What difference does the SB15 make?

[Naxet1959]

It's been called a gamechanger and lots of folks have been buying them. What actual difference do these make versus just a plain Phase 5 tube with the cushioning on it? I am curious and don't want to spend the money just for cosmetic reasons.

[Inkslinger]

Why don't you try reading the 13 page thread on it instead of starting another?

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?118998-New-Stabilizing-Brace-for-AR15-Pistol-quot-SB15-quot

[fferik]

It's been called a gamechanger and lots of folks have been buying them. What actual difference do these make versus just a plain Phase 5 tube with the cushioning on it? I am curious and don't want to spend the money just for cosmetic reasons.
When the brace is shouldered it provides a feel closer to that of an SBR. As it is a brace, you don't have to pay the tax stamp, file a form 1 and wait for it to come back if you're building your own, have travel restrictions, etc.

[crazymoose]

To me, it feels just like a fixed stock. Many seem to disagree. Looks like crap, but who cares?

[Renegade04]

It's been called a gamechanger and lots of folks have been buying them. What actual difference do these make versus just a plain Phase 5 tube with the cushioning on it? I am curious and don't want to spend the money just for cosmetic reasons.

Personally, I am perfectly satisfied with my Phase 5 buffer tube. I have no need or desire for the SB-15. To me, they are for the guys who want a faux SBR. They want the looks, but they do not want to go through the process of being able to own a legal SBR. I have my one AR pistol, one SBR, and one more SBR in the works. My AR pistol looks like an AR pistol. That is the way they should be, in my opinion.

[DWood]

That's why it's good to have choices I guess. I prefer function over looks so my pistols wear braces. I also have an SBR.

[Safetyhit]

Personally, I am perfectly satisfied with my Phase 5 buffer tube. I have no need or desire for the SB-15. To me, they are for the guys who want a faux SBR. They want the looks, but they do not want to go through the process of being able to own a legal SBR. I have my one AR pistol, one SBR, and one more SBR in the works. My AR pistol looks like an AR pistol. That is the way they should be, in my opinion.


While DWood already covered the point I'll go a step further and say that unlike many others this particular accessory seems to be much less about looks than practical functionality.

[Naxet1959]

I was looking to see if this was just a looks kind of a thing or if it truly made a difference. Thanks to those with SBRs that contributed. You are why I come to m4... I had in fact read the full 13 page thread but so very much of it didn't address functionality but rather the law, the look and many other comments that didn't help me much. Now that the early adopters have had a chance to vet it, I feel better knowing I'm not buying into a passing fad.

[JG007]

Personally, I am perfectly satisfied with my Phase 5 buffer tube. I have no need or desire for the SB-15. To me, they are for the guys who want a faux SBR. They want the looks, but they do not want to go through the process of being able to own a legal SBR. I have my one AR pistol, one SBR, and one more SBR in the works. My AR pistol looks like an AR pistol. That is the way they should be, in my opinion.



I never heard one respected person say the pistols were legitimate using just the buffer tube, now it seems agreed upon that the sig brace has completely changed this

[peeker]

I think all the 'just fill out your form 1 and get a real sbr' guys should climb down from the soapbox and accept the fact that some people adhere to the idea that you shouldn't have to pay $200 for the 'privalege' (sp?) of owning a sbr. The brace is a legal way for them to, in their minds, tell the government to shove it. If thats what they chose to spend their money on, so be it. Be glad they still have that choice.

[DWood]

For me, it's not about telling the Gov I don't want to play their NFA game. I already have an SBR so I'm already in the game. I bought a Draco AK pistol many years ago, when they were $400. It has been stored since I bought it because I considered it a toy, not for serious use. I bought the SB 47 brace when I saw it, and was very plesed to see how it turned my "toy" into a bad ass little gun that handles like a very compact AK. Now, it's a very serious gun.

Once I realized how it could change the functionality of a pistol into something useful instead of novel, I was all in. I built 2 pistols with specific functions. One is a 7.5" AR I can throw in the truck without worrying about a registered SBR being stolen or deployed. The other is a 4.5" 9 mm with dedicated suppressor and 9" rail. Neither one required a stamp ($400 savings), a delay waiting for approval, or complications in passing them on in the event of my death. Both of them handle like very short rifles. I would have never considered building a pistol if the brace did not come out.

[Kalash9305]

I have multiple AR's, multiple SB15 pistol lowers and more than one sub 16" upper
I'm about 6'0" with average arm length
Functionally there is zero difference between a stock and the brace.
I can set the LOP wherever I want it and the brace won't move a millimeter.
Just like I do with my M4 waffles or my MAGPUL's.
That is all that really matters.
To me there is no argument to make for a registered SBR.
When BCM starts putting out pistol lowers, as they are right this moment, it's quite apparent the jig is up.

[Chrisreedrules]

For me it has nothing to do with cosmetics and everything to do with function and flexibility. It functions similar to a stock when shouldered. Sig knows it, we know it, and the ATF knows it. I don't think it's going anywhere. It has become a perfectly viable option to those who don't want to make a trust, file all the forms, and wait almost a year for a friggin tax stamp on a weapon they can't travel with (easily at least), can't legally conceal, and for all intensive purposes can't use for anything other than a range toy. Some people look down their noses at an AR pistol and some people are certainly going to disagree with my previous point, but the facts speak for themselves: I can shoulder it and place hits on target just as easily as an SBR with a positionable stock, I can throw it in a back pack and roll right out the door with it depending on if I have my CCW and my state's laws, I can travel with it for any number of reasons that may make it a lot easier than transporting an SBR. What if you wanted to take a vehicle-bourne class from a certain instructor a state or two over? You don't want to take your 16" M4 and it's a head ache and a half to travel with your SBR. Solution: AR pistol with Sig brace.

[wirides]

Why is it a "headache and a half" since all you need to do with a send in a simple form. More bs, certainly. But it can't be what everyone is making it out to be.

[Chrisreedrules]

Why is it a "headache and a half" since all you need to do with a send in a simple form. More bs, certainly. But it can't be what everyone is making it out to be.

One more thing to worry about in my already busy life. Why not forego that and save a couple hundred bucks by just getting the brace? Sure, it can be a pain not having a "stock" that is easily positionable. But if you know your length of pull it shouldn't be hard to set the brace for that and run it. I'd rather have SBRs than AR pistols as
I'm sure most of us would. The stocks look better than the brace, more ease of use, vfg, etc... But a short barreled pistol with a brace retains 90% of the function of a stock without all the restrictions. Ymmv.

[Leaveammoforme]

A pistol with a SB15 is not as good as a SBR. I wish people would stop trying to justify as such. If you live in a SBR ban state, it's as close as you can get but it's not the same. There are 50 bazillion different AR stocks for a reason and somehow everyone that owns a SB15 is content with it. People who talk smack about NFA hurdles and loops to jump through have obviously never gone through the process. It's simple. Dot your i's, cross your t's and spell your name right, done.

If you want a pistol with a brace at least get the Shockwave Blade next month. I have shot a SB15 and Blade side by side and the Blade is what you want. Check this thread.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?156387-Seeking-input-on-Shockwave-Blade-AR-pistol-stabilizer-we-re-developing

[Zim]

For me it has nothing to do with cosmetics and everything to do with function and flexibility. It functions similar to a stock when shouldered. Sig knows it, we know it, and the ATF knows it. I don't think it's going anywhere. It has become a perfectly viable option to those who don't want to make a trust, file all the forms, and wait almost a year for a friggin tax stamp on a weapon they can't travel with (easily at least), can't legally conceal, and for all intensive purposes can't use for anything other than a range toy. Some people look down their noses at an AR pistol and some people are certainly going to disagree with my previous point, but the facts speak for themselves: I can shoulder it and place hits on target just as easily as an SBR with a positionable stock, I can throw it in a back pack and roll right out the door with it depending on if I have my CCW and my state's laws, I can travel with it for any number of reasons that may make it a lot easier than transporting an SBR. What if you wanted to take a vehicle-bourne class from a certain instructor a state or two over? You don't want to take your 16" M4 and it's a head ache and a half to travel with your SBR. Solution: AR pistol with Sig brace.

It's one form, ~three weeks is not "almost a year." The form to allow travel with a SBR is good for a period of one year, can be applied to three weapons per form, and takes about two weeks to get back. You seem to be full of excuses and short on these "facts" that you espouse.

I'm not even going to touch your desire to CCW a "rifle."

[Alaskapopo]

I am doing a pistol build because of the brace. Before the brace the effort to get a SBR simple was not worth it for something I may or may not like. But if its this easy I am going to do one. It is a game changer for me.
I went through the hurdles to get a short barrel shotgun back in 2000 and it is a pain in the ass. Anyone who does not like the brace is simply pissed off that normal folks can get a SBR now with no effort.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

It's one form, ~three weeks is not "almost a year." The form to allow travel with a SBR is good for a period of one year, can be applied to three weapons per form, and takes about two weeks to get back. You seem to be full of excuses and short on these "facts" that you espouse.

I'm not even going to touch your desire to CCW a "rifle."

Honestly why do you care if we don't want to go through the headache or not.

[Zim]

What anyone chooses to do or not do is their business, but he negatively exaggerated the requirements in order to justify that decision and presented them on a public forum as "facts."

[Alaskapopo]

Getting an SBR can be quite intimidating depending on where you live. The brace takes zero effort.
Pat

[Iraqgunz]

The SB15 has been discussed as pointed out above. The SBR v. Pistol thing has also been debated numerous times.