National Poll: If the NFA goes away, will you SBR or keep the brace?

[bradsteen]

National - HERE WE GO!!! NFA REPEAL FILED

This is some hard core erotica here. Be careful who you're watching with ;) Case filed to dismiss charges and repeal the NFA in it's *entirety. Beautifully worded, seems like a Michael Jordan slam dunk on a Fisher Price hoop! Will be very interested to see how this pans out I'm certain A LOT of...

www.northwestfirearms.com

The above thread got me thinking - if the NFA goes away, that would eliminate the constraints on barrel length for rifles and scrap the ATF's upcoming pistol brace scheme. However, I do see a practical use for pistol stabilizing braces on firearms. For example, if someone loses mobility in one arm, certain types of stabilizing brace could enable them to continue using their weapon whereas they might find a firearm with a traditional rifle stock more difficult to operate.

I know, some braces (like the shark fin-style) just suck in general, but the Tailhook, SBA3, and similar models equipped with a devoid plug might be a great middle ground. The devoid plug would give it the functionality of a stock, but it could be removed if the user is injured and needs support for one-handed operation. Based on the above rationale, what are your thoughts - would you keep the brace or switch to a stock?

Read More

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Mine is a mix, I enjoy the gen 2 shockwaves so Id leave those. However Id probably put a stock on 1-2 different pistols to SBR them. The rest have braces that function for their intended purpose (bench shooting)

 

[Member 34319]

We all know that pistol braces had absolutely nothing to do with helping the disable shoot a gun.

If the NFA went by by, everyone would either leave it alone as they spent way too much on the brace itself but have zero fear of using it the way they have always used it, or throw a stock on it.

 

[CountryGent]

Never did the brace thing, never will, so none of the options really apply. NFA is a nuisance in many respects, but it hasn't stopped the projects I've done, after completing all the regulatory steps. That said, I'm done with those for the foreseeable future, so moot point both ways.

 

[GWS]

Some I'd switch out, others I'd keep.

 

[bradsteen]

I would definitely swap many of them to stocks, but I'd probably keep a couple with tailhooks and run devoid plugs in them.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

No NFA sheeeeeettttt I would go with a stock and while we are at it I would swing by Oriley's and grab some suppressors !

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I don't have any NFA firearms....nor do I see myself getting any.
However....

I also see no need for the NFA...and hope that it goes away.
One should be able to own whatever firearms one wants...or not....Just don't make that choice for me.
Andy

 

[Camelfilter]

If the NFA went away...

Wouldn't current State conceal carry laws still apply?

ie, SBR vs braced. Which is legally OK to conceal? I believe such MAY also apply to vehicle carry as well, depending upon the State.

 

[drstrangelove]

We all know that pistol braces had absolutely nothing to do with helping the disable shoot a gun.

If the NFA went by by, everyone would either leave it alone as they spent way too much on the brace itself but have zero fear of using it the way they have always used it, or throw a stock on it.

I have a patient with permanent weakness in his right hand following a surgical mishap. My suggestion on getting a brace changed his firearms enjoyment prospect from going down the toilet bowl to flourishing.

 

[Aero Denezol]

I made a couple of SBR's last year, it is an expensive hassle, but I can't stand those grotesque floppy pistol braces. I sold the pistol braces I have and never want to see another one.

If NFA goes away I would love to get the Auto Ordnance Thompson WWII clone. Or an AKS-74U, if PSA (or hopefully K-USA) can ever deliver on their promises.

 

[Member 53328]

Went SBR straight out the gate. Always thought the brace was a gimmick. So I have no dog in this fight.

 

[Heyjoe]

Id start calling them carbines and throw away the one brace I have.

 

[Member 34319]

I have a patient with permanent weakness in his right hand following a surgical mishap. My suggestion on getting a brace changed his firearms enjoyment prospect from going down the toilet bowl to flourishing.

Exception, not the rule.

 

[Martini_Up]

No NFA? Happy switch then SBR is a mute point

 

[Stomper]

No NFA? Happy switch then SBR is a mute point

Naw Bruh…. THINK!!


FA SBR!!

 

[RobMa]

National - HERE WE GO!!! NFA REPEAL FILED

This is some hard core erotica here. Be careful who you're watching with ;) Case filed to dismiss charges and repeal the NFA in it's *entirety. Beautifully worded, seems like a Michael Jordan slam dunk on a Fisher Price hoop! Will be very interested to see how this pans out I'm certain A LOT of...

www.northwestfirearms.com

The above thread got me thinking - if the NFA goes away, that would eliminate the constraints on barrel length for rifles and scrap the ATF's upcoming pistol brace scheme. However, I do see a practical use for pistol stabilizing braces on firearms. For example, if someone loses mobility in one arm, certain types of stabilizing brace could enable them to continue using their weapon whereas they might find a firearm with a traditional rifle stock more difficult to operate.

I know, some braces (like the shark fin-style) just suck in general, but the Tailhook, SBA3, and similar models equipped with a devoid plug might be a great middle ground. The devoid plug would give it the functionality of a stock, but it could be removed if the user is injured and needs support for one-handed operation. Based on the above rationale, what are your thoughts - would you keep the brace or switch to a stock?

Would love this but I do not see it happening, the antis would go apesh_it and the feds who want to take everyone's guns would rather burn the country down before allowing it..

 

[Stomper]

Would love this but I do not see it happening, the antis would go apesh_it and the feds who want to take everyone's guns would rather burn the country down before allowing it..

Let 'em light that fire…. I got a full bladder.

 

[The Heretic]

I only have one brace, and it is on a Shockwave, so I am not sure yet how new brace regs would affect it as it is a "firearm" and I have not see new "rules", that I recall, that would impact its legality. So I think the SBS format is covered for me.

Beyond that, I not too much of a fan of most SBRs unless they are chambered for something like 7.62x39 or .300 BLK. Not a fan of PCCs. The only SBR/Pistol I would like to see stocked would be something extremely compact and lightweight in .22 rimfire - for small game hunting - like a foldable stock for a Browning Buckmark with a 10-12" barrel or a T/C Contender.

The main benefit I would see in the NFA going away would be suppressors being much less expensive and easy to get. I would get a number of them.

 

[Camelfilter]

...The main benefit I would see in the NFA going away would be suppressors being much less expensive and easy to get. I would get a number of them.

Yup.

We don't have any suppressors, and about zero interest in getting any given the tax stamp scheme. Even with the current ease of of that "system", compared to times past.

However, if we could just get them at any local gun shop with a 4473/BGC we almost assuredly would have several. Even at today's price points.