SBR vs pistol

BubbaJon

New member
Hey folks - new here on TFL although I have lurked many times. What brings me here is a more generalized knowledge base in all things firearm.
So here's the meat of the question I have. I went in to a new LGS that specializes in more "exotic" weapons. On teh wall I see an AK pistol with a folding stock. So it's always been my understanding that putting a stock on a pistol makes it an SBR. A practical example of this is I have a Steyr pistol that has a cavity in the grip to attach a stock.
So I asked the HMWIC (head mutha what's in charge) what the story is and he tells me that there was a ruling that a stock can be considered a disability accessory.
Whoa.... if that's true then why have an SBR category at all?
So I have a more than passing interest since I was thinking about building a 300 AAC SBR.
Any learned facts or opinions on this?
 
There is one exception, which is the pistol brace being marketed by Sig Sauer and others. Since it "braces" a pistol to the arm, the weapon is not designed to be fired from the shoulder.

I don't know of any folding versions of the pistol brace, though.
 
This is just more evidence, that for every rule, there's a rule-beater ......


......and every Bureaucracy eventually loses sight of it's purpose, and becomes more invested in making sure it continues as an institution ......

What is the BATEF's purpose again? Someone remind me ......
 
If it's considered a stock, then you can't put in on a pistol. If it's considered an arm brace of some kind, then it's OK. The key here is that the distinction of whether it's a stock or not is ultimately made by the BATFE.

BubbaJon said:
he tells me that there was a ruling that a stock can be considered a disability accessory.
If that's the case, then it wouldn't be a stock, because adding a stock makes it an SBR. My guess is that this guy was talking about the SIG SB15 arm brace, which was supposedly designed for a disabled veteran. But the SB15 is not considered a stock by the BATFE, so it's fine to attach to a pistol.
 
What SIG accomplished, and the BATF allows, is attaching a "wrist brace" to the buffer tube of a AR15 pistol. Said buffer tube is considered at this point in time to be not "readily accepting" the traditional slide on stocks that the AR15 rifles and carbines normally use.

So the market is selling pistol buffer tubes with various extra machining that don't easily allow any standards stocks to slide on, but DO allow the SB15 type floppy wrist braces to be positioned at the end of the tube.

That effectively making it easy to use as a shoulder stock, and when directly questioned about it, the BATF basically said they aren't going to try to stop a shooter from doing it. Smart move on their part, they can't police us doing so on every attempt nationwide. It would be ridiculous.

SIG is now marketing ANOTHER wrist brace, the SB-X, to the line up: http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gear...adds-sb-x-to-pistol-stabilizing-brace-lineup/

Effectively, what this does is offer the AR15 pistol builder the option of constructing a pistol - which usually only has state restrictions on barrel length, not Federal - using a pistol buffer tube and brace. What is eliminated is the $200 tax stamp and current 10+ month wait to build it as an SBR with rifle/carbine stock.

So, you can use the same barrel, same upper, same lower, same caliber, same sights, etc as any other SBR, just don't use the standard stock. Use a wrist brace and buffer tube that can't accept normal stocks, and voila, an legal pistol with wrist brace that shoots like an "sbr."

Folder? Being done with the LAW adapter, there's no restrictions on having one on your AR15, pistol, carbine, or rifle, unless it's a state AWB type provision. It might sidestep some laws, and in the face of that, some are retreating. Washington state now allows SBR's now, if my info is correct. So far it's all good.

How a folding stock AK with under 16" barrel fits in would take more details. If the standard under folding stock wasn't being used, but one fitted with an SB15 was installed, then it's likely ok.

Just anybodies' idea of what a wrist brace might be, no, not at this time. The smart money is only buying a BATF approved braces and using it in a way that is already existing legal practice as outlined in black and white on letterhead.

What is likely happening is that the SBR applications will decline, the 'wrist brace" certifications inbox will fill up from savvy marketers, and we will all start building pistol AR15's with wrist braces of our style choice without the $200 tax stamp or long wait. It's already being done by others on those guns. "Wrist brace" tends to cut across the lines easily.

What I have already seen is some SBR owners succumbing to Stockholm syndrome, attempting to justify the stamp, and that it's the only proper way to build one. They have an investment in the procedure and some rep on the line, now the BATF has pulled the rug out from under them and leveled the playing field. All during an anti gun administration. Nobody saw it coming.

Congrats to SIG, who helped a Vet market his brace, and we all benefit.
 
You most likely saw the SB15 pistol brace, which closely resembles a stock but it is not a stock. :)

sig-sauer-sb15-brace.jpg
 
That lower photo of it being used as a wrist brace is just nice clean advertising. The rest of us have read the ATF letter and understand there's nothing illegal whatsoever about using it against the shoulder. The previous standard was a foam sleeve over the end, and those were shot from the shoulder as well.

There are others adapting cheek rests from CAA and Thordsen. It's been going on "under the radar" for quite awhile. SIG getting involved just pushed it into the mainstream of gun media. Magpul may not jump in for a while, but I expect to see a few more prototypes by SHOT 2015.

Unfortunately, by some circumstance, That Guy will elevate it to the national media by a poorly chosen photo op, and then it will become another anti gun issue. At that time it needs to be shown how the NFA made it happen and why it's not really effective at all.

Given time and ingenuity mankind can circumvent any law written.
 
I dont know how you would make the sig brace on an AK into a folder...

On an AR, there are side folding tubes that im thinking could work. I think the Sig brace for the AK attaches under the pistol grip?? Is that right?

Op, did the HMFIC say that any stock was ATF approved or just the one he had on display. Somehow, im thinking he misunderstood the Sig brace ruling. A pic of the little beastie would help ALOT
 
I recently acquired this. No folding mechanism, however.



While I liked being able to take this one home with me sans $200 tax, I am not out of the SBR game. I already have one SBR (10.5" AR) and have a Sig 556xi that will be registered.

 
Back
Top