View Full Version : Magpul brace?
Good evening men,
Have just recently picked up my first AR "pistol", no doubt for the same reason most of us have gone this route. I haven't added the Sig "brace" just yet so I'm just running with the buffer tube (not even foamed over). I'm a big fan of Magpul hardware so I'm holding off hoping that they release it's own version. Does anyone here have any rumors or speculation on if Magpul will? Seems like this is really becoming a hot item and I can't see them NOT releasing such an item.
Thanks guys
David
wildcard600
09-15-14, 22:35
I would love to see a magpul brace simply because I am such a fan of most of their other products. the sig brace is a very nice item however, I am very happy with mine.
I hope they release a magpul brace with 6 position length of pull adjustments. Lol!
I hope they release a magpul brace with 6 position length of pull adjustments. Lol!
:sarcastic:
And a nice rubber butt plate!
Call me Eeyore, but I'd be very surprised if BATFE doesn't pull the authorization on braces before too long.
Shhhh...you are not supposed to say things like this!!?
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Call me Eeyore, but I'd be very surprised if BATFE doesn't pull the authorization on braces before too long.
The sensible thing would be to remove SBRs from NFA status. It's fukking retarded.
More braces and more opinion requests might just hasten an end to this whole market through an opinion reversal, which isn't good for anyone, so we'll likely steer clear of any products in this vein. I would prefer to see the ATF realize that this whole SBR thing is silly, as pointed out by the arm brace opinion, so that short barrels are no longer a determinant of NFA status. With all the more strict gun control in many, less free nations around the world, I'm not aware of anyone else that sees barrel length as something that needs to be controlled. It's silly.
evilblackrifle
09-16-14, 17:05
The sensible thing would be to remove SBRs from NFA status. It's fukking retarded.
^^^ This.
Sent using Tapatalk
More braces and more opinion requests might just hasten an end to this whole market through an opinion reversal, which isn't good for anyone, so we'll likely steer clear of any products in this vein. I would prefer to see the ATF realize that this whole SBR thing is silly, as pointed out by the arm brace opinion, so that short barrels are no longer a determinant of NFA status. With all the more strict gun control in many, less free nations around the world, I'm not aware of anyone else that sees barrel length as something that needs to be controlled. It's silly.
Here's to hoping the ATF experiences a moment of clarity with regard to the issue of sbrs
More braces and more opinion requests might just hasten an end to this whole market through an opinion reversal, which isn't good for anyone, so we'll likely steer clear of any products in this vein. I would prefer to see the ATF realize that this whole SBR thing is silly, as pointed out by the arm brace opinion, so that short barrels are no longer a determinant of NFA status. With all the more strict gun control in many, less free nations around the world, I'm not aware of anyone else that sees barrel length as something that needs to be controlled. It's silly.
Further proof that Magpul rocks.
It's not up to the ATF... SBRs are regulated by statute. It is the U.S. Congress and President we would have to sell to get them un-banned.
Blinking Dog
09-17-14, 16:05
It's not up to the ATF... SBRs are regulated by statute. It is the U.S. Congress and President we would have to sell to get them un-banned.
Excellent point. Makes the likelihood...well, unlikely. One could argue that the ATF has in fact done gun enthusiasts quite the favor with its interpretation of the brace.
The whole NFA is a mess. Consider that it regulates "firearms" including...silencers.
thopkins22
09-17-14, 17:19
I don't see them reversing their opinion. I have no doubts that they'd love to reverse it...and probably screamed into a pillow and punched holes in walls upon sending each letter out.
But the reality is that if there's one thing the ATF does not want to **** with, one law they're genuinely afraid of bending(along with every other government agency,) it's the ADA. I have a female friend who suffered a stroke as a baby and does not have much usage of one of her arms...the brace as invented(and "intended") is actually a tremendous benefit for her.
Kalash9305
09-19-14, 15:00
I don't see them reversing their opinion. I have no doubts that they'd love to reverse it...and probably screamed into a pillow and punched holes in walls upon sending each letter out.
But the reality is that if there's one thing the ATF does not want to **** with, one law they're genuinely afraid of bending(along with every other government agency,) it's the ADA. I have a female friend who suffered a stroke as a baby and does not have much usage of one of her arms...the brace as invented(and "intended") is actually a tremendous benefit for her.
Bingo
This is what I said from the very beginning
This thing was designed for disabled vets
The minute the ATF approved it they created their own poison pill
The original brace as designed by SIG is here to stay
I don't see them reversing their opinion. I have no doubts that they'd love to reverse it...and probably screamed into a pillow and punched holes in walls upon sending each letter out.
But the reality is that if there's one thing the ATF does not want to **** with, one law they're genuinely afraid of bending(along with every other government agency,) it's the ADA. I have a female friend who suffered a stroke as a baby and does not have much usage of one of her arms...the brace as invented(and "intended") is actually a tremendous benefit for her.
There's no airquotes needed, it actually WAS intended for disabled persons. The creator, iirc, posted on m4c a couple years ago with the idea and a couple prototypes.
SPARTAN HOPLITE ARMS
09-19-14, 21:53
More braces and more opinion requests might just hasten an end to this whole market through an opinion reversal, which isn't good for anyone, so we'll likely steer clear of any products in this vein. I would prefer to see the ATF realize that this whole SBR thing is silly, as pointed out by the arm brace opinion, so that short barrels are no longer a determinant of NFA status. With all the more strict gun control in many, less free nations around the world, I'm not aware of anyone else that sees barrel length as something that needs to be controlled. It's silly.
I have this feeling they'll change their minds shortly. They just "revised" their position on control/possession of post-86 machine guns being shipped for gunsmithing, repair and refinishing which will basically kill small manufacturers and basically eliminate variances for such things. I have a post sample sent for repairs that's now in limbo because of their nonsense. Now we essentially need what amounts to a love letter to purchase and another to send a gun for repairs because they consider it a transfer to send a post-86 to another dealer. FFLs to which post-86 guns are registered must now personally accompany the firearm and remove it after repairs or secure it so only they have access if it must be left overnight. This is ridiculous and I'm not sure what prompted this nonsense revision other than a desire to restrict post sample guns even further. I've been planning to add CNC and Mill machines to my soon-to-be established storefront so now I'll be forced to push up my timetable if I want to continue to manufacture and do work on my own inventory. They'll reverse whatever they feel like at any time if they get prodded, upset or butthurt about something. They're ridiculous.
Cincinnatus
09-20-14, 00:50
I have this feeling they'll change their minds shortly. They just "revised" their position on control/possession of post-86 machine guns being shipped for gunsmithing, repair and refinishing which will basically kill small manufacturers and basically eliminated variances for such things. I have a post sample sent for repairs that's now in limbo because of their nonsense. Now we essentially need what amounts to a love letter to purchase and another to send a gun for repairs because they consider it a transfer to send a post-86 to another dealer. Registered FFLs must now personally accompany the firearm and remove it after repairs or secure it so only they have access if it must be left overnight. This is ridiculous and I'm not sure what prompted this nonsense revision other than a desire to restrict post sample guns even further. I've been planning to add CNC and Mill machines to my soon-to-be established storefront so now I'll be forced to push up my timetable if I want to continue to manufacture and do work on my own inventory. They'll reverse whatever they fell like at any time if they get prodded, upset or butthurt about something. They're ridiculous.
Arbitrary government, the stuff tyranny is made of. Ours today makes George III look a piker. Lots of unelected bureaucrats holding sway over all sorts of areas far beyond the purview of any justly constituted authority.
I hope the situation with your sample and its repairs gets worked out favorably.
I think you are comparing apples to kumquats in this instance.
I have this feeling they'll change their minds shortly. They just "revised" their position on control/possession of post-86 machine guns being shipped for gunsmithing, repair and refinishing which will basically kill small manufacturers and basically eliminated variances for such things. I have a post sample sent for repairs that's now in limbo because of their nonsense. Now we essentially need what amounts to a love letter to purchase and another to send a gun for repairs because they consider it a transfer to send a post-86 to another dealer. Registered FFLs must now personally accompany the firearm and remove it after repairs or secure it so only they have access if it must be left overnight. This is ridiculous and I'm not sure what prompted this nonsense revision other than a desire to restrict post sample guns even further. I've been planning to add CNC and Mill machines to my soon-to-be established storefront so now I'll be forced to push up my timetable if I want to continue to manufacture and do work on my own inventory. They'll reverse whatever they fell like at any time if they get prodded, upset or butthurt about something. They're ridiculous.
I still think there might be some minute market space for an SB15 type bottom half to the UBR (as a separate piece), but that would probably be too strictly useful for disabled shooters and less of a workaround for BATFE retardation.
SPARTAN HOPLITE ARMS
09-20-14, 22:47
I think you are comparing apples to kumquats in this instance.
The comparison is different though I think the mindset at ATF, specifically NFA division and FTB, are the same in that they can change their minds at whim and cause financial ruin to manufacturers, dealers and importers. The post-86 stuff is more heavily controlled, I'll grant you that, but the premise is the same. One day it's perfectly ok to own or do something and the next you're in doo doo. I see so many of these braces floating around that I just get this vibe, considering their past revisions upon revisions, that they'll decide "hey man...these people are cheating us out of NFA money and they're using them like rifles. We better stop this now." The next thing you know is poof, you've got contraband.
crazymoose
09-22-14, 00:14
... they'll decide "hey man...these people are cheating us out of NFA money and they're using them like rifles. We better stop this now." The next thing you know is poof, you've got contraband.
Between inflation and the inherent inefficiency of governmental bureaucracies, I would be surprised if they weren't losing money processing NFA items. I seriously wonder if this did not factor in the decision. However, I agree that if the loophole becomes too well known (some reporter or senator decides to run with it), the pressure would be on to reverse the approval.
Between inflation and the inherent inefficiency of governmental bureaucracies, I would be surprised if they weren't losing money processing NFA items. I seriously wonder if this did not factor in the decision. However, I agree that if the loophole becomes too well known (some reporter or senator decides to run with it), the pressure would be on to reverse the approval.
Seems like all it would take to ban the SB15 Brace is to have some dirtbag commit a crime with a pistol equipped with one.
Seems like all it would take to ban the SB15 Brace is to have some dirtbag commit a crime with a pistol equipped with one.
Because the same crime couldn't have been committed with an AR pistol without the SB15? Seems the argument would be to outlaw semiauto assault type weapons or high capacity mags...oh, wait...
Chrisreedrules
09-24-14, 10:00
I don't think the ATF will be reversing this one... I'm pretty sure most would just SBR a lower (if they don't already have one) and carry on if this ever did happen. A repeal or revision to the NFA is long overdue. Especially for SBRs and suppressors. Unfortunately I only see laws and restrictions becoming more and more constricting over time.
JAustin316
09-24-14, 15:58
Further proof that Magpul rocks.
Did they need any more proof? JK
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.