I've owned the GHW Tailhook setup for about a week now, having sold my SBT EVO brace to pay for it.  I haven't taken it shooting yet, but I thought I'd share my thoughts since both are scarce right now and information is scarcer.

Setup and Features



The EVO brace is ready to go right out of the box.  Feature wise, it's pretty basic.  I wish it would have had a QD sling point, but it looks like Midwest Industries is coming out with an adapter to do that.



My Tailhook is set up on a CZ factory cheek rest and a home made 3D printed adapter.  I had the adapter set up to give me a 13 1/4" length of pull, but my newest adapter version is set up for 12 1/4", which improves its functionality as a brace and gives a very aggressive PDW stance when shouldering.  I also have a CZ AR pistol tube adapter, but I was able to get my 3D printed adapter working and didn't use it.



It has a QD point nicely integrated, which is good.  

Note that every adapter design I've seen so far uses the factory roll pin to secure the adapter in place on the cheek rest and ads stability, preventing a quick change to the stock component.  I don't know where the ATF will end up long term, but I would bet that unless they reverse themselves again this setup will be good to go.  But I'm no lawyer...

Build Quality
The SBT EVO brace is very well built.  Molding is excellent and the folding mechanism locks up like a bank vault.

The Tailhook is similarly very well machined.  Mine had very few tooling marks, and the finish is even and durable.  The factory CZ donor stock needed some work to get the hinge mechanism to deploy smoothly.  I had to take out the release button and cake the area with gun grease like my EVO brace did from the factory.  Still, the CZ hinge isn't as solid as the SBT Evo.



Brace Functionality
The SBT brace concept was designed for disabled shooters, and it shows.  When properly secured it's very stable shooting one handed.  The problem is that it is very awkward and slow to get into position.  

The Tailhook far better for quick deployment and getting into position.  You can flick the support down in a second and get right to shooting.  It also allows more flexibility for shooting from awkward positions. Personally, I like this much better as I have the arm strength and dexterity to not need the extra support.  Frankly,  the Tailhook is so simple and straightforward it's brilliant.

Shoulderability
The SBT EVO is very easily shouldered, and it had an identical 13 1/4" length of pull. I found that the sharp corners of the end of the brace portion dug into my shoulder during shooting.  Not enough to be painful, but not like an actual stock, either.  When shouldered, the brace is very stable and I didn't feel any play in the setup.  The brace straps tended to scratch my cheek and snag on my shoulder a bit which was more of a mild annoyance than a real problem.  I left them in place at all times to prevent redesigning the brace.

The Tailhook is much better, using the ergonomics of the factory cheek rest and providing a larger surface area and softer edges to the shoulder.  It's stout and robust, although the flip down support can move just a tiny bit.  I also like that it's very low profile and doesn't seem to get in the way when shouldered like the tail end of the EVO brace did.  I'd say the  combination of the CZ cheek rest  and the Tailhook is much more shoulderable than the SBT EVO, although neither compares to the full CZ factory stock.

Aesthetics
This is a matter of personal preference.  I think both are handsome solutions, but I think the CZ cheek rest/Tailhook looks the best and most integrated, as would be expected.

Cost
This is obviously a wild card, but I would expect one day the EVO brace will fall between $175-$225 on the street, with GHW quoting in the mid $200s for the Tailhook setup from their shop.  The advantage of the Tailhook for me is that I now have the full CZ stock (I've shipped the actual stock portion away to avoid running afoul of the rules) so when I form 1 the gun I'll have already made that investment.

Still, unless the Tailhook comes down in price it'll be the more expensive solution. I think it's worth it. When we finally get factory adapters, I think it'll be even better.

Overall
Overall, my pick is the Tailhook.  It's a better brace for my needs, it's more shoulderable and it looks better on my setup.  I like that  it has a QD mount and I like the ergonomics of the CZ factory cheek rest.  I think GHW  has  really hit on something here and I  think this concept is the future of braces for the general population.  Hopefully they can get factory adapters ready soon and start offering a turnkey solution.

The SBT EVO, if you can find one, is the plug-and-play solution.  It just works.  If they can make them in quantity it'll continue to sell well.

Final Thoughts
My original intent with my Scorpion was to SBR it and use the factory stock.  While that's still on the table my enthusiasm for the process is pretty low now that I have an excellent brace setup on my gun.  I'm going to hold off converting my pistol into an SBR to see how wait times pan out and how the legalities of the ATF's decision on shouldering braced pistols comes to reality.  At this point I don't think there's much advantage to the functionality of an SBR over the versatility of keeping it a braced pistol for me.

So these are as scarce as the SB Tactical at this point right?  Only place to purchase is GHW themselves?

I preordered mine directly from GHW. Looks like they're sold out now. We live in crazy times.

William

For your sake, I hope you don't become a test case in spite of your begging to be one. I really don't think it would take much of a lawyer to convince 12 idiots that the above translates to: "I don't want to pay the tax or wait for the stamp, so I'll just use a "brace" as a stock instead, it's pretty much the same".

All of that said, nice comparison / mini review.

That's the difference between what you read, and what I wrote.  I'll take a note from our friends at the ATF and clarify.

I've shouldered plenty of CZ Scorp carbines.  My preferred stock position is the 2nd position, which translates to a 13.5" length of pull.  My brace is set up to be at 12.25", mostly to improve appearance, stability with my adapter and performance as a brace.  

With a real stock, you get immediate adjustability, which I don't get with the brace.  And I could use a VFG, which I have on all my other rifles (and SBRs).  I'm also legal to compete in USPSA, Steel Challenge and a host of other action rifle leagues which I can't do with it configured as a pistol.  I'm accepting reduced functionality to maintain the intent to keep it a pistol.

With regards to shouldering, I should clarify that SBT<GHW<<CZ Stock.  There's no way around it.  The GHW is a very braceable stock.  But it's not a stock.  In the same way that an AR PDW stock is still a stock, but is less good of a stock than a pistol tube and Tailhook.  There's no getting around reality.  A butt-end device isn't good or bad because of what someone says it is.  It is good or bad because of how well it does what it needs to do.

So the question is, should i just keep it a pistol with those limitations, or should pay a tax to get permission to wait 12 months for permission to take advantage of certain legal definitions that marginally improve the performance of my gun?  That calculus is more complicated.  But if things change it shift again.  Frankly, before the revised brace guidance and the Tailhook I was leaning the other way.

Not trying to chew you out or cause a fight.  Just frustrated that this is even a thing.  I feel like the terrorists are winning or something.

And while the ATF is reading, I do hate the NFA.  Mostly because I'm an engineer and I know that attempts to ban technology by definition are a fool's game.  The existence of braces doesn't change the NFA.  It proves how foolish it is to begin with.  When people split hairs over what kind of loctite they use on their brace or whether releasing a trigger is the same as pulling it, it fails the most basic test of good policy.  And when that policy threatens to throw a law-abiding citizen like myself in jail while causing no lost sleep for a dangerous criminal, bad policy becomes worse policy.

William

Well said!

That's good because it would be counterproductive and I'm not your real adversary (that would be Government agents and low IQ jury members)--neither one of which cares about logic or common sense or good arguments. Personally, i don't believe in any gun laws. Prison rules preventing inmates from having them maybe, but laws? Waste of time.

+1