New Stabilizing Brace for AR15 Pistol "SB15"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpmuscle

How would bringing a pistol with a brace any different from bringing an SBR from educational and instructional standpoint?

---

I have yet to go to a class so I was wondering if the pistols were common, if they ran into issues or if the brace impacted any drills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shockwave Technologies

I haven't seen any ATF opinion letters that specifically mention "SB15." But if you want to "split hairs," it is worth noting a couple of items about the opinion letter floating around on the subject at hand:

- As a licensed manufacturer, SIG has never received a Tech Branch opinion letter on the SB15 or the SBX.

- The opinion letter they ship with their SB15 and SBX braces was addressed to Alex Bosco, who isn't a licensed manufacturer and isn't an employee of SIG, concerning his foam-rubber prototype with two Velcro straps and thus protects him only for that particular configuration.

- The Tech Branch opinion letter to Alex Bosco specifically mentions "foam-type rubber," which the SB15 and SBX clearly aren't made of.

I'm interested in your responses on this subject.

---

The letter that comes with the SIG Brace is clearly not correspondence between SIG and the ATF but the ATF has clearly made reference to the SIG brace in their rulings and interpretations. Clearly the ATF does not consider the SB15 brace to be a stock or otherwise illegal or transforming/reclassifying.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2cht9he.jpg

The letter simply proves how absurd the ATF regulations really are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgeB

The letter simply proves how absurd the ATF regulations really are.

---

I agree, but it does clearly show that the ATF recognizes the existence of the Pistol Brace as manufactured by SIG Sauer and identifies it as a legitimate version of the pistol brace designed by Boscoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigfeetz

The letter that comes with the SIG Brace is clearly not correspondence between SIG and the ATF but the ATF has clearly made reference to the SIG brace in their rulings and interpretations. Clearly the ATF does not consider the SB15 brace to be a stock or otherwise illegal or transforming/reclassifying.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2cht9he.jpg

---

It is indeed clear to you and to me.

But now, a new opinion from the ATF

Yesterday, news spread about a letter to Eric Lemoine, owner of Black Aces Tactical–a company who had designed a shotgun that used the arm brace concept. They asked the ATF to rule on the matter. And this is what Acting Chief of the BATF’s Firearms Technology Branch Max Kingery wrote in reply: “The submitted weapon, as described and depicted above … is not a ‘firearm’ as defined by the NFA provided the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and not used as a shoulder stock. [...] However, should an individual utilize the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace on the submitted sample as a shoulder stock to fire the weapon from the shoulder, this firearm would then be classified as a ‘short-barreled shotgun.’ ”

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/end-sig-brace/

http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps3dee1a10.jpg

More info from a reputable source.
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/1...ce-sbr-or.html

And another lawyer's view on why the ATF letter is mis-guided.
http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/11/21...nation-letter/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uffdaphil

More info from a reputable source.
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/1...ce-sbr-or.html

And another lawyer's view on why the ATF letter is mis-guided.
http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/11/21...nation-letter/

---

"While the determination letter is specific to the sample provided, it is possible that Black Aces Tactical has opened Pandora’s box with regards to the SigTac SB15 arm brace and its future.."

This is what worries me.

All it takes is one company/individual to push the limit and make the ATF reverse their ruling on the SB15. I hope they don't retract it, as the brace makes a pistol more usable.

- - - - -

I saw this on Friday or Saturday. I mean I saw the potential for it much earlier. Oh well, just waiting on a form 1 anyhow at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DTakas

I just saw this:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/no-s...ed-sig-braces/
I was one of the ones back at the beginning of this thread saying there was no way the ATF would allow this to go on. After two years I was beginning to think I was wrong and had even considered using one on a pistol build myself, but it seems the ATF has changed their minds after all (at least in part).
Here’s a quote from the new ATF open letter referenced in the link:

---