Here's why we're going to lose AR pistol braces

[Aguila Blanca]

This has been discussed before, and I know members here fall on both sides of the argument. I received an e-mail this morning, from a firearms manufacturer, touting their new AR "pistol." The image emblazoned across my screen shows their new "pistol." Color me old-fashioned, I guess, but from just looking at the image, I didn't see anything to suggest that the firearm is a pistol.

When the manufacturers advertise their AR "pistols" with images showing them clearly being used as rifles, what would you expect the BATFE to do?

Here's the image from the e-mail:

 

[TunnelRat]

While I get where you’re going, if the reality is that we can’t take pictures or video of people using braces as frankly many of them are going to do, then the braces might as well be gone anyway, imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heyjoe]

this is an advertisement from the manufacturer not a photo from an individual person using it. Big difference!

 

[ghbucky]

advertisement from the manufacturer

That is even WORSE!

The manufacturer is promoting a braced pistol being used as an SBR, and SBR are restricted by law, not BATF rules.

If anything, BATF has bent over backwards to NOT classify braced pistols as SBR and here is a manufacturer all but throwing it in their face and demanding they treat it as SBR.

 

[TunnelRat]

Yes and no. All you have to do is look at the SBA3 and SBA4 and you know exactly how they’re going to be used, whether or not you have an advertisement from a manufacturer that puts those braces on their pistols.

Let’s follow through on that logic though. So manufacturers can’t advertise the braces in a manner in which many if not most of the people buying them are going to be using them. What about reviewers on YouTube or in firearms magazines? The first alone certainly get as much circulation if not more than a direct email from the manufacturer. So do we have a signed agreement from the BATFE stating that the legality of pistol braces will not be challenged as long as we swear not to post pictures electronically, scout’s honor? Where is the line established that if we don’t cross we know the BATFE will look the other way?

The very nature of this device is a bending of the interpretation of what accounts for an SBR. I know there are those out there that think publicizing that fact is poking the proverbial bear. But this is 2021. Sharing media is instantaneous and global. The genie is out of the bottle already when it comes to the brace. I’m not sure the BATFE could even pretend it doesn’t exist if they wanted to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rickyrick]

The brace isn’t needed to shoot those.

 

[heyjoe]

ghbucky that is what i meant.....

 

[heyjoe]

A manufacturer posting a photo like that of its product being used as a short barreled rifle is much worse than a you tube reviewer making a video using it that way,it's not even in the same ballpark. it's hard to believe they can even be that stupid.

 

[TunnelRat]

A manufacturer posting a photo like that of its product being used as a short barreled rifle is much worse than a you tube reviewer making a video using it that way,it's not even in the same ballpark. it's hard to believe they can even be that stupid.

So then the argument is if a manufacturer doesn’t show it being used that way then they can claim ignorance? Despite the very nature of the design and the fact that the people that are buying their product are using it exactly that way and doing so openly?

Without the marketing in question, how many people are buying these? AR15 pistols with just buffer tube extensions have been on the market for a long time. It wasn’t until the recent introduction of the braces that the popularity spiked to what we see it as now. I feel fairly safe in saying that the recent spike is not due primarily to sales to people with disabilities.

If your argument is about what is in the best legal interest of the manufacturer, I can see your point. If your argument is about the future of braces in general, I’m not convinced this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I think there’s too much evidence outside of manufacturer advertising that shows how these braces are being used.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heyjoe]

no one is arguing that. if you dont see the difference then i dont know what i can say to enlighten you.

 

[TunnelRat]

no one is arguing that. if you dont see the difference then i dont know what i can say to enlighten you.

I get the difference you’re mentioning. My point is does that difference really matter when there is so much evidence out there of how these braces are being used? I agree with you it’s not a smart move on behalf of the manufacturer in terms of their own legal interest, I just don’t think this is the nail in the coffin. I frankly think that nail was already put in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[44 AMP]

I think its pretty obvious the manufacturer made two mistakes. First was letting the ad dept people put a picture of a RIFLE on the ad for their pistol, and second was not correcting that mistake.

the gun shown is NOT a pistol. It is not a braced pistol, it is a RIFLE, it has a buttstock!!! (not a brace, an actual buttstock).

This is NOT the maker showing you how to "misuse" a brace, this is a dumb mistake of putting the wrong picture on the ad for the product pistol.

How is it you fail to recognize this?

 

[rickyrick]

If the brace was truly intended for one handed shooting, I think it’d look a lot different than they do.
I think most people have them for aesthetic reasons. The rest probably are buying them to use as stocks is my guess.
I like the one I have to help the gun lean up against the wall or something.

I feel that we’ve been down the advertising road before with other firearms and related gear.
With such little difference between an SBR and an AR pistol, I think we are living on borrowed time with the pistol braces after the bump stock thing.

 

[TunnelRat]

I think its pretty obvious the manufacturer made two mistakes. First was letting the ad dept people put a picture of a RIFLE on the ad for their pistol, and second was not correcting that mistake.

the gun shown is NOT a pistol. It is not a braced pistol, it is a RIFLE, it has a buttstock!!! (not a brace, an actual buttstock).

This is NOT the maker showing you how to "misuse" a brace, this is a dumb mistake of putting the wrong picture on the ad for the product pistol.

How is it you fail to recognize this?

No, that’s an actual product marketed as a brace. It’s called the SBA3.

https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/sba3/

https://iwi.us/product/zion-15-pistol-5-56-nato/

If your argument is it looks/is a stock for all practical purposes, I don’t disagree. But it is sold as a brace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rickyrick]

Looks almost like a stock, being marketed as a brace... in my humble opinion

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TunnelRat]

I completely agree.

That’s part of my point in my responses above. I remember the original SB15 and SB PDW braces. They were, to me, braces that could be used as a crude stock. These more recent products seem to be the reverse of that. Just looking at these products by themselves is enough to know what they’re going to be used for, even without a picture of them attached to the pistol in question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shurshot]

Looks to me that it's a clerical error in the ad department. If not, it's a highly deceptive ad and I agree, one more reason the Feds will use to ban them, as it appears they are encouraging the shouldering of the brace. The picture appears suggestive that it is in full accordance with the manufacturers intended purpose to shoulder it ("Pistol").

 

[HiBC]

The brace controversy can be eliminated by going with a plain,naked pistol buffer tube. No brace!

An interesting thought: If the BATF rules this gun an SBR,it was born a rifle,and could never be corrected to a "pistol". So,simply replacing the buffer tube would not fix the problem. This gun MIGHT require SBR registration eventually.

 

[jmr40]

I look at this another way. Advertising and using guns in this way underscores how silly it is to restrict SBR's in the 1st place. Instead of losing pistol braces we may see restrictions lifted on owning a SBR.

 

[rickyrick]

I like that idea jmr40