Will AR pistols and other braced pistols drop in price after ATF rule?

[jamez]

What's your prediction? Will AR pistols, PCCs and all the (not really) pistols designed to be fired with braces/stocks plummet in price now that they'll be considered SBRs? Surely a large part of their demand/popularity was the brace loophole.

Read More

 

[oa98pistol512]

What's your prediction? Will AR pistols, PCCs and all the (not really) pistols designed to be fired with braces/stocks plummet in price now that they'll be considered SBRs? Surely a large part of their demand/popularity was the brace loophole.

A law made ba agency is null and void. It must go thru congress. IMO. Their is no loophole

 

[jamez]

A law made ba agency is null and void. It must go thru congress. IMO. Their is no loophole

not a thread to debate legality just interested in what happens to prices.

 

[Reno]

That or be bought up by those taking advantage of free tax stamps.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

All it actually impacts is the brace itself. You’re still going to see pistol versions of firearms out there but perhaps with cheek braces or rounded buffer tube extensions that are not comfortable to shoulder. The primary point of the new ATF policy is that these braces or stabilizing devices cannot be shouldered. The market will be quick to catch up and circumvent this new ruling. You may have some timid owners sell off certain parts or firearms but ultimately I don’t think it’s going to make that big of a dent on the market. I would expect to see a bunch of braces being sold at closeout prices though.

 

[jamez]

That or be bought up by those taking advantage of free tax stamps.

as i understand it you already need in your possession when the rule drops.. and 120 days to file. And I'd bet many millions (for numerous reasons) don't want a registered SBR even if it's free.

 

[jamez]

All it actually impacts is the brace itself. You’re still going to see pistol versions of firearms out there but perhaps with cheek braces or rounded buffer tube extensions that are not comfortable to shoulder. The primary point of the new ATF policy is that these braces or stabilizing devices cannot be shouldered. The market will be quick to catch up and circumvent this new ruling. You may have some timid owners sell off certain parts or firearms but ultimately I don’t think it’s going to make that big of a dent on the market. I would expect to see a bunch of braces being sold at closeout prices though.

I have 3 SBRs but I'd get rid of all of them and buy full size rifles with stocks if I couldn't have the stocks on them. You think a cz scorpion or a pc charger is good shooting without a stock/brace? At that point wouldn't 99% of buyers choose a different gun? I have to think sales are going to plummet; at least until as you say another loophole is worked up.. or the ruling is defeated in court.

 

[1775usmc]

I’m hoping to pick up some super cheap “SBR” also known as “pistol” uppers. So for my own selfish and personal gain I hope prices dive.

 

[CamoDeafie]

All it actually impacts is the brace itself. You’re still going to see pistol versions of firearms out there but perhaps with cheek braces or rounded buffer tube extensions that are not comfortable to shoulder. The primary point of the new ATF policy is that these braces or stabilizing devices cannot be shouldered. The market will be quick to catch up and circumvent this new ruling. You may have some timid owners sell off certain parts or firearms but ultimately I don’t think it’s going to make that big of a dent on the market. I would expect to see a bunch of braces being sold at closeout prices though.

""Accordingly, the Department amends the definition of “rifle” under 27 CFR
478.11 and 479.11 to expressly state that the term “designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped
with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”)
that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided
other factors, as listed in the amended regulations and described in this preamble, indicate
that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The other
factors are:
(1) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;
(2) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component
or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability
to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other
attachment method), that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
(3) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;
(4) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder
is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component,
or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;""


So. . Just from this, it looks like bufferless AR pistols good to go, or pistols using this lower; Fight Light SCR, or the Olympic Arms OA-93


But broadly... it does seem to indicate firearms like mine with a buffer tube cover; because of that carbine length buffer tube and cover (surface area, and a "length of pull" being identical to M4 at fully collapsed stock); the A1 sights (rifles sights that requires cheek weld thus the rifle like stance), it's size and weight (little lighter and smaller than 16" AR)... even without the stabilizing brace... would be considered a SBR..




Even if previously for all intents and purposes at being over 26" OAL it's a GCA Firearm/pistol (not a Rifle, not a SBR/AOW; not technically a concealable pistol). Edited for spelling and extra info; FAQ says register as SBR with stabilizing brace, then swap brace out for real stock is fine. I do have the fin blade CAR style adjustable brace that I can use for SBR tax-free if I want to...

 

[jamez]

I’m hoping to pick up some super cheap “SBR” also known as “pistol” uppers. So for my own selfish and personal gain I hope prices dive.

ditto.. thats why im asking. Want to add a Banshee and a Stribog to the collection, but there's also the WA assault weapon ban looming overhead..

 

[Member 5605]

Classifieds has some braces already showing up.

Spoiler

Search Results for yellow spray paint at The Home Depot

Get free shipping on qualified products or Buy Online Pick Up in Store today.

www.homedepot.com

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I have 3 SBRs but I'd get rid of all of them and buy full size rifles with stocks if I couldn't have the stocks on them. You think a cz scorpion or a pc charger is good shooting without a stock/brace? At that point wouldn't 99% of buyers choose a different gun? I have to think sales are going to plummet; at least until as you say another loophole is worked up.. or the ruling is defeated in court.

If it’s a free stamp regardless of the wait time I feel like many will take advantage of that offer. I for one will most certainly SBR 1-3 pistols.

But I think as @Reno mentioned, it may drive up the price of the cheap pistols because people can SBR for free. Personally I’ll maintain a “compliant” neutered pistol version as well as gain an SBR version of my AR pistols.
I do see the braces plummeting in price. But who would buy them? I think it’ll get taken to court, the brace market is a multimillion dollar market.

 

[1775usmc]

ditto.. thats why im asking. Want to add a Banshee and a Stribog to the collection, but there's also the WA assault weapon ban looming overhead..

I already have SBR lowers. So I wouldn’t mind adding a few more. Pistol braces have always been a gimmick in my eyes. That’s just my opinion. I’ve tried a few models and have always hated them. I just went SBR from the get go. So I wouldn’t mind adding a few more at a lower price point.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yeah, that $200 savings really got me thinking may as well; that money can go to something else and not a tax stamp...

 

[Ops]

so if youre registering your brace for free , does that mean you still have to have the brace on it? or can you put a stock on? and if you put a stock on you have to pay the 200.00

 

[Reno]

If it’s a free stamp regardless of the wait time I feel like many will take advantage of that offer. I for one will most certainly SBR 1-3 pistols.

But I think as @Reno mentioned, it may drive up the price of the cheap pistols because people can SBR for free. Personally I’ll maintain a “compliant” neutered pistol version as well as gain an SBR version of my AR pistols.
I do see the braces plummeting in price. But who would buy them? I think it’ll get taken to court, the brace market is a multimillion dollar market.

Folks will need the braces for the picture portion of the application. That or photoshop.

 

[Reno]

so if youre registering your brace for free , does that mean you still have to have the brace on it? or can you put a stock on? and if you put a stock on you have to pay the 200.00

The brace is a stock in their eyes. You already have an illegal SBR in their eyes. Put a real stock on it or keep the brace on it they don’t care as long as you register it. Otherwise, it’s an illegal SBR.

 

[jamez]

If it’s a free stamp regardless of the wait time I feel like many will take advantage of that offer.

I agree, but again if you don't already have the brace/gun you won't have it in time to register it free. And if I'm wrong on that, it's still only 120 days... what happens after that? Stores won't be able to sell pre-braced pistols anymore without stamps. And when joe schmoe walks into the store and learns that gun he's eyeing requires a $200 stamp and registration I have to think sales are collapsing..

 

[CamoDeafie]

so if youre registering your brace for free , does that mean you still have to have the brace on it? or can you put a stock on? and if you put a stock on you have to pay the 200.00

From the FAQs #10

ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED AS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR) CAN I REMOVE/CHANGE THE
“STABILIZING BRACE” OR ATTACH AN ITEM MARKETED AS A STOCK? IF SO, AM I REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ATF
IN ADVANCE?
• Yes, the firearm is registered as an SBR, and you can change out the “brace” device or stock for a
different brace or stock. You do not need to contact ATF/NFA because changing the brace/stock
does not change the configuration of the SBR. However, if the length of the firearm has changed
you will need to notify the NFA Division.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

""Accordingly, the Department amends the definition of “rifle” under 27 CFR
478.11 and 479.11 to expressly state that the term “designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped
with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”)
that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided
other factors, as listed in the amended regulations and described in this preamble, indicate
that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The other
factors are:
(1) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;
(2) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component
or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability
to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other
attachment method), that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
(3) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;
(4) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder
is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component,
or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;""


So. . Just from this, it looks like bufferless AR pistols good to go, or pistols using this lower; Fight Light SCR, or the Olympic Arms OA-93 View attachment 1346083 View attachment 1346084


But broadly... it does seem to indicate firearms like mine with a buffer tube cover; because of that carbine length buffer tube and cover (surface area, and a "length of pull" being identical to M4 at fully collapsed stock); the A1 sights (rifles sights that requires cheek weld thus the rifle like stance), it's size and weight (little lighter and smaller than 16" AR)... even without the stabilizing brace... would be considered a SBR..

View attachment 1346085


Even if previously for all intents and purposes at being over 26" OAL it's a GCA Firearm/pistol (not a Rifle, not a SBR/AOW; not technically a concealable pistol). Edited for spelling and extra info; FAQ says register as SBR with stabilizing brace, then swap brace out for real stock is fine. I do have the fin blade CAR style adjustable brace that I can use for SBR tax-free if I want to...

I think there are outright ban proof variants, but so also think a shortened cheek brace with a rounded or pointed end that dissuades shouldering is proof enough on paper that it’s a device not intended for shouldering. Pair that with OAL or a new standard tube length be it 1-2 inches shorter, they’ll have to define this exact number.. then it fits within the new policy and I think the market will be quick to skirt this nonsense. It does seem like simply taking off the brace and using only the tube meets the criteria on paper for a portion of it. Seems to mostly read as if they are focused on shouldering, OAL and weight. Bench shooting and cheek-welding seem to be an ungraspable concept for them and I truly believe the market will exploit this raw ignorance put on display by the ATF. Basically this mew policy is just a means to cut off the brace market at the knees and cripple it. But the damage is done, far too many brace owners out there to comply let alone file for SBR status.

The weight focus is a bit out there. I’d love to see an AFT agent shoot a air weight 500 S&W single handed.. as if weight isn’t also a means to aid in ramping down recoil.. if anything shouldn’t a firearm be heavier and MORE cumbersome versus smaller and lighter and easier to conceal?
All they are trying to do with this weight ruling is basically ban out all but the skeletonized featherweight firearms.. it’s a blanket rule catch-all.

Thankfully the ATF is overreaching with the sights/optics portion too. Optics and sights have little to do with shouldering. I run red dots at various lengths on firearms.. so to prove intent of shouldering via eye relief is a bit out in the weeds.. I think it’s a weak argument on their part should this go to court.