ATF Reverses Stance! SB Tactical Gets Green Light to Shoot Braces from Shoulder

[00tec]

A friend sent me the following on it and it appears to disagree that the decision only applies to the SB products:



I copied this from thefirearmblog's website, the formatting is all screwed up but on my computer at least it's legible, so hopefully you can read it as well. I also read the actual ATF letter and, the way it's worded, I'm pretty confident that the guy I'm quoting below is correct: it's not just the Sig brace, but any brace as long as it isn't set up in a way that would make it impractical to still use as an arm brace and/or is permanently attached to the rifle.

Nicholas C, since you bring up the Shockwave Blade at the end of your article--and that you don't know its current status, I will let you in on what I learned today:

I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at ATF Tech Branch---who was fielding these calls today. (He was, understandably, very well versed on the subject---and very nice about it even though he's been on the phone all day, repeating himself ad nauseam.) I identified myself and asked him specifically if the letter that's making the rounds is limited to one company's products--or if it applies to all pistol stabilizing braces. He said: "The letter covers all pistol stabilizing braces, including the Shockwave Blade." So that settles that.

He then gave me two points of further guidance for our customers:

1. By "permanent affixing," ATF considers that to be adding permanent Loctite to the large set screw that secures the Blade into the dimples in the KAK tube. As long as you don't red Loctite the set screw in place, ATF considers it to be "temporarily placed" and "perfectly okay to shoulder." (He didn't beat around the bush on this topic.)

2. "Length of pull"---for lack of a better word regarding pistol braces---begins to enter a "gray area" above 13.5". Above 13.5" begins "to enter shoulder stock area." (His words. I believe this has to do with the "comfortableness" aspect.) On an AR-15 pistol, the "length of pull" for the Blade is approximately 13.13", so no issues there. But if you use the Blade on a firearm that requires a large adapter of some sort, please make sure that you only use the dimples up to the point that you remain below the 13.5" length. Stay below 13.5" and according to ATF, it's okay to shoulder a Shockwave Blade.

So there you have it. Anything you read to the contrary on a web forum, social media site, or industry blog is simple misinformation.

Per: https://disqus.com/by/martyewer/



Personally I don't know who Marty Yewer is or if he is a reliable source of info but if what he says is correct then it seems to apply to pretty much all the brands.

In other words, if a midget finds it comfortable, it's a SBR.... hahahaha

[WETWRKS]

In other words, if a midget finds it comfortable, it's a SBR.... hahahaha

LOL...pretty much.

[CS1983]

A friend sent me the following on it and it appears to disagree that the decision only applies to the SB products:



I copied this from thefirearmblog's website, the formatting is all screwed up but on my computer at least it's legible, so hopefully you can read it as well. I also read the actual ATF letter and, the way it's worded, I'm pretty confident that the guy I'm quoting below is correct: it's not just the Sig brace, but any brace as long as it isn't set up in a way that would make it impractical to still use as an arm brace and/or is permanently attached to the rifle.

Nicholas C, since you bring up the Shockwave Blade at the end of your article--and that you don't know its current status, I will let you in on what I learned today:

I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at ATF Tech Branch---who was fielding these calls today. (He was, understandably, very well versed on the subject---and very nice about it even though he's been on the phone all day, repeating himself ad nauseam.) I identified myself and asked him specifically if the letter that's making the rounds is limited to one company's products--or if it applies to all pistol stabilizing braces. He said: "The letter covers all pistol stabilizing braces, including the Shockwave Blade." So that settles that.

He then gave me two points of further guidance for our customers:

1. By "permanent affixing," ATF considers that to be adding permanent Loctite to the large set screw that secures the Blade into the dimples in the KAK tube. As long as you don't red Loctite the set screw in place, ATF considers it to be "temporarily placed" and "perfectly okay to shoulder." (He didn't beat around the bush on this topic.)

2. "Length of pull"---for lack of a better word regarding pistol braces---begins to enter a "gray area" above 13.5". Above 13.5" begins "to enter shoulder stock area." (His words. I believe this has to do with the "comfortableness" aspect.) On an AR-15 pistol, the "length of pull" for the Blade is approximately 13.13", so no issues there. But if you use the Blade on a firearm that requires a large adapter of some sort, please make sure that you only use the dimples up to the point that you remain below the 13.5" length. Stay below 13.5" and according to ATF, it's okay to shoulder a Shockwave Blade.

So there you have it. Anything you read to the contrary on a web forum, social media site, or industry blog is simple misinformation.

Per: https://disqus.com/by/martyewer/



Personally I don't know who Marty Yewer is or if he is a reliable source of info but if what he says is correct then it seems to apply to pretty much all the brands.

Takeaway on #1 -- so, using a drop of loctite to make sure a screw doesn't inadvertently unscrew is modifying a design? No it's not, unless Shockwave designed their shit to unscrew and be useless as an arm brace.

Takeaway on #2 -- This is frankly hogwash, and it has an opposite corrolary: a change on LOP to <13.5"on a RIFLE then makes it a PISTOL, but this is factually untrue. It's also never mentioned anywhere by the GAYTF in anything. It also goes against the very principles of basic physics (leverage) which the concept of "bracing" employs to be effective.

Magpul defines the LOP* on the CTR as:
SPECIFICATIONS**

CTR Carbine Stock, Mil-Spec

Weight: 8.8 oz.
Weight, w/receiver extension: 12.8
Length, max: 6.9 in.
LOP Adjustment Range: 3.3 in.
LOP, M4 Collapsed: ~10.5 in.
LOP, M4 Extended: ~13.8 in.

Does this mean that if I employ a CTR on a pistol, but loctite it so it doesn't go beyond 13.5" as measured by Magpul, I've permanently modified a stock to become a brace? According to the principles expressed by Mr. Ewer per the GAYTF, yes. Somehow, I doubt they'd be consistent on this.

*LOP -- not sure if they're measuring from trigger face to buttstock pad; I cannot see how they are, but these are the measurements they provide.

To answer who Marty Ewer is -- he's the owner of KAK, the company which makes the Shockwave Blade.

[Great-Kazoo]

Does this mean that if I employ a CTR on a pistol, but loctite it so it doesn't go beyond 13.5" as measured by Magpul, I've permanently modified a stock to become a brace?

I understand what you're saying and agree. BUT................the CTR was designed as a butt stock. Where the KAK & Sig Brace were not. IF magpul had designed and sold the CTR as a shoulder brace, then yes. Not that i'd be surprised to see MP and others start their own line of "shoulder braces"

[CS1983]

Does this mean that if I employ a CTR on a pistol, but loctite it so it doesn't go beyond 13.5" as measured by Magpul, I've permanently modified a stock to become a brace?

I understand what you're saying and agree. BUT................the CTR was designed as a butt stock. Where the KAK & Sig Brace were not. IF magpul had designed and sold the CTR as a shoulder brace, then yes. Not that i'd be surprised to see MP and others start their own line of "shoulder braces"

And the KAK was designed as a brace. LOP doesn't change that.

[cstone]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...YRY?li=BBnbfcN


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Then gun enthusiasts began customizing."

Since it came from MSN, I knew it would be a painfully absurd read and it did not disappoint.

[Zundfolge]

People often wonder about the thought process of the ATF with all of the inconsistencies and logical failures.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

[Irving]

I kind of feel like the ATF changing a decision is less of a reversal, and more of just firing from their left hand instead.

[ray1970]

I think someone should write a letter seeking clarification.

[brutal]

Better not put a flat trigger on that pistol, you'll exceed the allowed LOP.

Oh Lord, when will the madness stop?