with a mag-carrier VFG, rocking two Magpul D60's in addition to my "standard shorty" config of a 40 each on left-side rail and in brace tunnel. Granted, the mags would have to be stored separately from it as a Go-Bag Gun, but its "little brother" the loaded-carry-legal pistol with two 40's and one D60 should be plenty for Holding the Line until heavier can be deployed...

 

[arakboss]

10.3 is really the effective minimum, below that you're better off running .300BLK IIRC. But, I could see even a 9" 5.56 with a good load beating 5" .45 under some conditions...


Tax-stamp sub-26" AOW or 26"+ "Other Firearm"? If I was "going longer" my next mid-step would be a 12.5" with a mag-carrier VFG, rocking two Magpul D60's in addition to my "standard shorty" config of a 40 each on left-side rail and in brace tunnel. Granted, the mags would have to be stored separately from it as a Go-Bag Gun, but its "little brother" the loaded-carry-legal pistol with two 40's and one D60 should be plenty for Holding the Line until heavier can be deployed...

Remind me not to be on the wrong side of that line you are holding

 

[Skier]

The AR pistol with brace or "Other Weapon" with brace and vertical grip should do everything the SBR can do.

My understanding (but feel free to verify) is that you CANNOT legally use a vertical grip with an AR pistol (without a tax stamp), but angled foregrips are fine. Strange rule, I know...

 

[arakboss]

My understanding (but feel free to verify) is that you CANNOT legally use a vertical grip with an AR pistol (without a tax stamp), but angled foregrips are fine. Strange rule, I know...

I think you are right about that. But many believe if your weapon is over 26 inches you can have a vertical grip as it will be classified as a "Firearm". So brace+overall length of greater than 26 inches+vertical grip= "Firearm" and is OK. Many disagree with that......

 

[Diamondback]

IIRC, it's not so much OAL as "minimum fireable length"--tube end to muzzle crown, unless you pin-and-solder your MD. IANAL or an ATF jackboot, though... Some of the 26" argument is because ATF made Auto-Ordnance stretch the Pistol Thompson by 3" for an "approved" VFG config.

 

[arakboss]

IIRC, it's not so much OAL as "minimum fireable length"--tube end to muzzle crown, unless you pin-and-solder your MD. IANAL or an ATF jackboot, though... Some of the 26" argument is because ATF made Auto-Ordnance stretch the Pistol Thompson by 5" for an "approved" VFG config.

I am willing to accept that (until other proof comes along) but there are some who think the length should be measured from end of brace (some even say end of brace extended if adjustable). The points to measure are debatable but even if measured from end of tube to end of barrel threads. You could still end up with a more compact weapon in the normal SBR range, I would think. If measurement criteria is confirmed to be from extended postion of brace then we could end up with some pretty short firearms in unextended positions.