Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 19272829
Results 281 to 290 of 290

Thread: New Stabilizing Brace for AR15 Pistol "SB15"

  1. #281
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    E. Tennessee
    Posts
    2,368
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpmuscle View Post
    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.
    ETC (SW/AW), USN (1998-2008)
    CVN-65, USS Enterprise

  2. #282
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    96
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Shockwave Technologies View Post
    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.

    Last edited by bigfeetz; 11-20-14 at 14:19.

  3. #283
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    99
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    The letter simply proves how absurd the ATF regulations really are.

  4. #284
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    96
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeB View Post
    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

  5. #285
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    62
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfeetz View Post
    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.

    It is indeed clear to you and to me.
    Shockwave Technologies is an innovative manufacturer and retailer of firearm parts and accessories, located in picturesque Salt Lake City, Utah.

    The company is owned by Martin Ewer—a veteran of the United States Air Force (6920th ESG (ESC), Russian Cryptologic Linguist, 1985–1990)—and operated by a small team of dedicated professionals. We are committed to excellence and personalized service.

  6. #286
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,773
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    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/

    Last edited by platoonDaddy; 11-24-14 at 05:42.

  7. #287
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    1,052
    Feedback Score
    93 (100%)
    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/
    Last edited by uffdaphil; 11-24-14 at 07:00.
    “ When I comes to modern politics, I think the inverse of Hanlon's Razor applies...In other words, "Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice." - Kerplode

  8. #288
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,075
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by uffdaphil View Post
    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.

  9. #289
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    95
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    - - - - -
    Last edited by DTakas; 01-03-19 at 08:31.

  10. #290
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    154
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    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 View Post
    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:

Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 19272829

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •