swapped out stabilizing braces on my AR15 pistol

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have the sba3 on my 7.62x39 AR pistol and I really like the thing. I'll be using the pistol for close range deer hunting this season.
 
Ive been trying to figure out how that brace, is any different than the standard slider "stock", and how one is a stock, and the other a "brace".


I guess its like the Shockwave shotgun you buy, is different than the one you assemble, using the same exact parts on a gun you already have.

Same only different. :cool:

Does look good on there though rws. :thumbup:
 
Ive been trying to figure out how that brace, is any different than the standard slider "stock", and how one is a stock, and the other a "brace".


I guess its like the Shockwave shotgun you buy, is different than the one you assemble, using the same exact parts on a gun you already have.

Same only different. :cool:

Does look good on there though rws. :thumbup:

some braces look very similar to the telescoping stocks you see on rifles but are designed to interface with your forearm generally with a blade like the KAK or cuff like the SB Tactical as pictured above

there was some question as to if you could legally shoulder a brace equipped pistol...at first the ATF said no but then reversed the decision in 2017 as long as you don't alter any of the features of the brace

see this link for more info on ATF pistol brace opinions



.
 
some braces look very similar to the telescoping stocks you see on rifles but are designed to interface with your forearm generally with a blade like the KAK or cuff like the SB Tactical as pictured above

there was some question as to if you could legally shoulder a brace equipped pistol...at first the ATF said no but then reversed the decision in 2017 as long as you don't alter any of the features of the brace

see this link for more info on ATF pistol brace opinions



.
I understand all that. What I dont understand, is that there really isnt any difference between these newer braces, and an actual stock.

Its blatantly obvious that they are meant to be shouldered, no matter whats said about them otherwise. At least with the earlier KAK "Shockwave" braces, and some of the others, their intent was to be a brace, and not used as a stock. Some could be fixed in position, and others not, or not readily anyways.

Here you have a quasi "stock" that is adjustable for LOP. Im just not getting it.
 
I understand all that. What I dont understand, is that there really isnt any difference between these newer braces, and an actual stock.

Its blatantly obvious that they are meant to be shouldered, no matter whats said about them otherwise. At least with the earlier KAK "Shockwave" braces, and some of the others, their intent was to be a brace, and not used as a stock. Some could be fixed in position, and others not, or not readily anyways.

Here you have a quasi "stock" that is adjustable for LOP. Im just not getting it.

Are you referring to the SB Tactical sba3 brace pictured above? If so it is easily distinguishable from a regular adjustable stock. It has a cuff that is split at the bottom and can be spread to be placed over the forearm and secured with a strap. The length of pull is adjustable but only to 12.5". It is clearly has the design features to be used as a stabilizing brace and has been approved by ATF to be used on a handgun. Whether you want to attach the brace to your forearm or place it on your shoulder doesn't seem to matter with the 2017 ATF opinion. A regular adjustable stock does not have any design features to be used as a forearm stabilizing brace. If you read the ATF link above carefully you will understand how they differentiate the brace from a regular stock.
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to the SB Tactical sba3 brace pictured above? If so it is easily distinguishable from a regular adjustable stock. It has a cuff that is split at the bottom and can be spread to be placed over the forearm and secured with a strap. The length of pull is adjustable but only to 13.5". It is clearly has the design features to be used as a stabilizing brace and has been approved by ATF to be used on a handgun. Whether you want to attach the brace to your forearm or place it on your shoulder doesn't seem to matter with the 2017 ATF opinion. A regular adjustable stock does not have any design features to be used as a forearm stabilizing brace. If you read the ATF link above carefully you will understand how they differentiate the brace from a regular stock.
Thats the one.

I understand its a "brace", but its closer to a stock, than the Shockwave you replaced it with, and works just like a slider.

As far as LOP, most all of my military type rifles have a LOP of 12.5-13", as they should, and that has pretty much been a standard for over a century or longer.

Saying that the LOP is only adjustable to 13.5" really doesnt mean anything or make any sense either. Other than the ATF is saying its OK.

With pretty much everything being the same... a wide "buttplate" surface area (spreadable or not), a readily adjustable LOP to rifle length, and being able to shoulder it, how is the stock "illegal", and the brace "legal"?

Thats what Im not understanding. They perfom the same, and serve the same purpose.

And Im not bitching about it (well, I am), I just want to know why we just cant use a stock then, and stop all the foolishness, and wasting a lot of money on "get arounds". A standard stock is a LOT cheaper.
 
Ive been trying to figure out how that brace, is any different than the standard slider "stock", and how one is a stock, and the other a "brace".
It's a needle, purpose built to thread a loophole, left by thoughtless idiot legislators (but that's doubly redundant). There's nothing to figure out; it's an object that fills the negative space in a regulatory farce.

Stop complaining and enjoy it. If regulators weren't idiots, we'd be doomed in more important ways than this.
 
xactly
It's a needle, purpose built to thread a loophole, left by thoughtless idiot legislators (but that's doubly redundant). There's nothing to figure out; it's an object that fills the negative space in a regulatory farce.

Stop complaining and enjoy it. If regulators weren't idiots, we'd be doomed in more important ways than this.
I know and understand exactly whats going on. It just pisses me off that we allow foolishness like this to go on, instead of calling them on it and telling them no. Wheres the NRA in all of this if they are so hot on defending our rights?

Oh wait, they havent done anything since 34 anyway, what was I thinking? They are simply part of the system and problem anyway. o_O

This crap, and things like the Shockwave and Tac14 shotguns, AR's with "straight" rifling, etc, are all get arounds that simply show the law is flawed, and is accomlishing nothing. So why arent they, or any of the laws that violate our "supposed" rights, being challenged?

We spend more time and effort on trying to get around these illegal laws, than we do fighting/challenging them.

Being told Im "complaining" pretty much shows the overall state of mind anymore too. Dont rock the boat, do as youre told, or our "servants" might take away something else.

And why not, we seem to think thats perfectly OK. Yea boy! Land of the free, as long as you do as youre told, and dont question anything. ;)
 
Thats the one.

I understand its a "brace", but its closer to a stock, than the Shockwave you replaced it with, and works just like a slider.

As far as LOP, most all of my military type rifles have a LOP of 12.5-13", as they should, and that has pretty much been a standard for over a century or longer.

Saying that the LOP is only adjustable to 13.5" really doesnt mean anything or make any sense either. Other than the ATF is saying its OK.

With pretty much everything being the same... a wide "buttplate" surface area (spreadable or not), a readily adjustable LOP to rifle length, and being able to shoulder it, how is the stock "illegal", and the brace "legal"?

Thats what Im not understanding. They perfom the same, and serve the same purpose.

And Im not bitching about it (well, I am), I just want to know why we just cant use a stock then, and stop all the foolishness, and wasting a lot of money on "get arounds". A standard stock is a LOT cheaper.

I corrected my post above...the sba3 adjusts to a maximum 12.5" lop.
 
Thanks rws. I didnt mean to hijack your thread either. Sorry for that.

I think that SBA3 looks like the way to go if you havent yet done so and want to use a brace. Unfortunately, I already have three with the Shockwaves on them at $100 a pop. Im not going to drop somewhere around another $450 to replace them, as much as Id like to.

Anyway, I do like the looks of yours, thanks for posting it up, even if my wallet hates you for it. :D
 
SB Tactical sba3 brace is on sale at Brownells right now...use MDX code to get additional 10% 0ff and free shipping
 
took off a KAK Shockwave and put on a SB Tactical SBA3

added features of being lever vs set screw adjustable for lop and a cup for quick detach sling mounting

View attachment 847197

View attachment 847198

View attachment 847199

View attachment 847200

I bought a SBA3 brace lower parts kit from PSA. Plan was to keep the parts off to the side and just swap braces. That didn't last long and now I have 3 AR pistols.

I actually am not a fan of the quick detach sling mount. Why you ask? Now I have to go buy a new sling and mount to use that stupid thing.
 
So it's legal to swap "braces"?

I was under the impression that a pistol with a brace had to stay in the configuration it was manufactured in.

What gave you that impression? A brace is a brace why would it matter what style you use? The KAK Shockwave and SB Tactical SBA3 braces pictured above are ATF approved braces.

That would be like saying you couldn't replace a standard shoulder stock with a thumb hole or collapsible/folding stock on your favorite rifle.

Also note that I could remove the brace and put on a regular shoulder stock and replace the barrel with a 16" minimum length barrel converting it to a rifle legally...and change it back again to a pistol configuration later.

pistol-to-rifle-and-back-to-pistol.jpg Uploaded at Snapagogo.com



.
 
Last edited:
20190411_125240.jpg So, what are you doing with the now redundant blade braces? I may be interested.

The sb3 brace is really nice, but it isn't a stock in anything more than looks. The arm band is quite stiff, but if you try to shoulder it it'll flex. I have one on my 458 socom pistol and I like it alot. I like the shockwave blade brace too though. They both look cool.

And thank God for workarounds for some of the stupid laws out there. It just proves how pointless the law is when practically the same thing is legal due to a loophole and society doesn't collapse, and the earth doesn't spin off into the sun...
 
but keep in mind, they aren't meant to be a stock, just an "arm brace"
You forgot the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink". :)

Just curious here, but has anyone actually ever seen ANYONE use a brace, as a brace?
 
You forgot the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink". :)

Just curious here, but has anyone actually ever seen ANYONE use a brace, as a brace?
Cough...………….. Umm, yeah I saw that once. In a place. You know they were following the law and stuff.
 
"Braces" and AR "pistols," generally, are going to be low-hanging fruit once an antigun administration takes over. These are workarounds in order to have an unregistered SBR. It's going to be a replay of the bump stock fiasco. If we're lucky, they will be grandfathered by being allowed to be registered as regular SBR's. (That's possible because there's no equivalent Hughes Amendment for SBR's.) Anyway, keep this in mind before you invest too heavily in these things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top