The GOOD DEALs and INTERESTING find thread!

[everready73]

Any info in these?

Wondering the same thing. The specs look decent for the price. Azimuth BCG, Ballistic Advantage barrel, Magpul grip/stock.

These might be a good recomendation for guys that would normally go for something like a Sport 2 or the ruger ar556. Seems to have better parts at a slightly higher cost.

One of the head guys fro Surgeon rifles heads up their bolt guns and they are pretty pricey. Not much info out there on these guys from what i see.

I believe @Stickman knows the guys at Rainier. Any insight?

[fledge]

Rainier is the retailer for that rifle. Here’s info on the company that makes them.


https://bracebuilt.com

[26 Inf]

Not a good deal, just a question/observation:

Since we have multiple manufacturers making brace models of shotguns and AR's, I wonder if ATF will come down on the braces, and restrict them?

[themonk]

Not a good deal, just a question/observation:

Since we have multiple manufacturers making brace models of shotguns and AR's, I wonder if ATF will come down on the braces, and restrict them?

I was hearing they were going to get more into the weeds with it. If you have an LPVO on a AR pistol you would have issues as you cant use an LPVO on an AR pistol as it was intended with a brace. Red dot = good to go.

[WickedWillis]

Not a good deal, just a question/observation:

Since we have multiple manufacturers making brace models of shotguns and AR's, I wonder if ATF will come down on the braces, and restrict them?

Black aces tactical was one of the manufacturers that almost ruined it entirely for everyone the first time by writing a letter to the ATF asking why they couldn't sell the brace on their shotguns. That kicked off the whole "You cannot shoulder a brace!" ordeal that was eventually superseded.

I was hearing they were going to get more into the weeds with it. If you have an LPVO on a AR pistol you would have issues as you cant use an LPVO on an AR pistol as it was intended with a brace. Red dot = good to go.

I have never heard this, furthermore when has any ATF ruling regulated ANY type of optical device or attachment?

[themonk]

Black aces tactical I have never heard this, furthermore when has any ATF ruling regulated ANY type of optical device or attachment?

Just rumblings at this point. It has to do with the intent of the build. Their question is how could your "intent" (which is always their magic word) for it to be a pistol if you have an LPVO on it because you can't use a LPVO while using the brace as intended.

[Stickman]

I believe @Stickman knows the guys at Rainier. Any insight?

Yes, the owner is a good friend, but I don't have any info on those weapons.

[Stickman]

If you have an LPVO on a AR pistol you would have issues as you cant use an LPVO on an AR pistol as it was intended with a brace. Red dot = good to go.

Long distance shooting is inherently more suitable to prone shooting and devices that aid in stabilization (braces, bipods, tripods, barricades etc). The LPVO aids in longer distance shooting in that regard by way of vision enhancement. That the weapon has a bipod, is laid on boards, or thrown on a backpack changes nothing when it comes to use of the firearm and brace combination.

To eliminate vision and stabilization enhancement would be incredibly intolerant of persons with limited capabilities and/ or disabilities.

[26 Inf]

Long distance shooting is inherently more suitable to prone shooting and devices that aid in stabilization (braces, bipods, tripods, barricades etc). The LPVO aids in longer distance shooting in that regard by way of vision enhancement. That the weapon has a bipod, is laid on boards, or thrown on a backpack changes nothing when it comes to use of the firearm and brace combination.

To eliminate vision and stabilization enhancement would be incredibly intolerant of persons with limited capabilities and/ or disabilities.

Stickman, and others, don't get me wrong, I think the NFA, in particular stamps, sucks. That being said, I write, vote, etc. to support of getting rid of such things. But, as long as it is the law I will adhere to it.

Yes, I've pistol-tubed (not braced) my SBR's to test function before sending off for the stamp to make sure the upper-lower-gas combo worked reliably, beyond that I haven't done much with a pistol tube, much less a brace - well, I did carry the first SBR as a pistol with a Law folder in the saddle bag of my Harley for a while, but as soon as the stamp came that stuff stopped.

What my concern is that there are limited numbers of handicapped users actually taking advantage of the whole brace thing. I've never seen one. On the other hand, it is rare for me to see anyone using a brace in the manner in which it was designed. Most users shoulder them with no apologies. This is a planned usage, not inadvertently or in the heat of battle, but rather as an intended use.

So, in my view, the brace simply exploits a loophole in the law allowing folks to circumvent the NFA. Which tends to irk me because of the money I've spent of stamps and the time that I've spent waiting for them to arrive. Once again, I think the majority of the NFA needs to go away, but currently it is the law.

So, in a nutshell, my concern is that as more manufacturers produce braced pistol-ARs, and braced AOW/shotguns, this is liable to appear on the radar of the 'left' and action will be clamored for, thus screwing over everyone, including the legitimate handicapped users, of which I'm sure there are some.

Thank goodness, this is America and we are all certainly entitled to our views, but, this is why I will not own a brace.

[themonk]

So, in a nutshell, my concern is that as more manufacturers produce braced pistol-ARs, and braced AOW/shotguns, this is liable to appear on the radar of the 'left' and action will be clamored for, thus screwing over everyone, including the legitimate handicapped users, of which I'm sure there are some.

100% that's going to happen.