This is cool - CZ Scorpion EVO pistol

M

MagnumWill

New member
I was flipping through the new G&A magazine, and came across the advertisement for this puppy.

http://cz-usa.com/product/cz-scorpion-evo-3-s1-pistol/

Apparently it's a blowback 9mm, and could potentually be another vehicle for the 9mm sub/gun style market (and potentially beat the Sig MPX to the punch in the civilian market.

I'm a fan of AR pistols as well as pistol-caliber carbines, and this is very interesting to me. If it does in fact A) come to market and B) at the price point they'really saying, I might have to go check one out. I understand it'seems not a carry pistol, but I think it would find a very good niche in the HD and plinking market.
 
Yup. Been quite a few reviews on it already. Able to accept the Sig brace, too....

Price point of under $800 is going to be really impressive.
 
Yup. Been quite a few reviews on it already. Able to accept the Sig brace, too....
Click to expand...

Yeah but now supposedly ATF is has changed it's mind and is saying don't use the SIG arm brace to your shoulder because that changes the classification to SBR. :mad:

I was all set to get the SIG MPX with the arm brace but not anymore. :mad:
 
^^^that's still technically not true. The Nov. 10th letter hasn't stated anything we didn't already know, and we've been arguing with the whole intent thing. The arm brace attached to this from the factory = not really relevant to that discussion.
 
Yeah but now supposedly ATF is has changed it's mind and is saying don't use the SIG arm brace to your shoulder because that changes the classification to SBR.
Click to expand...

Nah, they didn't. Their letter is all about intent - which is near impossible to prove. If you build the gun with the intention of it remaining a pistol and happen to put the brace against your shoulder, no harm. If you add the brace with the intention of making the gun into as rifle without filling the paperwork, then they say you're in trouble.

Kind of a silly idea and probably safer to just get the stamp for it if you are able to in your state.
 
It's a semi-auto 9mm. Why on earth would someone ruin this gun by stuffing a Sig arm brace, or even shoulder stock on this gun??? Given its size, there has to be next to no recoil.

I agree though it is a cool looking gun - I'd like to handle one. Sort of a throw-back to the semi-auto sub (type) guns of the late '80's. Ref. Sites Spectre, Claridge Hi-Tec, MP5, etc.
 
Kind of a silly idea and probably safer to just get the stamp for it if you are able to in your state.
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem as I can't own a SBR here in Illinois and I am not willing to take the chance anymore otherwise. Just not worth it to me.
 
That's a fair argument. For me in SBR-friendly territory, i would love to SBR the EVO pistol. Honestly, it being a blowback i wish they would sell the rifle version stateside, and then just switch the barrels out to make it an SBR.
 
If you add the brace with the intention of making the gun into as rifle without filling the paperwork, then they say you're in trouble.
Click to expand...

So, that means that 99.9% of the SB-15 owners are in big trouble.:eek: I think BATFE knows the cat is out of the bag and there's no good way to get it back in there without just making the brace illegal.
 
RE Joe_Pike: "Quote:
If you add the brace with the intention of making the gun into as rifle without filling the paperwork, then they say you're in trouble."

Joe_Pike says, "So, that means that 99.9% of the SB-15 owners are in big trouble. I think BATFE knows the cat is out of the bag and there's no good way to get it back in there without just making the brace illegal."

Nope. The companies referred to them as pistols, NOT rifle, and most of the good people of The Firing Line Forums post about pistols in "Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum" like the original poster. I would wager that most people won't want to make them rifles since that would force you to submit NFA paper work. I want one precisely BECAUSE it is a PISTOL not a rifle or an SBR which is an NFA item. You must treat NFA items with an extra level of care with regards to your legality. For example, you can't cross state lines without notifying the ATF that you are doing so. I've wanted a pistol that shoots rifle calibers for a long time simply because of that. Now that pistols can accept a Sig Brace; it just makes them that much cooler.

Tim from the Military Arms youtube channel explains the BATF's likely thoughts on the SB15 brace very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYx3A80aBi0
 
A true SBR wouldn't have a short pistol-sized barrel anyway. The barrels are usually about 10-13 inches. I'm not using the term "SBR" in the legal way but referencing weapons made to perform the functions of what a short barreled rifles is intended to perform.

I never got why people feel that putting a stock on basically a pistol is somehow an improvement to the weapon???:confused:
 
A true SBR wouldn't have a short pistol-sized barrel anyway. The barrels are usually about 10-13 inches.
Click to expand...

I'm going to build a pistol with a 10.5" barrel.

Nope. The companies referred to them as pistols, NOT rifle, and most of the good people of The Firing Line Forums post about pistols in "Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum" like the original poster.
Click to expand...

All I am saying is that an AR pistol with a Sig brace looks like an SBR with a fixed stock. The rest is just semantics.
 
For me in SBR-friendly territory, i would love to SBR the EVO pistol. Honestly, it being a blowback i wish they would sell the rifle version stateside, and then just switch the barrels out to make it an SBR.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it would be that easy. How would 922(r) apply?

I never got why people feel that putting a stock on basically a pistol is somehow an improvement to the weapon???
Click to expand...

That's a no-brainer on a firearm like the EVO3 (or an AR).

Three points of contact.
 
If I recall correctly, if I buy, let's sat an MP5 pistol clone, and attached the Sig brace to it if I shoulder it, I could/will be in violation of the law.

However, if the "pistol" was purchased with the Sig brace already installed, I am able to shoulder it just fine correct?

Technically, if I understand correctly, if I add that brace to the pistol and shoulder it, wouldn't that fall under "intent to change the function of the pistol"? Because at that point it could be interpreted by the BATFE that I was installing the brace to circumvent the NFA laws correct?

The safest route I assume would be to just buy one of these "pistols" with the brave already installed by the manufacturer?
 
If I recall correctly, if I buy, let's sat an MP5 pistol clone, and attached the Sig brace to it if I shoulder it, I could/will be in violation of the law.

However, if the "pistol" was purchased with the Sig brace already installed, I am able to shoulder it just fine correct?

Technically, if I understand correctly, if I add that brace to the pistol and shoulder it, wouldn't that fall under "intent to change the function of the pistol"? Because at that point it could be interpreted by the BATFE that I was installing the brace to circumvent the NFA laws correct?

The safest route I assume would be to just buy one of these "pistols" with the brave already installed by the manufacturer?
Click to expand...

No.

If you put a brace on a pistol, it is still a pistol (legally defined as a firearm designed to be fired with one hand) and there is no way to illegally fire it.

For example, a Glock is a pistol (meaning, under the law, it is designed to be fired with one hand). But it is certainly not illegal to fire it with two hands. In fact, that is how almost everyone shoots Glock pistols.

If you put a brace on a pistol with the intent of manufacturing an unregistered SBR, you are breaking the law.

It's all about intent.
 
If you put a brace on a pistol, it is still a pistol (legally defined as a firearm designed to be fired with one hand) and there is no way to illegally fire it.

For example, a Glock is a pistol (meaning, under the law, it is designed to be fired with one hand). But it is certainly not illegal to fire it with two hands. In fact, that is how almost everyone shoots Glock pistols.

If you put a brace on a pistol with the intent of manufacturing an unregistered SBR, you are breaking the law.

It's all about intent.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how you prove that your "intent" was to keep it a pistol instead of making an unregistered SBR.
 
Explain to me how you prove that your "intent" was to keep it a pistol instead of making an unregistered SBR.
Click to expand...

About as easy as proving your intent was to build an unregistered SBR.

And therein lies theinability of BAFTE's recent technical ruling to have any effect whatsoever.

Ask any lawyer how easy it is to prove intent.
 
Ask any lawyer how easy it is to prove intent.
Click to expand...

And that's my issue as well.

I do agree with those that buying with an SB15 already attached should offer a little more protection as the onus is on the manufacturer at that point and less so on the user in terms of attaching the brace and what the intent of doing so was. But hell if they wanted to I imagine BATFE could get around that too. Of course if just attaching an SB15 is proof of skirting the laws regarding SBRs, then it shouldn't be legal to sell an SB15.
 
Last edited:
It couldn't become a rifle, especially in the case of the Scorpion, very easily. So making it an SBR would be tricky, since it's a new gun and nobody makes aftermarket barrels for the Scorpion to get an overall length that would push it past the pistol category. I guess you COULD make a Scorpion an SBR/illegal rifle if you stuck a rifle buffer tube on it, then put a rifle stock on it, not an Sig Brace on it. But that would seem like a lot of extra effort to simply make an SBR/NFA item or break the law. Most people will be satisfied with the pistol as a pistol and won't feel the need to put a ton of effort into it to make it a rifle.

But my point is, semantics matter. It's not just the intent. The dude who mailed the BATF was telling them that he was making a "rifle" which means something to the BATF. A rifle is defined by certain features, meaning you have to remove or add features to make it into an rifle. If you don't do any of those things, it is a pistol under the eyes of the law. Since he was telling them that he was making a rifle, then the BATF has to assume (they can't joke around) that he is actually changing the gun, since that is what he is telling them that he is doing. If you leave the components as a pistol, then it will remain a pistol and you can fire it how you wish.

The guys who tell the BATF that they are going to break the law get the Idiot's Gold Star for Effort. I mean they probably actually just intend to use the gun as a pistol, but they themselves are confused and think that it is a rifle in the eyes of the law and sometimes, it is marketed as such. So, they go out of their way to gloat, and get themselves in trouble. But in reality, they are just confused pistol owners who think they own a rifle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top