Explain pistol braces

[BreechFace]

Braces, Binaries, OAL…oh my. These are the nightmares of ATF’s dreams.

They and the NFA need to be put out to pasture on the way to the glue factory.

 

[CraigC]

I'm still shocked they approved them in the first place. Unintended consequences, in our favor for a change.

That’s just using an accessory as not intended. Just like putting a scope on a revolver.

Blasphemer.

 

[DoubleMag]

Fire pit, jab animal carcass on stick and cook. Then, move fire inside tepee or cabin. Then pile rocks around it, fast forward the modern stove in gas or electric.

Beat clothes on river rocks then came the WORK AROUND called it the washboard. Inside came Maytag and now it's on & off by bluetooth.

Used to be a hand crank start but then came the internal engine bay electric starter for the car.

Yadda yadda.

See what a little time does and a wee little technology change? NOT WORK AROUNDS! Just normal progress of an idea

 

[Varminterror]

I had customers ordering AR pistols as far back as the Federal AWB era, without braces, as they had not yet been invented. At the time, we really only had access to rifle length extensions as “rumor had it” that carbine extensions constituted intent to install a stock, as well as the fact carbine stocks and buffer tubes were already relatively more rare to find and were themselves a hot button issue (we had to pin stocks to tubes to become fixed length, since telescoping stocks were one of the “points” towards a prohibited Assault Weapon…), and pistol length buffer tubes were as rare as hen’s teeth… AR pistols of the era weren’t terribly short, overall. But people bought them…

Thereafter the ban when braces were invented, traction was relatively slow to build, since the determination in the field was that “shouldering a pistol remade a Firearm (capital F, as in an NFA Firearm, aka, SBR),” but again, folks were still buying and building AR pistols.

The updated conclusion that “a firearm was not made or remade by shouldering a brace” coupled with the advent of social media popularity of “Insta-gun accounts” duly accelerated public interest in AR pistols, which is largely indicative that a LOT of folks intended to shoulder their pistols as they would a rifle, but the law recognized them as pistols, all the same.

With the latest conclusion, again that “a modification which can be used as a stock constitutes a stock,” there are still folks building and buying AR pistols without braces - the luxury today being greater availability of AR-ish designs which integrate their recoil springs into the upper receiver rather than the receiver extension, allowing AR pistols to have a form more akin to MP5’s and AK’s to make a much more convenient pistol.

And even within the current ambiguity surrounding whether the pending lawsuit will repeal the proposed and cast determination, or will it stand, folks are still buying and building AR pistols, with and without braces…

Naturally, there do exist ~3/4 million registered SBR’s in the United States, and reportedly there are over 4 million AR pistols already present in the US, so among an existing market base of ~5 million and around 3,500 new firearms owners being born EVERY SINGLE DAY, eh, it makes sense that sub-16” uppers and barrels continue to be sold.

 

[someguy2800]

So it’s essentially a stock but has a strap to make it a brace?

Pretty much but instead of having a flat buttpad on the back they are generally designed to have a minimal rear surface area. Of course manufactures will always play the "I'm not touching you" game and push the design to the limit of the definitions. Up until this year the ATF never elaborated on the definition of a stock, so braces were basically analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if they had features that make them a stock or not. They published a new rule at the beginning of this year that would have redefined pretty much every brace on the market as a stock, but that rule has since been ruled unconstitutional. The ATF won't be satisfied with that so I expect more rule making and legal maneuvering in the future.



the above pretty quickly evolved into the below

 

[CraigC]

the above pretty quickly evolved into the below

From what I understand the SB15 was the first.

 

[codytrucker]

It wasn't the videos of people shooting from the shoulder , the ATF determined that that was legal . It was the aftermath of the Boulder mall shooting , where an armed citizen put an end to the shooter , then unfortunately picked up his weapon when the police arrived and they mistakenly shot and killed the armed citizen . For some reason , the media latched on to the idea that if the shooter had bought a SBR , he would of had a "year long cooling down , or waiting period", and that would of saved the day .Completely ignoring the fact he would of just bought either a carbine or pistol AR and done his evil work anyway . I kind of think it was done to change the subject of the police killing the hero of the day . Someone with better google skills can probably find a video of newscasters reporting on it . You wouldn't think one false narrative would have that much impact , but remember when Hillary said it was a good thing the Vegas shooter didn't have a silencer , and just like that the H.P.A. died on the vine .

They gave people determination letters saying it was ok to shoot them from the shoulder . If they had said YOU ( specifically) can use it like that , but you cant show anyone a picture or video of it , that would of been a bigtime first amendment violation .

 

[CapnMac]

I'm still shocked they approved them in the first place.

Well, as our esteemed @Varminterror points out, the Agency never thought they would ever amount to anything, but a few hundred, specialized, examples.
Also, at the time, the Examiners also realized they had approved stocked pistols, if very old C&R examples, and put some tight limitations on those stocks.
They could not say the 10" long wooden plank stock was ok on an Ingalis Browning, then say an "arm clamp" brace on an AR or Draco was not.

Part of the "fallout" from the federal AWB was in how both manufacturers and customers began seeing firearms, not as indivisible things, but as collections of parts to need. Part of that was in how some "carbines" became 'legal' under the AWB by being "pistols" rather than carbines. That perception remained after the legislation went away. So, it's 2004 and you just built a bunch of ban-compliant "pistols," so how do you sell them, now? This was pretty critical as the price bottom fell out of the AW market, especially ARs, which went from two grand to barely US$800 in only a couple of months. That made a fertile market for braces to flourish within.

At which point the sales exploded, and that got ATFE's attention

but that rule has since been ruled unconstitutional.

Not quite yet, actually. Enforcement has been stayed, and the several cases are in the several Circuit Courts awaiting hearings.