Using the LAW Gen3 folding adapter with an SBA3 or SBA4 brace

[maximus83]

I'm spec'ing a pistol and had 2 Q's:

* Has anyone used the LAW Gen3 folding adapter with the SB Tactical SBA3 or SBA4 braces? SB says it works. Interested to hear end user feedback on how well it works with these braces.
* Did you have to do something to limit length-of-pull (LOP) in your max extended setting on the brace? Because with both of these, the LAW--which adds 1.3" to your total LOP--would push you over the 13.5" LOP limit that ATF requires. SB says max extended LOP on SBA3 is 12.7" (+ 1.3 = 14" LOP), and on SBA4 it's 13.45" (+1.3 = 14.75" LOP).

Here's what SB Tactical said in email: "If LOP is a worry, we have the LOPL. The LOPL Length of Pull Limiter plug is designed to install on a carbine receiver extension to restrict the length of pull or pre-set the maximum extension to a desired length. Fits SBA3/SBA4 Pistol Stabilizing Braces. "
https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/...-pull-limiter/

[tehpwnag3]

Yeah, compatibility isn't an issue.

Get the limiters. They are slick for what they do. I have an A5 RE and had to remove two notches. Coincidentally, the limited LOP is what I prefer on my carbines. Questions, let me know.

The prevailing theme seems to be "why you let THE MAN sweat you, bro? Just run it". Well, I have a family to support, so I play it safe.

[WickedWillis]

I have one on my 11.5" AR Pistol, with an SBA3 and it works excellent.

You do not count the law folder in the OAL of the weapon, just like you do not count the muzzle device (UNPINNED at least) in the OAL.

[MWAG19919]

Is 13.5" LOP even an actual rule, or just more hand wringing that will lead to another "VFG on pistols greater than 26 inches" situation? I can't seem to find anything other than references to one agent's response to KAK about their blade. Nothing about SBA3 or A4.

Seems to me that LOP, which is measured from the middle of the trigger to the end of the buttstock, would not and/or should not apply to a pistol stabilizing brace, as brace ≠ buttstock. The extra length due to a LAW folder and/or A5 extension just helps the brace fit a wider range of forearm lengths.

[tehpwnag3]

Certainly not an official source, but I have read that beyond 13.5" LOP it brings into question conceal-ability for a pistol. Completely true about a brace not being a stock and therefore what is Length of Pull if not as long as your reach.

This is on the SB Tactical website:

"Length of Pull, or LOP, is the straight line distance measured from the middle of the face of the trigger to the end of the gun’s stock or brace in it’s longest configuration. The ATF has advised that a braced pistol with an LOP in excess of 13.5” may constitute a re-design of the host pistol and subject the pistol to restrictions under the National Firearms Act."

https://www.sb-tactical.com/about/compliance-story/

[tehpwnag3]

How do you delete the length of the law folder if it becomes an integral part of the functioning weapon? Honest question.

I have one on my 11.5" AR Pistol, with an SBA3 and it works excellent.

You do not count the law folder in the OAL of the weapon, just like you do not count the muzzle device (UNPINNED at least) in the OAL.

[tehpwnag3]

Again, totally not official, but in this video Lucas and Mike are talking about Lucas' pistol not being able to adjust LOP due to length.



At 4:00 starts the pistol talk, at 9:00 there is more pistol talk particularly surrounding the law folder and the LOP comment.

ETA: He has a SBM4 which is not adjustable. It was hard to spot on my tiny phone screen. Sorry for that. However, with the law folder, he might be at the maximum LOP "allowed".

[MWAG19919]

I just ordered the LOP limiter to be on the safe side. I don't extend the brace all the way anyway, and for $9 peace of mind it's almost a no brainer. The BATFE will inevitably find a way to unconstitutionally restrict us further a year from now...

ATFE should be a store, not a gov't agency.

[WickedWillis]

How do you delete the length of the law folder if it becomes an integral part of the functioning weapon? Honest question.

That was my understanding of it, because it's technically not a permanent part of the firearm. I could be way off-base here, but the vertical foregrip letter was part of the reason; https://www.tacticalshit.com/letters-pistols-atf/

If I'm way off base, then I'm way off base.

(I can't upload or hotlink the copy of the ATF letter, because of the uploader M4C uses)

[tehpwnag3]

Well, first, I think it's your comfort level that dictates what you do, but I think what I have to say might be good news. Mrgunsandgear ran a couple videos recently talking about this exact point. While we know that he isn't ATF, his interpretation was the same as mine and a few others, that the folding mechanism differs on AR's than on, let's say, AK's. In the case of AR's, you need the RE for it to function normally so the folding mechanism becomes part of the length. With the AK, you don't need the folding brace to operate, so it needs to be folded for measurement. Folded and "fully functional" was cited in the letter right after "AOW". We all know that this is not the case for an AR. Does that make sense? I'm always open for further discussion.

ETA: I keep going back to what is being said about "artificial length" and I don't know how this would make sense for an AR to operate without the RE. Sure, on an AK, the folding brace is artificial length.

I know this shit is grey area stuff so, again, let's all go with what's more comfortable for our own piece of mind and situation.

That was my understanding of it, because it's technically not a permanent part of the firearm. I could be way off-base here, but the vertical foregrip letter was part of the reason; https://www.tacticalshit.com/letters-pistols-atf/

If I'm way off base, then I'm way off base.

(I can't upload or hotlink the copy of the ATF letter, because of the uploader M4C uses)