Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: School me on why you like X brand brace...

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    309
    Feedback Score
    0
    Shockwave is my favorite. Cheap, solid, adjustable.

    I also have an SB47 (the original stubby one) and an SOB47. Heavier than the brace which balances a heavy barrel better. A little more comfortable with higher recoiling rounds. But the SB47 started to rotate so I had to glue it in place. The SOB appears to be doing the same. Friction fit alone isn’t enough.

    Shockwave is coming out with a 2.0 adjustable that’s got a smaller rear fin, but won’t be any more comfortable. Uses a proprietary tube.

    The new adjustable SB brace looks interesting in that it uses a mil spec stock tube. But someone said SB isn’t providing an ATF acceptance letter either. For that money I think I’d try the Tailhook mod2 first.

    I think the new SB adjustable might appeal to someone who already has a lower with a carbine upper and stock and wants to just swap out to a short upper and brace on the same lower, assuming that lower was registered as OTHER and not a rifle. Or has a lower they want to remake as a pistol and don’t fell comfortable swapping the buffer tube.

    Although for $200 I just bought a complete PSA multi-cal lower with an SOB brace so it’s just as cheap to build a complete pistol.
    Last edited by wanderson; 03-11-18 at 09:12.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    8
    Feedback Score
    0
    I have a maxim brace

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    606
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I'm very concerned regarding the SB Tactical SBA3 because they say that it uses a standard carbine buffer. My fear is that ATF might try to call it constructive possession or some crap like that.

    For that reason I am leaning again more towards the tailhook as it says it uses a proprietary receiver extension.

    TED

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    388
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    I've got a Tailhook Mod 2 coming this week. I settled on that for adjustability, simplicity, and it just looks sexy.

    SB PDW Looks great, but handling one I felt it was overkill with the adjuster "rods" out in front of the safety. Also the release lever to adjust brace seemed really exposed, i.e., liable to catch on something....

    SBA3 looks tempting but as mentioned above, it's unclear ATF will approve.
    Last edited by CrowCommand; 03-18-18 at 06:28.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    872
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TED View Post
    I'm very concerned regarding the SB Tactical SBA3 because they say that it uses a standard carbine buffer. My fear is that ATF might try to call it constructive possession or some crap like that.

    For that reason I am leaning again more towards the tailhook as it says it uses a proprietary receiver extension.

    TED
    Quote Originally Posted by CrowCommand View Post

    SBA3 looks tempting but as mentioned above, it's unclear ATF will approve.
    ATF is 100% ok with a pistol using a carbine extension as long as there is no stock attached.

    Why would they take issue with a brace that attaches to a carbine extension in place of a stock?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    388
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tx_Aggie View Post
    ATF is 100% ok with a pistol using a carbine extension as long as there is no stock attached.

    Why would they take issue with a brace that attaches to a carbine extension in place of a stock?
    I guess because then owning a spare stock could be construed as "constructive possession"? It really shows how foolish and draconian SBR law is.

    This wasn't a deal breaker for me, I just liked the GHW brace better.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •