This would seem to include M4 style buffer tube IME.

"? Any shared or interchangeable parts with known shoulder stocks; and

? Any other feature of the brace that improves the weapon's effectiveness from the shoulder-firing position without providing a corresponding benefit to the effectiveness of the stability and support provided by the brace's use on the arm."

Source:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces

Yes, but If you "dispose" of the brace, these become irrelevant. The question was about the M4 buffer tube being OK by itself after the brace was removed.

At that point, it's just a tube to house the buffer system. (Provided you don't have a spare stock laying around.  Constructive possession and all that.)

i haven't followed braces closely having decided early on that an upside down "U" that needed a velcro strap to stay in place on your arm was a silly design where a simple "J" shaped hook works better as well as allowing you to slip your arm in and out at will.  
Now having seen the SBA3 brace, how can anyone honestly think that it isn't intended to extend into a shoulder stock?  IMHO a "reasonable man" looking at it will see it as a transparent attempt to sneak a shoulder stock in as a pistol brace.  it was begging the atf to jump in  and assert themselves and now it looks like they have succeeded.  thanks SB Tactical

Have you seen the original design? It happens to be an upside down u with straps. You should submit your design, and save us all.

Look up the tail hook brace, it's pretty much the "J" shaped hook you describe.  They haven't listed it as an exception.  It's on the chopping block right alongside all the other braces.

And yes, the original, original, original brace first submitteded to the technical branch of the BATFE for them to okay was of the upside down "U" shape with strap and was conceivably even more stock like then a lot of modern more minimalistic braces:

https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/New_Stabilizing_Brace_for_AR15_Pistol_SB15/122-592191/








Notice also the original submission fit an A1 "rifle" type buffer tube!  Wasn't a pistol specific buffer tube, it was a "rifle" tube that would fit an A1 stock or A2 stock with the addition of the A2 spacer.  And there have since been BATFE approval letters for braces to fit the carbine buffer tube.  So what kind of tube a brace fits never had anything to do with it from the beginning.

Now - I personally - have always avoided the carbine buffer tube and braces to fit same on braces pistols.  Not because there was anything wrong with it technically.  Just way too easy for corrupt government to do slight of hand and pop off the brace and pop a carbine stock on and claim they found it that way.  It could be done in like 3-sonds flat without tools.  So I have stuck to pistol specific tubes with a couple A1 tubes because at least then you need a hex wrench to pull the rear screw and A1 stocks aren't near as common and even with the little more common A2 stock you need to have the spacer and longer screw all prepped and ready.  Significantly more time and effort required plus you can use a 1/4" drill bit to remove the threads from the A1 tube for the rear stock screw so you can't screw a stock on that tube if you don't need the rear screw capability for the brace if you were using the brace and not just a smooth tube only.

Exactly why I went with Shockwave 1.0 setscrew-in-place braces.  It requires tools to change the length to make it "stock-like" and the diameter is the same as other "pistol tubes" - stocks will not fit at all,

Is it? Unites States v Jimenez

@Quarterbore

Yup, 50-BMG pistol does exist.  There is also at least one example of a single shot 600-NitroExpress pistol floating around out there.

Also, all those 460-S&W & 500-S&W big monster revolvers and those BFR revolvers in 45-70 and such.

Actually got a "Fud" I knows attention about this issue when I pointed out his "Taurus Ragging Bull" that he has a scope mounted on and he lives to hunt with could fall under these edicts and be reclassified as an AOW and get him a felony conviction with 10-years in prison conceivably.

That shut his mouth fast when he tried to push a "those AR & AK & MP5 pistols were never real pistols even before braces, you don't need those anyway" line out.

Pssst, your fudd is showing.

So how exactly does that blade work to stabilize shooting with one hand? Unless you modify it with a strap, it just looks like a flat uncomfortable stock to me. The tailhook mod 2 works very well as intended, and it's buffer tube is incapable of accepting a standard stock. Same with the mod 1, It works well as intended, and is designed to fit a pistol buffer tube.

It's designed to ideally be used with a strap for best effect.  The original blade also used a pistol buffer tube but had little dimples drilled into it where the set screw on the blade could go into.

They don't have to prosecute millions of people, they just have to have their attention directed at you for any number of reasons,

you shoot someone in self defense, but the DA doesn't think so.
you are red flagged by an anonymous tip
your wife wakes up and decides she is leaving and accuses you of domestic violence.
you get rear ended on your way to the range with it in the trunk and is seen by the officer on the scene
your house catches fire and the firearm in question is seen by some anti-gun firefighter or cop.
etc, etc etc.


my philosophy is to stay legal until staying legal doesn't mater anymore, because if you don't and are caught, you will not be able to protect your family when the time comes because you will be in a cage and all your firearms will be gone with your felon status.

Don't peak too early

you can have a spare stock as spare to the stock on a rifle.

This basically

I wouldn't break the law they have unlimited resources and the average public doesn't understand this stuff enough to get behind you and they will make you look like some serious criminal. It will ruin your life if you got caught messing around for something so stupid.

Stop your nonsense already.

The KAK shockwave brace has anapproval letter correct?

So it should be legal to install on pistols with less than a 16-in barrel correct?

the letters

There are several braces that have manufacturer letters. The letter doesn't matter according to the latest issue, it depends on how the rest of your gun is configured. They won't say exactly what they are, but they will know it when they see it. That is the beauty of working for the atf, you make up shit as you go along, unlike the other regulating agencies.
Imagine if the epa put out a nebulous letter like that, saying your industry might be polluting, we aren't going to give you set guidelines, just pay you a visit and decide when we get there if we are going to shut you down or fine you.

This is actually coming.

So this may be a stupid question-

Does any of this matter if there is no brace and no way to attach a brace/stock (like a traditional pistol buffer tube)?

Asked another way:

Do the attachments and calibers, etc. they think that could constitute an SBR have any bearing on an unbraced pistol?

Hope this makes sense. Any input appreciated.

this is what im doing.
i have approved with letter braces.
i have SB braces.
i ordered plain tubes.
if braces are outlawed, ill destroy them. if SB is outlawed, ill destroy them. ill do what is legal since i cannot SBR. we all follow the laws. we all say come and take it. we all act like tough guys here and there. but when it comes down to it, we all on arf and all gun owners abide by the laws. its a fact.
cover your bases. i cannot register in CT as SBR. so all of us are all are coving our asses with any possible outcome. i suggest you do the same.
if there isnt a brace on your tube, and your tube cannot be "constructive possession" (accept milspec stock/brace, you SHOULD be okay. im not a lawyer, and no one knows for sure.  dont over think it, do what you can to try to be legal regardless of the outcome. nothing is in stone YET.

The specific submission letter from Shockwave to the BATFE and the responding approval letter back to Shockwave from BATFE concerning the original version-1 specifically mention use of the shockwave blade brace to "stabilize" the weapon for more accurate shooting through friction between the side of the brace and the side of the shooters forearm.

Then separately mention that the user may add a strap of their choice to "both support and stabilize" at the users discretion.

I have tried it that way an if you twist on the pistol grip with your wrist when shooting one handed at extension so that it tightens the bare brace into the side of your arm it does indeed make the sights settle down a little and the little red dot not wiggle around as much on the target (red dot sights is mainly what I use).

It is tiring to use that way of course but it does work  to provide a marginal but noticeable improvement.

I much prefer the Shockwave v1 because I add my own strap in the form of a bungee cord (as in from the hardware store, not the nasty black rubber ones the ones with the round surgical tubing core and soft cloth covering) that is quick and easy to keep one end attached to the brace.  A couple quick and silent wraps around my arm and hook and it works very well much better then trying to thread my arm through the upside down "U" and secure the noisy velcro straps on an SB type brace (especially when hunting) and when not in use the bungee cord pulls double duty as a sling.  Like this:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGGoxf1JDSD/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CGG2X70po0V/

Also, With the blade type braces where you add your own strap the blade is centered and your arm goes to the outside side of the blade.  For me this is more comfortable and gives a more natural point of aim then being dead center under the buffer tube like most SB two flap braces and even the ones that you can twist and cant off to the side to put your arm in the same position thus looses ambidextrous capability without taking time to twist it to cant to the other side.  Where as with the blade type braces with your own add on strap you can swap right over to shooting on the other arm quickly with no issues or adjustment.

And last of all the Shockwave v1 is cheap especially after the v2 came out and so are bungee cords.  And let's be honest - so am I, cheap that is.

There is another remedy the ATF, or anyone else, hasn't thought about.  And that is: develop a disability in your arm/hand so that you can use the brace without fear.  

Kidding aside, the fact is people buy/build these firearms to avoid the SBR route.  So, registering them as SBRs is a moot point.  Adding a 16in barrel is a moot point too, you bought/built the damn thing because you wanted the SBR style without going the SBR route.

The two obvious solutions are either roll the dice, or remove the brace and run it with the naked tube.  Alright, maybe wrap a cloth around it to make it more comfortable for cheek weld.

Which just goes to prove the "common use" argument along with the existing "militia use applicable" argument with most of our military running SBR M4 carbines from the two major SCOTUS precidents the former more recent then the later that the NFA categorization of SBRs is UnConstitutional.

It's also stupid, pointless, and unlikely to hold up under strict scrutiny.

Existing SCOTUS precident is for SBSs not SBRs with shotguns having a minimal military and thus militia application and at that time no known world wide military issue of short barrel shotguns with the few uses of martial shotguns being trench guns in WW1 and POW camp guards all long-ish barrel guns.

Not to mention the argument that an SBS is likely to be an "area effect weapon" AKA = Kill Em All And Let God Sort Them Out.  At least within the potentially much larger pattern area of a excessively short barreled shotgun when loaded with antipersonnel shot size loads (buckshot).

An SBR has no such issue as an "area effect weapon" to be used to scare all the sheeple with exaduration of this potential and as I said SCOTUS precident is that 2A protection only applies to weapons suitable for militia service (whether owned for that purpose or not, that precident is just about the kind of weapons that are protected by 2A) and there is huge body of evidence that SBRs are highly pertenant to militia use.  SBSs even know still have very little military issue world wide, it isn't zero anymore but it's still the considerable exception not the rule.

This is the only correct course, if you stand for liberty.

It seems that the focus of the Federal Register letter is braces.  However they talk in several places about using two hands as one factor in determining if the brace is really intended to be a stock.  


So what about using a regular pistol buffer tube and single point sling that attaches to a loop on the receiver end plate.  If you shoot using two hands, one on the grip and the other on the hand guard ahead of the receiver,  to press the pistol away from the body so as to tension the sling and provide some stabilization and improve aim.   Reading the letter several times the key factor that all the other definitions depend on is the brace.  


typical sling attachment point:
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/lbe-unlimited-ar-15-ambidextrous-sling-mount-receiver-end-plate-steel-black-aramepl/FC-784682014554.html

All the suspect "characteristics" seem to start from position that the weapon is equipped with a brace.  However, in several places the letter references the weight of the weapon requiring two hands as a factor in determining it is not a pistol.   Perhaps a topic for a comment letter since two handed stances have a long history that pre-dates AR type weapons.

No brace, no problem? Single point sling and two-handed stance OK?

Doesn't say how flexible,  anything plastic has a gove to it, so technically it can flex.

Technically it's not, an ar lower doesn't fit the actual description of what a firearm reciever is, they've already lost a case based on it.

The most ridiculous thing is the entire NFA premise which is to regulate "concealable" weapons with a 1930's mindset, whereas today almost all states allow residents to CONCEAL CARRY handguns.   Their position cannot stand on one toe.

Just got my BA/Hanson 12.3in barrel delivered. . . Am I headed for the slammer?

Actually seriously.  About to order a 12in Handguard.  I know it's anyone's guess, but go ahead and guess!

Op just turn your guns in now if this stuff keeps you up at night.

True, the transfer form describes lowers as Other (not rifle, pistol, shotgun)

I would bet all the money i have that the BATFE training manual/policy for agents contains a method of shooting pistols with two hands.  And every other gov agency.  That part of their "opinion" is just asinine.

I am not an attorney, but I agree.  The brace is the focal point.  The other focal point is. how does the brace allow the user to manipulate the firearm, i.e. can he shoulder it?  can he hold and aim with one hand only? etc.  It sounds like you either have to exceed OAL 26in (brace still  being questionable) or have a really short firearm like a CMMG banshee with a 5in barrel.   Anything in between could be construed as SBR.

Reminds me of how the whole Charlie Foxtrot known as "Ruby Ridge" got started.

The fact the Government in a "Free Country" can litigate and prosecute people based on what they do to their own private property; that they paid for makes me very sad.

If 2020 has proven anything it's that we are NOT a free country and probably have not been for a long time, 2020 just stripped away the thin surface vanner away and showed how things have really been underneath the surface for a long time now.

Saying that is how it is, not that I like or want it to be that way.

You cannot refuse to acknowledge the situation as it actually exists - that is what gets sheeple killed.

Clearly the ATF is trying to put the brace genie back in the bottle.  Between the initial permissiveness by the manufacturing branch and how the manufacturers then exploited the brace idea (and we the people were happy to help them do it,)

So they've read this deliberately vague set of criteria trying to draw a line between a pistol with an accessory and an SBR without citing specific measurable criteria which would a.) leave some braces permitted and give the manufacturers clear criteria to design to so as to continue the party and b.) the owners and makers of braces that didn't fit the specific and measurable criteria would be given a hard choice, a la bump stocks, of comply or not.   I don't think the ATF wants a bunch of legal actions that would challenge their squishy criteria against what they allowed historically so they're trying more of a FUD.  Possibly hoping the manufacturers stop producing products like the SBA3 and the number of that model in the wild starts to shrink.  You might keep your SBA3 equipped pistol but if you went to sell it I'd bet most people will be more likely to change it to a non-confrontational configuration and let the buyer decide what to do with it.  Who wants to post pictures on the local gun board of a piece with a cloud over it.  

Mass non compliance would seem to be the right initial opening move along with responding to their Federal Register posting and some complaining to law makers if you've got law makers who will listen.

Much of this thread seems to be people trying to figure out what the ATF is thinking and what they will consider as a SBR.
When looking at things in the bigger picture, guessing about the ATF is a waste of everyone's time. If they wanted to make things clear, they would, it's honestly very simple for them to do. The only way to make an evaluation on large frame pistols and arm braces transparent is for the ATF to define an arm brace. Anything short of giving a specific definition and identity to an arm brace will not suffice! A distinction between an arm brace and a shoulder stock must be made otherwise the question of whether or not the weapon is designed, made and intended to be shoulder fired will remain. They want the ability to weaponize ''shoulder fired'' anytime they so desire. Rambling on about needing to evaluate weapons as a whole to achieve a conclusion and each accessory may or may not change their opinion is a facade to draw attention away from their real intentions. Their real intentions are obtaining/maintaining power to make their random opinion carry enough weight to prosecute anyone for anything.
The reason the ATF has refused to clearly define an arm brace is they want to keep things as questionable as possible to poise and disguise their 'opinion' as the equivalent to law.

Definition of an arm brace must go like this= A device attached to a firearm/weapon which helps to support/stabilize the firearm/weapon by using the shooters arm as additional support. An arm brace will not be considered as a shoulder stock unless it is unable to function as an arm support and serves no other function than being shoulder fired.

Am I wrong?

You are correct, but say they do this one day, then the following day they can say "in order to use an arm brace you must demonstrate you have a medically diagnosed disability which necessitates the use of such a device".  In other words, there is no winning here because their ultimate intent is to have everything registered, banned and confiscated.

Again, that would be playing along to their misdirection. A pistol is a pistol and is considered so by fulfilling its definition according to the GCA. A 7 pound AR is considered a pistol if it fits the definition of a pistol, size and weight are irrelevant unless you try to factor in the shooters size/strength/ability as a disqualification to fire it with one hand. No such considerations are part of a pistols definition, but the ATF suggests so in their newest letter by mentioning weight and length, again as misdirection. The point is, if someone benefits from adding an arm brace to help them fire a 7 pound pistol with one hand, why should they not have the ability to use one? The ''handicap'' thing is more slight of hand by the ATF. Just because they mislead the public into thinking of a brace as something only useful to a person with a handicap, doesn't make it true. Anyone who wants to fire a heavy pistol will benefit from a brace. You could even argue that a brace is an essential part of a large frame pistol, not an optional ''accessory''.
Basically, the ATF is trying to translate the GCA definitions from English to French and back to English and a slightly different version of of the definitions magically appear .

It appears that if people want to keep their pistols lawfully, but without registering as SBR or switching to a 16in barrel, then removing the arm brace is the only logical remedy.  From that point on either run a naked tube, or attach a cheek weld device to the tube that has ATF's approval.

Bump stocks, and braces will be a loser in court for the atf. The issue is having enough money to fight them. They bully law abiding people, and get away with it.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but here are some ideas.

Trump can't stop ATFs policymaking (it's not law because Congress hasn't acted) he can only delay it.

Make is all but impossible to build or possess an AR/AK/ semi auto pistol, offer free stamps to persons with semiautomatic "pistols" to register as short barreled rifles, ban semiautomatic rifles and have a prepared list of persons that own at least one.

SCOTUS has made it all but impossible to ban semiautomatic pistols but banning rifles has been on the left's agenda for 40+ years.

The NFA has to be repealed as well.  It's all about prohibiting civilians from concealing rifles/shotguns which was the 1930's mentality.  In an era when almost all 50 states allow conceal carry of handguns, there is absolutely no point in having this relic of legislation still in effect.

Is there a definitive answer on weight and or overall length, that is legal with a brace?

So far, based on this letter, no.  It's like "we will know when we examine your specific pistol".

Slight correction, the NFA also covers "destructive devices" and explosives and things like artillery.

It wasn't just about prohibition of concealable weapons.  Although you are quite correct that was a big part of it.  In fact the original bill would have made ALL HANDGUNS NFA ITEMS !!!  And the reason the SBR and SBS language was added was to prevent people from getting around this handgun infringement by simply cutting their rifles and shotguns down to make handguns out of them that we're still legally rifles and shotguns.  Then of course they couldn't get it passed with such a blanket infringement against handgns in general so that part was dropped but the infringements against SBRs and SBSs remained as sort of a "hanging chad" in the legislations final form.

Knowing that complete repeal of the NFA and GCA is unlikely I have ofren suggested that if/when we can get it done either by legislative action or by using the courts to challenge the constitutionality of specific points we should be able to chip away at it.

Both suppressors and SBRs classification as NFA weapons should be challengable under the United States v. Miller (1939) since the martial use of both supressors and SBRs is very clear in today's world and thus are legitimate malitia weapons and thus are protected under 2A.  Unfortunately SBSs fate is sealed by that same case unless they somehow become a popular regularly issued item in modern militaries (slim to no chance, and slim left town).

Legislatively, with enough popularity of supressors and framing it in the right manner (hearing protection act) it might be possible with a large enough majority in both houses to still pass despite the defectors and FUDs and BUTers and the right person in the White House who would sign it.  But that's a long narrow treacherous path.

Similar applies to SBRs which really should be addressed as a "sexism" and "anti-small people" situation of discrimination.

At least for me every time I take a small petite woman to the range who has none to limited experience with guns she would much rather shoot one of my shorter lighter arm braced AR pistols (starting with 22-lr conversion kit of course before moving up) then any of my 16+" barrel AR-15 rifles even my lightest one which is basically the same weight as the braced pistols.  It's not just weight it's also balance and preceived "oversizeness compared to their body size" of the longer barrel guns.

And yes of course they immediately shoot from the shoulder regardless of what brace is on it or even just a bare buffer tube. I usually explain that the brace is actually for the arm and that it was originally "not okay" to shoulder a brace until that case that made precident where they actually tried to prosecute that guy for shouldering a brace and they lost in court so now we can shoulder braces so long as the brace still works as a brace and we still use it as a brace as well and not just shoulder it only.  At which point they actually want to try it as a brace - they usually are not impressed after trying it that way.  Then I explain about the NFAs prohibition against SBRs and how to have an actual stock with a shorter then 16" barrel you have to put in registration paperwork and pay $200 and then like a year later when they finally get back to you only then can you actually go pick up the gun from the gun shop that you paid for like a year ago that's an SBR and it's registered with the Feds and it has to stay under your control you can't lone it out to anyone else and even letting someone else shoot it you have to be right there with them like standing over them so the weapon is always under your control and if you want to take it to a different state you have to ask permission first and the government can take it's time and not get back to you with an answer for a long time and they can say No for no reason and don't have to give a reason and if you ever want to sell it it's a long year long like process just like buying it and when you die the government comes and takes it.

After me explaining all that almost without exception all those non-gun or minimal-gun experience petite woman who have just shot full size and length rifle, braced pistol from the shoulder, and braced pistol using brace on arm actually get MAD.  They are like "That's F&$#ing Stupid !!!  They can't do that !!!  They are discriminating against us snaller people !!!  That law is Sexist !!!"

That's the kind of response we need create more of among more such people through educating them about the issue and letting them experience it for themselves.  If we want to get both SBRs and also supressors into the Non-NFA category.

The other NFA items that scare the sheeple more like full auto and explosives and destructive devices and heavy artillery.  And even SBS to an extent because the limited truth at the edge of the extreme about SBSs producing a wide blast area that will kill or injure anything and everyone in a general direction has been "culturized" too much.  You might get the machine gun registry reopened, you might get the barrel length that makes an SBS an SBS reduced to something less then 18" but there will still be some minimum length probably with the addition of a prohibition against "spreader muzzle devices" and built in spreader barrel configurations.

Putting proposed "regulations" in the Federal Register is how federal agencies define their policies that, after the comment period and approval, have the force of law.  Congress passes laws that lack specific definition and leave it up to the agency to define the specific regulations.  The Federal Register process is how the agency defines the specific regulations they operate with.  So the ATF's regulation making here, once it becomes active, will become the rules under which the ATF can take people to court.  Whether the ATF wins or not or if, on appeal, the regulation is struck down is still in the future so support those organizations that will help with future court actions.


There are over 13,000 comments on the proposed regulations at the moment.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces

Edit: Speaking of whether or not Trump can intervene, it's possible the timing of this Federal Register entry was deliberately done so that the clock runs out on the current administration before the ATF announces their decision (after careful consideration of the comments.)  No doubt the incoming administration will be very friendly to any restrictive regulations.