I've had a few ideas for making my own brace or making something that might look more aesthetically pleasing to me, yet could easily be as much of a brace or better (to me) than others on the market.  

If yo buy an SB, sig brace or Blade, there is the comfort of an ATF approval letter and on ones own, its a little more perceived risk if an LEO stops you or while at the range etc.

I have no desire to make anything commercially just things I feel might be better looking or comfortable as an arm brace. To me, it seems logical that one's brace is personal ergonomic attribute and making one custom would be laudable and legal as long as the intention was legally built as a brace and not as a stock I have no interest to poke the lion by sending a letter to the ATF either.

Also what do the educated members here say about using a stock as a basis for said brace - Once a stock always a stock?

For example - I have some old DPMS wire stocks - could cut off the rear portion (where it would be previously shouldered) and add a brace that would actually be comfortable and made custom to my arms.

Sounds like you are playing with Fire.
Remember when it comes to NFA violation accusations you are guilty until proven innocent.

This.

Both Sig and the company that made the Shockwave brace sent samples to the ATF for determination and received official documentation that stated that their products were not butt stocks and a shooter would not violate federal law by installing and shooting from the shoulder.  You will have no proof that what you designed was not infact a buttstock, even if you don't ever shoulder it.

Caution.  My understanding is the part in red is incorrect information!  Re-read the letters (and see below).

ETA:  https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download



That said, IANAL.  YMMV.  Good luck, and god-speed.  

Techically the way the letter reads if you buy the brace with the intention of shooting from the shoulder it magically becomes a SBR, but if you bought it with the intent to check weld it, but at some point it comes in contact with your shoulder as long as that was not the original intent, it is still a pistol, muddy enough for you?


As far as the OPs question the only way I would feel comfortable doing what you say, is if you were to send a sample of your brace to the ATF tech branch for approval, otherwise you may have just put a stock on your pistol and made it a SBR. Honestly OP I would stick with one of the many commercial braces available SIG makes a bunch of them in different sizes and shapes, the shockwave IMO is better than anything SIG makes, and comes in all kinds of colors.

I was gonna add a Thordsen brace to my first AR pistol build then thought about just cutting down an M4 stock I had lying around to look like the Thordsen setup since it already had a CAA saddle & tube.

But I backed off for the same reason, without an approval letter to reference I have no idea what the fallout may be from a homemade setup.

This!!!  Not sure what the deal is with all these posts about braces, and how to make/modify them??  

We are lucky the ATF even approves them in the first place.....don't poke the bear!!!!

Agreed

I hope someday we can live in a world where anything below 16" is a pistol and SBR becomes obsolete.

The point of a brace is to stabilize the forearm. If that is the intent and it does that, fine. One of the important considerations having read the threads here with the posted info direct from the ATF is they see any flat vertical surface on the rear of the brace as capable of being a shoulder stock. That leads to the SIG and Shockwave only being as thick as the edge of the material formed. They look all cool in profile for marketing purposes, from the shoulder view there's not much to go on. One or two thin cross sections of polymer.

That goes along with one members attempt to stack a rail mount fore end hand stop under the tube, which made for a vestigal shoulder stock and the ATF called him out on it in the response. No, you can't have a flat vertical surface - the one important feature.

If the cheek pieces we see had more surface area over the buffer tube in a flat vertically oriented plane they wouldn't likely be approved, either. Cutting down an MFT Minimalist might get you by - without a letter of approval the ATF does seem to consider you guilty until a judge says you aren't. That's called enforcement from their point of view.

There is a simple buffer tube stock plate that is basically a wire loop, it's called a shoulder stock, so the idea of using an enlarged sling loop probably won't work either.

Goes to the point, tho - pistols don't have stocks. In 5.56, an AR pistol doesnt have significant recoil, they can be fired holding the stock against the chin and that was the most common way in Basic Training to demonstrate the LACK of recoil. For the most part a rear stock on the weapon only stabilizes the back sight - and since the gun is mostly intended to shoot at targets under 100m, it's not a major issue. It's a 2 MOA gun being aimed at 18 MOA targets, whether deer hunting or silhouettes. Stabilize it against your cheek or nose, it's not going to knock you down and injure you.

I shoot mine nose to the charging handle with the sling over my off shoulder pulling FORWARD. Tensioned I get it pretty tight just to reach my nose. I don't shoot squared up, I shoot from a side stance to brace the off arm against the chest. It's stable enough.

All the internet interest in getting a fake legal stock on the AR pistol is really an excuse to sidestep going out and learning how to shoot it better by practicing. That takes work.

Please correct me if I am wrong, from what I have read it would be legal to use a full length rifle buffer tube on a pistol build (minus stock). If that is true putting ones cheek on the bare tube would leave the tube 1/2" or so from ones shoulder.
If in the excitement of a fire fight, that tube were to contact ones shoulder would there be a legal issue?
if not a LAW folder would be the way to go.

FPNI

I don't understand why there is still confusion on the legality of pistol braces touching one's shoulder.

That you, Gecko45?

I'd bet on 'once a stock always a stock'.

Any mods you do don't legally change a stock into anything else. Every brace on the market was approved on a case by case basis. I can cut an m4 stock down so it's functionally the same as my shockwave or add a CAA saddle and cut it down like a Thordsen, but I can't point to any law that says it's OK.

Common sense would say it's OK. Laws have no obligation to common sense.

OP, just do what you want but don't post anything here or on any forum about it.

I swear I've never seen so many peeps get all worked-up about the "brace issue".

The brace detractors are getting worse than 922r Nazis.....Guess they paid for too many tax stamps.