SB Tactical Expands Line of Pistol Arm Braces (TTAG Exclusive)

1. Its not like the ATF can take them back or outlaw it like its a flare launcher or something…..

2. The ATF needs to back off and just worry about collecting the tax on alcohol, tobacco. Firearms should be removed from their list after operation Fast & give guns to cartels. The kriss looks great, for an already ugly gun.

   • UGLY?
     I beg your pardon……..Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if it hurts to look at it…DON’T!

3. In light of the ATF ruling, does anyone else find the subject of pistol braces a continuous source of anger and resentment?

   • Yes. The possibility of the sheer magnitude of potential felons running around shouldering those things when the Youtube cameras are no longer rolling is astonishing. When laws and regs are dumb and senseless, it breeds contempt for government and it’s institutions.

4. It is interesting to note, there are often two sides of legislation. Passing that legislation, and enforcing that legislation. If you did in fact shoulder the brace, I have yet to see a single instance of someone being arrested for doing so despite the mountains of evidence on youtube and else ware of people blatantly shouldering the brace. For the MOST PART, the ATF and other government agencies relies heavily on local governments and police forces to enforce rulings. No matter how much money is pumped into the system, they can’t be everywhere and in order to make arrests, they will need help, cooperation, or at the very least information from local sheriffs and PDs. Maybe i’m completely wrong with this, but I have seen this ruling as a joke since the start. What good is a ruling if people don’t follow it and its not getting enforced? I simply don’t see the enforcement power from local PD’s behind this for the last few months and I can’t find a single instance of someone being arrested for it. This just looks like another firearm related non compliance on the scale of the SAFE act or the legislation in Connecticut.

   • It’s tyranical in that when you go to shoot one, knowing you’re no threat to society, that you still have to be fearful that nobody at the range is going to video record it and post it online and then sometime down the future it gets you in trouble. The fear and anxiety that it can instill in a person feeling like they can be the first one arrested over an arbitrary rule for something as mundane and innocent as shouldering it at the range is the type of tyranny we were supposed to have a constitution to protect ourselves from.

     • Precisely. What is more, is the burden of proof. Lets say someone did record that video and an arrest were to follow (highly unlikely). How would you prove that the brace actually TOUCHED the shoulder? I have seen many videos much like the military arms channel on Full30, where it is touching the chin but not the shoulder. How do you prove to a jury without a reasonable doubt that the brace actually made contact with the shoulder? Further more how do you justify locking someone up over that? If I was on that jury I would find this immoral to lock up someone because a piece of plastic touched a body part that the government deemed illegal.

   • Do NOT know all the details, apparently a “gun” person was arrested for owning such a pistol in CA.

     • I seem to remember a drug dealerish guy being arrested whose gun had one of those. The followup, as I recall, was that the receiver was originally for a rifle and changed it down to a pistol, which is a big no-no since it would be an unregistered SBR and not a pistol and that was the technicality he got busted on. Beyond that, I doubt he had the required california bullet button thingy.

5. “Not only does the device help disabled Americans defend themselves” – Oh come on, lets keep this grounded in reality, we all know why these things are being pumped out in such large numbers. Using the disabled as a selling point is pretty disingenuous…

   • It’s all part of the game. If you want to change politics, you need to know how to play it.

     The pro-aborts use it as well when arguing abortion for “health” reasons, knowing full well that most abortions are committed because people don’t want to grow up and become parents.

     • Off topic, but that’s my problem with abortion in general. While I don’t see where the government has the power to regulate it. I personally abhor it, and in the vast majority of cases it just seems to be a method for people to be irresponsible with no repercussions for their actions

       • “…a method for people to be irresponsible…”

         Agreed…BUT…do you think it’s fair or good that irresponsible behavior is the good basis for a life? If this is how it starts, how good will the rest of it be?

         AND! Consider who is doing this. Mostly folks with an R Reproductive strategy.

         http://www.cs.montana.edu/webworks/projects/stevesbook/contents/chapters/chapter002/section004/blue/page003.html

       • This is why I’m torn on the subject. I am the walking, living, and breathing incarnation of the “If you don’t like abortion don’t have one” It is so complicated of an issue. One thing I am certain of is I don’t want my tax dollars paying for it, and luckily they don’t.

       • “One thing I am certain of is I don’t want my tax dollars paying for it, and luckily they don’t.”

         Maybe your taxes don’t pay for the abortion…but they pay for the child that came to term, and will be on the public teat (meaning YOU) for life.

       • @DownSouth
         We don’t justify life. You don’t get to live *IF* there is a reasonable expectation that your quality of life will meet X, Y, or Z arbitrary standard. Every human being has a right to “LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.”

         Nowhere does there exist the clause “…unless your parents were irresponsible people. Then you have no rights.”

         People get by in countries all over the world without things like basic sanitation, safety from state-sponsored rape and summary execution, clean water, food, or formal education. Do they not have a right to live because their life isn’t up to American middle class standards?

   • Disingenuous? You mean like medical Marijuana for 99% of the users?

     • How dare you Sir! It’s a well known fact among the people of tie-dye that before medical marijuana was legalized in certain states, that those states had mad max–esque public transport infrastructure as well as being debt-ridden, oppressive hell-holes. The daily struggle among their citizens to avoid death or dismemberment at the hands of the disciples of Magoo, near too much to bare. Only legalization of the magic weed delivered them from all this.

       P.S I don’t actually care if folks get stoned, so long as they stay clear of vehicles, machinery, firearms and small dogs while under the influence. I do hate when people claim their only concern is for MS and cancer sufferers (who should have access to any drug that helps) when all they want to do it get stoned and stare at a patterned wall for hours on end.

       • Lol the mentality that all “stoners” are lazy and stare at walls all day is why it still isn’t legal. That may be the way it effects those who don’t smoke but people who do are nothing like that. We go to work, we live our life, and are good citizens. And driving under the influence or handling firearms while high? Give me a brake stoned people are 10x more careful while operating those items. gotta love this land of the not so free

   • I said this same thing in a youtube comment once, and the guy who invented the thing responded and seemed highly offended at the implication. I told him I appreciated his stance, but I still wasn’t buying the angle – then wished him the best of luck.

     Unrelated: This comments system needs to burn in hell! I swear is getting worse.

6. I would seriously consider one if they weren’t so pricey. $125 for a chunk of rubber? I realize that SB has to make some money and re-coup their R&D…but…sorry. If it were </= $75 I would probably do it.

   • You say yourself it’s a chunk of rubber while I can see a couple of guys playing with the shape, how much R&D can there honestly be.

     Day 1: Our initial candle wax laced with broken glass design did not play well with the test group.
     Day 2: Mike screwed some rubber to the end and shaved slices off with a razor blade.
     Day 3: We glued one of the shavings back into place. Production begins Monday.

     That said its about the same price for thinner plastic Chinese made parts retail (+40% at my local Gander). So all US made and a donation doesn’t seem too bad.

     • “That said its about the same price for thinner plastic Chinese made parts retail (+40% at my local Gander). So all US made and a donation doesn’t seem too bad.”

       True, and I understand the cost of R&D. But I have finite financial resources, so at this price point I’ll have to skip it.

   • To a great extent I agree. The whole “recoup R&D” excuse is used anytime something is really expensive for what it actually is, but few consider this: If a company needs to recoup money, don’t they make more selling 10 of them at $80 than selling 5 of them at $125? Obviously those numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but most people are likely to buy at a lower price, that’s just common sense.

7. Come on don’t play the word game with these, people use them as stocks without having to get the SBR stamp.

   Its going to be fun until the ATF nails some poor guy to the wall and stops it. I’d just pay the $200 for the SBR and not have to worry about it.

   I dislike the ATF as much as the next guy but I am very afraid of organizations with bottomless funds for attorneys. So any poor sap they plan to nail to the wall is going to have to drain his 401k, and house equity to stay out of jail.

   • No, the tax stamp, extra paperwork and inability to just sell it to someone if you want to makes it unpalatable to do it via the NFA system. I would never shoulder one of these, but you can see why people would want this sytem for convenience vs the official route… get rid of SBR’s and suppressors from the NFA!

   • Strike SBRs, SBSs, and Suppressors from the NFA list. Problem solved.

     NFAFA.COM

   • Why pay teh guv 200 samolians, when you can just slap a strip of velcro onto your CTR stock and wallah!!….you have redesigned it into a pistol brace, so its not an SBR (just dont shoulder it!)! /sarc

     Seriously though, their own logic defeats them – blows up right in their face. Are we going to start charging people $200 tax stamps on their oil filters and pillows?

     We have reached the point were only civil disobedience is left.

8. Are the edges that touch your forearm still inordinately sharp on this one like the Sig brace? That’s a flaw I found with that one.

9. It’s such a goofy thing anyway… SBRs are just neutered Rs.

   RFB actually had to increase the barrel length to 18 to meet the OAL length… It’s amazingly compact and well balanced, and shorter than plenty of SBRed ARs I’ve seen. And not a .223…

   My pistols I like as pistols. M85s and the earlier Hellpup… I wouldn’t want a brace or a stock on them anyway.

   I just plain don’t get it.

   • I did not “get it” at first either, but hey an arm brace that doubles as a shoulder stock. That’s a fun “toy” to kill a couple of hours at the range. Its different……

10. OK…
    After reading all the above comments, Who “invented” or came up with the “concept” of the arm brace first?
    Sig Saur or SB or somebody else??
    When I first read about “braces” it was Sig……

    • It appears that SB Tactical invented it and has been making them for Sig the whole time.

      • Thank you.. AR…….

11. Ok, can we cut the BS about these “braces” making these guns easier to shoot? For crying out loud, has anyone who says that actually tried to strap one of these “braced” AR pistols on and fire it? On what planet does your entire forearm of your shooting hand EVER line up with the bore of the weapon, much less DIRECTLY BEHIND IT? Plus, it is impossible to use PEEP SIGHTS (like AR, or for that matter HK rear sights) with the gun fully extended. The only possible way is to shoot it canted at about 45 degrees, with a red dot, and with the height-over-bore of the AR sights, that’s crushing to accuracy. Look, if you can’t shoulder it, then you use it as a Cheek Riser–sorry to the disabled shooters who can’t hold the AR pistol properly with two hands–but that’s how the gun must be fired. You hold it with two hands, support hand forward, just as if you were shouldering it like an SBR, except you keep the end of the brace off your shoulder, and instead get some stability from a good cheek weld onto the “brace.” Just don’t let an ATF/LEO/RSO see you doing it, ’cause it’s dang hard to tell the difference between “shouldering” and “getting a good cheek weld” on these things.

    • I don’t ever remember reading here or anywhere for that matter that the braces make these guns easier to shoot. The devil is in the details ChrisL and what they’ve said is that the brace makes these guns easier to shoot with 1 hand. If I recall correctly, it’s the ATF that has defined these pistols not the market or the manufacturers, and as such the brace works as marketed and designed? Does it require a shooting stance that isn’t so “modern” or “tactical”…you are absolutely correct, but it’s not really fair to jibe at those who might actually use the brace as it was designed though. As to cheek welding or shouldering one of these pistols….well…ATF has said that it’s ok to cheek weld and not ok to shoulder and the difference between the two is about what, 2 inches? Oversight? I don’t know, I’ve thought about this a lot…could it be that someone inside ATF thinks the brace ruling is silly too?

12. These things are worth buying just to make the ATF look like the joke they are…can we please fold the decent agents into FBI, Customs, DEA and just fire management- its long over due, and a good start on balancing the budget, by reducing un-needed agencies.

    In the meantime get suppressors off the NFA list. Hearing savers required in Europe in almost all ranges now.

13. ATF NEEDS to back off.
    The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. That is why it says “shall not infringe” so we can have what the government has to prevent a Holocaust. I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. Thanks for your vote, pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

Comments are closed.