Good work ...

Assuming they make weight, the 11.5" barrels should be OK.  While the AFT can change their mind at any moment, OAL for an AR pistol from the end of the threads of the barrel (if threaded) or if the end of the muzzle device if the device is permanently (pin and welded) attached to the end of the buffer tube (no folder).  Most 11.5" barrels (with a standard buffer tube) make it with ease, while 12.5" barrels are usually about a pube over 26 inches.  

If the pistol has a folder, then the weapon is measured folded.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/07/05/atf-rescinds-prior-methods-to-measure-a-firearms-overall-length-when-equipped-with-a-stabilizing-brace/

On a side note, I took one of my 12.5" uppers and put it on a scale with my lower that has a LAW folder.   It made weight with an empty mag and red dot.

There is hope yet if this BS gets passed through .... What hand guard and sight are you using as per the weight?  

Using a KAK  dimpled tube ( 7 1/8" OAL and 6.5"  from the back plate) with a 10.5 BBR,  I came out to an OAL of 24 7/8" so yes the 11.5 should barely work but the 12+ is a no go.  The 11.5 is a no go if using any tube longer than 6.5" form the back plate based on what I'm finding here.

You can have a 11.5 or less, no way around it.  A Hobson's choice sort of .


6.5" tube =0 pts

I have zero interest in a brace on a "pistol" if I can't have at least 12.5" LOP, which of course is their intention.  I am fine with a 9" pistol tube and a foam sock for cheek weld.  Can shoulder it in a pinch.  Will keep a spare carbine tube and stock, or two, in new packaging waiting for the S to HTF.  

I was using a PSA 12" slant MLok rail and a Romeo 5.    No other sights since a Law Folder and a Tailhook Mod 1 tops out at 3 points already.  It barely made weight, but it made it.  I could make it lighter if I turn my 12.5" 5.56 into my .22LR weapon.  I would no longer need the buffer weights (or tube for that matter).

That is interesting.  The LOP is the thing that does not bother me at all, but that is because my rifles/SBA3's/Tailhook Mod 2's, had an LOP of just under/around 12 inches anyway.     The Tailhook Mod 1 coupled with a LAW folder, along with the SB-SOB, SB-Mini, all have LOP's of around 11.3 inches.   So losing about a 1/2" didn't bother me.

Under the new point system, it would be very difficult to get an LOP of 12.5" inches right now.   You would have to find a brace that users a standard pistol tube (0 points), and that also extended past the end of the tube several inches.   You would want the LOP to stop at 12.3"-12.4" inches to be safe.  Assuming the brace was legit, an LOP of 12.3" inches would be worth 2 demerit points....you can't even add in standard sights with your extra demerit point!

I say "right now", because not only will there be a ton of lawsuits happening if this goes through, but because I know and you know that there will also be a TON of companies manufacturing braces that maximize demerit points.     I bet KAK or Magpul could quickly change their blade style braces (with a strap) to utilize a pistol tube with only one notch to set the blade at, that just so happens to have an LOP of 12.35 inches (2 total demerit points).   They also sell a pistol tube with the single notch an inch closer to the receiver, which would set the LOP at 11.35 inches (1 demerit point).  

Boom...
(Magpul and KAK, I expect some swag!)

So, I know of a blade type brace that indeed clamps onto a standard 1.25" pistol tube and can extend 2 - 3 inches behind the rear of the tube.  It clamps onto the tube with two screws so it is "adjustable" per se, but not quickly so as you need an allen wrench and some time.  I could live with 12.35" LOP, and there would be a RDS optic with no sights.  Do you think this would pass muster, as currently proposed?  What if one were to add a folder, does that affect the length allowed for the length of the tube behind the receiver end plate?

Tough to say without seeing the brace.

When you look at what was written up for the Shockwave Blade in the proposal, it would have passed Part II if it had a strap, and oddly enough, it would have also passed Part III if it would have had a strap and was using a normal pistol buffer tube.



Strap aside, another possible issue you might run into is the maximum LOP.  Depending on how far back it could clamp on the buffer tube, the LOP could hit/exceed 13.5 inches, and that would be an instant 4 demerit point fail.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/10/2021-12176/factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces
In the proposal, the weapon with the Blade received 5 total demerit points for Part II, but 2 of those points were because it was a Fin-Type design without an arm strap.  That is easily fixed.  
That same weapon had a whopping 14 demerit points for Part III, but 4 of those were because it had a vertical fore-grip (yikes!).  Another 4 was because it had a scope which requires limited eye relief.
 
Of the remaining 6 demerit points, 2 of them are because it is a Fin-type design lacking an arm strap (again?), and 1 point is because it uses a standard length pistol tube that has adjustment notches.  

The remaining 3 demerit points are for the maximum LOP.

Two things that helped the Shockwave blade in Part II is that is does NOT have a QD slot, which saves a demerit point in the accessory design part, and that the rear of blade does not have any material that covers the end of the buffer tube.  It seems like braces (like the SBA's) get dinged 2 or 3 points for "rear surface area".  

A Law Folder (or extended buffer tube) gets an instant 2 demerit point hit.  But it just so happens that a LAW folder adds about 1.4 inches to the LOP, so a standard pistol tube with a Tailhook mod 1 works out to an 11.3" overall LOP (1 demerit point).

I figure I could add a strap easy enough.

Ok, I've found this brace in a few different places now.
It is hollow in the back like a Blade, and it does not have a QD slot or quick adjustment knob, so that would keep the demerit points down.

Strap aside, I think the only potential problem would be the maximum LOP.  Because the mounting brackets are at the front of the brace, it is possible to scoot the entire brace back pretty far on the buffer tube, so their might be a potential issue with the maximum LOP going over 13.5.  

I think (IANAL, nor work for the ATF) that if it had a strap, and the mounting brackets were in the middle of the brace, it would be good to go.    LOP on just a standard pistol buffer tube is about 10 inches, so if it has less than 3.5 inches of overhang, it might still be good to do (strap aside).

It would be "almost" comical if everyone just started running Shockwave style braces on smooth pistol tubes with straps.  The entire proposal is already a massive waste of time and money, so that would be icing on the cake.

You mean spear parts for your other AR15 rifles. Damn plastic has a habit of breaking sometimes when least expected and tubes get bent after a fall at the worst moment. It's happen to all of us at some point and will probably happen again.  Can't be too prepared, spares are a part of responsible gun ownership.  A malfunctioning weapon is not a safe weapon.  I agree always have spare parts for your rifles.

I like the ballistics of the 12.5 ( I think it's perfect) and was going to build one but now..............waiting for the final draft.

I'm hoping this was a wish list ATF could convince approval on that will fall short of their desires.  In other words the final 4999 will be less restrictive than the initial draft but I'm not going to Vegas on that bet.  

"IF"  the OAL is under 26" while meeting the 3 pts.<.  All you need do is if using a blade type of brace is set it fixed. The bigger problem is the 12.5" BBR.  I don't know of any buffer tube short enough that allows reliable function to make up the additional 1" over a 11.5 BBR set up while keeping it under the OAL of 26".  


This is what I can came up with, of course ATF has it's own definitions of what these features are so again as you stated correctly "They" do what they want.  I'm still not sure if notches are the same as dimples or how they are different  vs. an Adj Rifle tube, so I'll reserve the right to be wrong in my work up.





Sooner or later we all might be dealing with a worm like this.



Yeah , that type of guy...

"It would be "almost" comical if everyone just started running Shockwave style braces on smooth pistol tubes with straps.  The entire proposal is already a massive waste of time and money, so that would be icing on the cake. "
 
Bingo!

Here's another one that's is similar.

After reading this thread, I have no idea what is legal or not legal under new NFA definitions.

And therein lies the problem.  If you have to study a technical manual to figure out how to comply with their regulations, then the regulations are overly complex and should be tossed.

I suspect the Supreme Court won't give a shit.  Look at bumpstocks.

In the end, if you own a gun, they are coming for you one way or another.  Totalitarian governments don't want armed citizenry.

I think 12.5" is great for 5.56 and where there is a will, there is a way.

I don't use this upper anymore, but another proof of concept.
This "should" be Biden Brace Ban approved.
12.5" barrel on a 12" rail, but since it is on a LAW folder AND a pistol, it is measured folded, so it is easily under 26 inches.
I will admit that this has the KAK lightweight LAW folder extension in it, but I think this is set up with an H'ish buffer I had made. (I use this lower on my 7.5" .300blk set-up), so hopefully that would be OK on a 12.5".   I'd probably just pull the current gas block and tube, and replace it with just a cheap gas block installed backwards.  Then I can run a .22LR conversion bolt in it (and dump the buffer if I want).   I say it barely makes weight because almost all of my other pistols are set-up with light at 12:00....not sure if this would make it.
LOP on this lower is 11.3 inches (3 total demerit points)





Edit:
One more thing, I have a lot of the Strike Industries angled QD mounts.


But I'm also thinking about trying their sling mounts as well.

Outstanding !



I guess the topic of lasers lights etc. haven't come into the equation yet.  What about rail protectors?  We can assume with a light /LAM attached it's OK since not mentioned in the 4999 unless their attachment brings the weight over 120 Oz.

There seems to be little clarification in a rule that is supposed to clarify what the NFA law says it says .

Std. buffer tube ?
Adj vs. slotted tube ?
Std. mag ?
minimized rear surface?
No sights = 1 pt.?  or  MBUS = 1 Pt. = double jeopardy?
Incorporates shoulder stock design feature(s)?  strap slot is also a sling slot ? QD release?


Lots of unanswered questions.

Looking at your set up this would make a good argument that the AOL of 26"<  is a senseless restriction.  I'm not sure what "they" are trying to achieve.

There is always this comparison that makes all of this rule look stupid.

 

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr Ferris the AFT. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens gun owners? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of brace laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon Twain, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

It is all a mess, but I "think" I understand the Rear Surface Area (based on some of the threads from when this was first released).

I think the Magpul brace is a "0" for demerit points.  It has minimal surface area, and a feature (QD) slot designed to discourage shouldering.  (Keep in mind that QD slot will cost a demerit point in Accessory Design....AFT is sneaky like that).


Shockwave Blade gets 1 demerit point.  Minimal surface area, but does not include features designed to discourage shouldering.  I think the key here is that there is not material over the hole for the buffer tube.


SBA-Mini gets 2 demerit points because it includes surface area that can be used for shouldering.  As far as I can tell, it is because the buffer tube hole is covered.


SBA3 gets 3 demerit points of the excess material used that would be useful for shouldering.  Not only does it have material that covers the buffer tube hole, but it includes extra material in the area below the buffer tube.


That is my "best guess".....
I'm also thinking that the Tailhook Mod 1 and Mod 1c fall into the 1 demerit point category for Rear Surface Area, as there is minimal material, and the buffer tube area is not covered.  However, the AFT added another demerit point for the Tailhook under Stabilizing Support since it is a counter-balance style brace, and the folding area provides additional surface area for shouldering when folded.


As for lights and lasers, I don't know if they count as weight or not, but I'm pretty sure there is no penalty for them.  I think they were specifically left out of the proposal because a lot of handguns have lights and lasers, and some handguns with built in lasers are much easier to use with the shooters off hand.  Plus it would look pretty goofy if the AFT tried to add demerit points to an AR pistol that had a light on it like a TLR-1, which is literally a handgun light.


Edit: On rear surface area, it "could" be that that the SBA's also have two flaps that come down instead of 1 hard piece of plastic like a fin.  Tough to say either way.

If an overall length of more than 26" is required to take it out of the SBR category, can't these stocks or buffer tubes just be modified so that the brace doesn't telescope below 26"?

Under the new rules, the AFT implies that if the overall length is greater than 26 inches, it is too long to have a brace.  



The overall length has to stay UNDER 26 inches if a brace is to be used, but in theory, yes, one could use something like a Strike Industries Compact Pistol Tube to lower the overall length (if one wanted to run a longer barrel).  I'm just not sure how well a longer barreled weapon would run on a shortened buffer tube.
https://www.strikeindustries.com/si-ar-spre-slick.html

Remember, there are multiple categories and the AFT is supposed to have to worry about stepping on current laws.
Currently, there is no minimum or maximum length for a handgun at a Federal level, and there is a Rifle, SBR, AOW-NFA and AOW Non-NFA rules on the books.   They are trying to squeeze braced pistols in there.


AR pistols are measured from the end of the buffer tube (if equipped) to the end of the threads/pinned muzzle device (unless folded, then it is measured from the folder to the threads/pinned muzzle device).
AR rifles are measured from the end of the stock (fully extended), to the end of the threads/pinned muzzle device.  

Of course, this can all vary by state, but in general, find your combination of folder/buffer/barrel that gets you below 26 inches, while meeting weight, and have fun with the demerit point chart.

Grab my neighborhood range doesn't have video or still cameras.

Well the greater than 26" can't be measured with stock extended otherwise wouldn't all of this immediately cease to exist?  I thought it was measured stock collapsed not extended.  So then my next question is, if the gun even with a folding or telescoping stock on it can't be put into a configuration under 26" total length, then I have to remove the brace and put on a full on stock then?

I know the worksheet is supposed to be ambiguous with as many secret symbols and meanings as they could include, but I'm curious about the length requirements.

The weight parameters are pretty straightforward.  4 lbs

But, the way that I read it, to be calculated and the way it is written on the worksheet, says for the length to be between 12 inches - 26 inches.

So, anything shorter than 12 or longer than 26 inches, are exempt from the rule.



Yeah, I know.  This is nothing more than arbitrary bullshit and can be changed on a whim again at any time in the future, but ...  that's where we are.

I'm also going to assume the 26" is going to be in it's shortest configuration.  Stock collapsed.  And also, without the flash hider attached, since it's not a necessary part for function unless perm. attached the way barrel extensions are done.

That's how I'm perceiving it as well.

So you are thinking that a gun over 26" can have a pistol brace if the barrel is less than 16" long?

That isn't how I am reading it.  But it is so confusing that IDGAS anymore.

Brace, not stock.  
There no stocks on AR pistols (that would make it an SBR), and rifles (which have stocks) are measured differently than pistols.

There are specific rules for measuring pistols, and pistols braces are considered a non functional accessory.
Braces are not included in the OAL measurement, so there is nothing to extend.
Braces ARE included in the LOP measurement, but that is something different that technically should not exist.  
If you have a folder on your pistol, you measure the weapon folder (it does not matter if the brace is removed since it does not change the length).
https://theloadoutblog.com/2019/07/08/atf-clarifies-how-to-properly-measure-the-length-of-an-ar-pistol/

Pistol





Rifle


Now, a great discussion for the AFT is asking them to explain how they manage to turn a brace into a stock based on "accessories" like BUIS or a flip to side magnifier.  If I gather too many demerit points, my pistol becomes and SBR.  Since SBR's are rifles, and rifles ONLY have stocks because they are meant to be fired from the shoulder, it must mean my brace magically turned into a stock.  If I remove said offending accessory, and drop below 4 demerit points, my braces turned stock, magically turns back into a brace again.  

That left it a bit ambiguous, but the way I read it, anything shorter than 12 inches, or longer than 26 inches cannot (should not?) have a brace.

To me, what they have done is made it so that you can no longer add a Flux style brace to your Glock (that sucks).  
Nor can the folks stuck in NJ or CT run the "Other/Non-NFA Firearms" with a brace anymore.  Those were the weapons that would be greater than 26 inches OAL, have a brace, and a vertical foregrip.   They are not pistols, they are not rifles, they are not SBR's, they are not AOW's that require a stamp.  They are "firearms". Longer than 26" inches, designed to be fired with two hands, not designed to be shouldered.  


Edit - To be clear, it looks like you can still have a +26 inch pistol or a Firearm, it just can't have a brace.  What the proposal does not say is, what if it does have a brace?  Does your brace once again magically turn into a stock?  

I think that could be the legal hang-up for the AFT, especially if someone is using a brace that passes their own brace criteria.  It is either a brace or a stock, it can't be both.  No other accessory changes the definition of another part, not even a VFG on a pistol does what the AFT is implying.   Adding a VFG to a pistol turns the weapon into and AOW, but it does not turn the brace into a stock.   There are a lot of holes and gaps in the proposal, and a lot of assumption to jump to "indicates will shoulder".  Hopefully, a lot of lawyers will tear this thing up.

Yea, I get the brace/stock thing whatever, I just didn't know they didn't include ANY 'thing that goes on the buffer tube'  in the OAL measurement.  Ok that's gay.  This whole thing's gay now.

The more I read and think about the -12"/+26" statement, the more I think that it was left really ambiguous for a reason.   I feel like I'm writing system requirements for work.  Words matter, and there is a HUGE difference between something that is specifically "prohibited" versus something that is "impractical" or "does not need".   But I am not a lawyer.





Just because I don't need something, or it is impractical and inaccurate, does not mean I can't have it (sounds like gun-grabber arguments in general).   I wonder if there are ADA issues with saying you "can not" have it?  I'm semi surprised they did not reverse their reversal on measuring pistols folded....but the ambiguous language may be the reason why.

Think about it this way:
Adding a VFG to a braced (<26") pistol turns it into an NFA AOW because the weapon goes from a weapon designed to be fired with one hand (braced pistol) to a short (<26") weapon designed to be fired with two hands (VFG) and not shouldered.  The brace itself is not impacted in anyway, nor does it have to be removed.

Using that exact same logic on a +26" pistol.
Adding a VFG to a braced (+26") pistol turns it into a that non-NFA "Other/Firearm" because the weapon goes from a weapon designed to be fired with one hand (braced pistol) to a (+26") weapon designed to be fired with two hands (VFG) and not shouldered.    Why is the AFT implying the brace has to be removed?  Nothing has changed from the first scenario other than the weapon going from under 26 inches to over 26 inches.  If the brace is impractical or not (in their opinion) is irrelevant.  I may or may not need it, but why do I need to get rid of it?  According to their own definitions, the VFG is what matters.  With a VFG, tt is meant to be fired with two hands regardless of a brace being there or not.    If I had a folder, I could fold the brace out of the way....maybe that is why they don't want to reverse their reversal on measurements.



https://www.guntrustguru.com/can-i-add-a-vertical-fore-grip-to-my-ar-15-pistol.html#:~:text=The%20ATF%20has%20long%20held,under%20Federal%20statutes%20and%20regulations.
Remember, adding a VFG to a pistol turns it into an AOW, not an SBR.



Edit:
In their own words in regards to the Shockwave that failed and also have a VFG.


They don't mention fired from the shoulder, they say fired with two hands say no longer meant to be fired with one hand.  The "secondary" forward grip vs "vertical" forward grip aside (AFT is sneaky with changing definitions), if it redesigned to be fired with two hands, a brace should not matter for a +26" weapon.  

I did notice that they failed the Shockwave version as an SBR, instead of an AOW.  I wonder if that is because the brace failed part II, thus was deemed a stock prior to Part III where the VFG was added?  In other words, adding a VFG to an SBR does not matter.....but if a VFG would have been added to a braced weapon that passed everything else, it would have been deemed an AOW?  Only the AFT knows.

 
True , make it fixed at "X" length of pull.  However I think what they are implying is to be consider a pistol as per the written description of the rules it must be under 26" hence any longer would be too unstable to shoot with one hand with or without a brace . So now they have decided any AR15 platform over 26" is by default not a pistol , not a "firearm" as per their description due to it having a rifled BBLS , not AOW  but a new category of thing  "A stock-less rifle pistol /pistol rifle?"  .......................Das neues verboten Waffen.

I guess You can own anything you want as long as your willing to formally register it and pay.


ATF
"As a preliminary factor when
evaluating a submitted sample, certain
prerequisites (i.e., weapon weight and
overall length) will be applied to
determine if the firearm will even be
considered as a possible pistol or
immediately determined to be a rifle, as
defined by the applicable statutes. As
discussed, ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ were
originally marketed as intended to assist
persons with disabilities and others
lacking sufficient grip strength to
control heavier pistols. Therefore,
attaching a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ to a
typical pistol, where no assistance is
necessary, or attaching one to a firearm
so heavy or difficult to control that one-
handed shooting is impractical or
inaccurate, regardless of the
manufacturer’s stated intent, will
change the design of the firearm into a
rifle intended to be fired from the
shoulder. Indeed, the purported
‘‘stabilizing brace’’ would have no
design function other than to facilitate
the firing of the weapon from the
shoulder."


The weight and length rational issue is stupid ....  "Have you seen the size of my forearms sonny?"  Their idiocy only applies when and if a brace is attached but I can built an XP with what ever length BBL I want yet it's still a pistol based on the law.  It goes against logic, 26"+ might need a brace or bi-pod to shoot with stability depending on your forearms .  The examples below are no less a pistol based on weight, length or accessories attached.  I guess like with flight physicals, ATF is going to require a strength test?  


Nowhere I have I read it is unlawful to use a device as a means to support any type of weapon in it's operation until now.  Nor does using that device or how its operated change it's classification.  Only the ATF makes up such BS. Only the IRS can come close to matching it's ridiculous followed by the FAA then the  FCC , EPA, ................etc.

Rifle sights do not make it a rifle nor does a bi-pod   Under SEC III  that's 6 pts. Oops wont qualify for a brace I guess. By ATF weight logic these Xps aren't pistols designed to be operated by one hand. If not pistols what are they?




Hey ATF!  Is this any less a rifle due to shouldering weight  at 32.7 lbs (14.8 kg)?
]

Y'know...it became pretty evident when this came out that it was if to stay 'compliant' with a dress code, you had to wear a monkey suit with no pants.  They're mocking you with this 'challenge'.

I think best bet to stay 'safe' is that I have some regular rifles as well as an SBR (until they come after those), the rest I won't take out of the house unless straight to a range or if I have to fight my way out.  Essentially, they're looking to ban without saying they're banning, so I'm going to refuse without saying no.  This is silly.

And according to their rulings...even if you technically come in under the 'point' system, they still get to judge if it's close enough anyway.  So FUCK THEM!

It is a total hassle....but around parts of Chicago-land, AR rifles are not allowed (be it city or county law), so I need to play-along while the lawsuits work themselves out.   We don't have 2A sanctuary counties in northern Illinois.
------------------------------------
Bigger pics of set-ups

Tailhook Mod 1 on Phase 5 tube with LAW folder (7.5" 300blk with 8" MI Combat rail)


SB Mini on Phase 5 tube (9" 300blk with 9.5" MI Combat rail)


SB SOB (10.5" 300blk with 10.5" MI Combat rail)


All three "should" pass with 3 demerit points.  Two have Sig Romeo 5 XDR's, and one has Romeo 4H.  All 3 have 11.3" LOP's  T



I have a .22LR coversion with a brace that I'm in the mist of swapping around parts (again) right now. It currently has a Tailhook Mod 1c on a Phase 5 tube, but the 9.9" LOP is too short.  It also have MBUS sites and a hand stop for 3 total demerit points.
I'm really curious to about the "rifle sight" wording turns out to be.  There are already pistol style sights available for AR's.  If there "0" point iron style sights, they will be a big hit. I'm already looking at these, but the are kinda expensive if you go with Tritium front and rear.

Yeah in CT we're not allowed unless it's a pre-ban (pre-1994) or if you were able to register a later one within a small time window in 2013-2014.  This was in reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting.  That's where the 'other firearm' configuration came in as the only way to own such firearms other than the high costs of pre-bans.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yXjhWcjw-M&t=45s

Now I have several pre-bans and even a registered SBR, so I'm fine with those so far as well as various configurations when it comes to barrel lengths...until of course they come after those too.  But I also have several 'others', and I guess they just won't leave the house and/or I'll just take the braces off of them.  Because trying to 'conform' them is, as we've clearly seen, is pretty f'in silly.

And when you start looking at other 'points' like any type of fore grip....an 'other' HAS to have a vertical fore grip to be an 'other' and not a pistol to begin with.  So by default, it would seem an 'other' can't have any brace on it without becoming an SBR if this ruling takes effect.

Obviously these 'guidelines' are not meant to help one comply, but to prove how futile it is.  It's their line in the sand without having wherewithal to properly get new laws passed.

I like the fixed sights although my question is are these still considered rifle sights?  ATF is still unclear.   In other words any sight designed 1st for a rifle is considered a "Rifle sight" = 1 pt.?  To be considered a pistol sight, will someone will have to manufacture a 45 offset mount that accepts dove tail pistol sights : BOMAR, Mapro, etc.



That would for sure negated any "I gotchas".   This would also mean a pistol using the A1 carry handle upper with FSGB built in sights by default gets 1 pt. they being rifle sights from inception.

I think they are refering to a peep style rear sight that requires the eye to be closer than pistol distance in order to be used.  The problem there is that there have long been oversized peep sights made for pistols for decades.  I had one on a hunting revolver once upon a time.

That is my take as well, the rear sight seems to be the problem (especially based on the discussions from last year).  The AFT isn't clear on what the exact problem is, and their pictures are so bad that I can't tell what sights they are looking at.    However, I'm pretty sure that in both of the examples that are getting demerit points for sights, the ones in question are NOT Magpul MBUS (not the current versions anyway).  Current rear MBUS can fold down BOTH peepholes....so it seems like they would be "0" points.  

This is with the both rear peep holes folded down.  


Different AR with a closer view from awhile ago





In the end, none of this should even matter.   If they want to have criteria on what is an isn't a brace (Part II), so be it.  But if that is the case, than any brace that passes Part II (or already has an approval letter) should not be subject to anything else other than not exceeding a 13.5" LOP.   If they want some goofy sliding scale of points and accessories and length and weight, maybe they should only apply to "non-approved" braces.......or better yet, not worry about any of it and go deal with tobacco and alcohol related issues.

OK, i have been struggling to keep up with the aft BS, so, if the weapon OAL is more than 26 inches, it doesn't apply?

Or, am I reading the worksheet wrong?

It is ambiguously ambiguous.
It implies that if a weapon is under 12 inches, or over 26 inches, it is not suitable for a brace.  It is not really clear on what that means.
It implies that if a weapon is under 64 ounces, it is not suitable for a brace.  Again, not clear on what that exactly means.

I say that because it both implies a weapon over 120 ounces is not suitable for a brace, and also specifically states in the accessories section of Part III that a weapon weighing more than 120 ounces is worth 4 demerit points, which is an automatic fail.

AFT might be implying things in order to freeze the market....maybe.

The main reason why I asked about the 26" length, is that was the magic OAL in regards to NFA laws and what they considered "easily concealable".

Since they're saying they want to turn your gun into an illegal SBR, and their own worksheet says if it's over 26", you don't have to go any further to check anything else.

So, that's the main reason why I asked what the concensus was.

NFA wise, the 26 inches by itself won't matter...barrel length also comes into play.

The question revolves around if the AFT would still consider a brace a brace if a weapon is under 64 ounces or under 12 inches or over 26 inches (or over 120 ounces if over 26 inches)?

If your weapon is over 26" OAL, but your barrel is under 16", are they saying a brace is a stock (which means SBR), or are they no longer concerned since the weapon isn't concealable?   The ambiguous wording leaves a lot of questions.   If they consider it a stock, are they also saying that a brace is also now a stock on a 62 ounce handgun?   That seems like a lawsuit in the making....but who knows.

This is particularly relevant to me because in my state the only non-pre-ban AR15 or similar firearm we can purchase/own (aside from ones registered back in 2013 right after Sandy Hook) are 'other firearms'...

https://youtu.be/-yXjhWcjw-M

Which have to be over 26" in OAL and also must have a vertical fore grip to be a compliant non-NFA item.  They all are.  My feeling is that the people who came up with these new rulings are;'t really familiar with 'other' configurations.

So the question is whether being over 26" disqualifies the firearm for possible compliance, or whether it exempts it from restriction?  My guess would be the former, but let's face it, the points system isn't meant to offer any sensible avenues of compliance anyway.  My guess is that under the new rulings, an 'other' would have to not have a brace on it at all in order to remain compliant  as an 'other firearm'....even though the rulings neither say nor play anything about 'other firearms'.  Clear as shit.

Not with a demerit if it has iron sights.

Or a demerit if it doesn't.

Seems to me, they're going to count off a demerit no matter what, leaving even a more narrow margin of error.

It's lip service, essentially a maze with no actual path to the goal.  Even if you do somehow technically get in under the points, you now have something absolutely silly...and they can STILL judge as to whether it's intended to be a surrogate SBR anyway.

It was the "Non-NFA AOW/Other" that had me going to a rabbit hole last week....trying to figure out if there was an actual length restriction, or if it was just implied. There is indeed a maximum weight limit, but I can't figure out why length would matter if there is already a weight restriction.


I plan on dumping my current 10.5" 5.56/.22LR set-up for a 12.5" 5.56/.22LR set-up, but their proposal would would mean that even without a vertical VFG, my 12.5" would be just a touch too long.  It makes no sense.  

Dumped the Tailhook Mod1c (9.9" LOP) for my other SB Mini (11.3" LOP).  Such a fun gun, but I want a bit more versatility if I ever need to use it in 5.56 (which would be rare).

Yeah the key with 'others' is that they aren't AOW's and don't need to be registered since they are over 26" OAL and they 'started life' that way from the builder/manufacturer.

But really, I think anyone's logical guess is that if under the microscope by them, they'll drop the hammer on it as being an un-registered SBR just like with pistols so the only real options are to not have a brace at all or don't-ask-don't-tell and hope you never get in trouble for anything else.

all this is the intended blindfolded circle jerk with carborundum instead of vaseline that the aft wanted to create.  there is no manpower, direction from DC, or feasible way to enforce this.  

one degree of separation from interesting conversations with local aft office.  

16 inch barrel is on the pile awaiting reconfiguring the Dolos takedown kit.  initial assembly of all lowers was as "pistol" with photo documentation so let's go brandon.   more annoying is that it won't fit in the "laptop bag" any more.  need a bigger bag.  at least I'll get to use the ctr stock I swapped out for the sba3.  

Length and weight as per ATF prerequisites

Why 26" > will not be accepted as per ATF logic

30831Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–C

Section I. Prerequisites
As a preliminary factor when
evaluating a submitted sample, certain
prerequisites will be applied to
determine if the firearm, without the
attached ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ will even
be considered a suitable weapon for the
brace. As described above, ‘‘stabilizing
braces’’ were originally marketed as
being designed to assist persons with
disabilities and others lacking sufficient
grip strength to control heavier pistols.
Accordingly, FATD will first examine
the submitted sample’s weapon weight
and overall length.
Weapon Weight. Weapon weight is a
key prerequisite in determining whether
a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is appropriately
used on a weapon. A traditional
unloaded 1911-type pistol weighs
approximately 39 ounces. Similarly, the
polymer Glock 17 weighs 39 ounces
when fully loaded. Weighing just over 2
pounds, these firearms are easily held
and fired with one hand without the
need for a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ as such
‘‘braces’’ are designed. This stands in
contrast to the weight of the type of
pistols or other firearms for which the
‘‘stabilizing brace’’ was designed to be
attached. The AR-type pistol, a popular
large handgun design, for example,
weighs approximately 5 to 7 pounds
(i.e., 80 ounces to 112 ounces) based on
its configuration. Such weight is more
difficult to manipulate and to keep on
target, indicating the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’
is in fact intended to assist one-handed
fire. Based on the weights stated above,
firearms weighing less than 64 ounces/
4 pounds (weighed with unloaded
magazine and accessories removed) are
not considered weapons suitable for use
with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessory
because they are more easily held and
fired with one hand without the need
for a ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’
Overall Length. The overall length of
a weapon is relevant in classifying it as
a ‘‘rifle’’ or a ‘‘pistol’’ because, as a
firearm becomes excessive in length, it
is increasingly difficult to fire with one
hand. The AR-type pistol has an overall
length between 18 and 25 inches,
depending on barrel length (due to the
necessary inclusion of the buffer tube).
Other large frame pistols range between
14 and 22 inches, such as the AK-type
DRACO, HK SP5, and CZ Scorpion
EVO. Firearms possessing an overall
length between 12 and 26 inches may be
considered pistols for which a
‘‘stabilizing brace’’ could reasonably be
attached to support one-handed fire.
Firearms with an overall length of less
than 12 inches are considered too short
to indicate any need for a ‘‘stabilizing
brace.’’ Conversely, firearms exceeding
26 inches in overall length are
impractical and inaccurate to fire one
handed, even with a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’
due to imbalance of the weapon.

A SBR is designed, made and intended to fire from the shoulder. A pistol is designed, made and intended to fire with one hand.
Typically a 'shoulder stock' would provide proof of being designed, made and intended to fire from the shoulder. Defining what a shoulder stock is vs. what an arm brace is would be the only way to truly establish a weapon as fulfilling the definition of shoulder fired only and not one hand fired. The ATF is avoiding defining what a shoulder stock vs. an arm brace is (the logical and legally provable thing to do) and is instead trying to define what makes a weapon shoulder fired even if it's lacking a shoulder stock. If a weapon has an arm brace then it can obviously be fired with one hand or from the shoulder if the shooter really wanted, any pistol could be fired from the shoulder if someone really wanted, arm brace or not, that doesn't mean it fulfills the definition of a rifle. If someone can pick up a weapon with an arm brace and fire it with one hand (proving it's possible and practical), then the ATF simply stating it's not designed, intended and made to fire with one hand is irrelevant to providing any provable definition to the contrary. Declaring to have established intent and design while ignoring physical properties and real world usability is incompetent at best.
The ATF is tasked with following legal definitions determined by law makers, not creating ways to blend definitions together so they are no longer valid, meaningful and useful. The bias and politically motivated ideas of blending established legal definitions together with a bunch of random nonsense is very obvious. When legality is questionable or literally unknowable because confusion and opinion are deliberately designed into the fundamentals of the rules, maybe the rules are poorly written? When definitions are diluted and made to no longer have validity, why use them at all?

But nobody uses one hand even to fire their Glock or 1911 or revolver or any other pistol unless they only have one hand or it is required by "game" rules or directives.  The whole one hand agruement is invalid.  The XP-100, Savage Striker, Thompson Contender and Encore, et al are all legally "pistols" (some with barrels 15" or longer) but none intended or designed to be fired with one hand.  They all have forends, just as an AR pistol handguard.  The whole premise is BS.

I think it was pretty clear from the outset that they wouldn't bet able to really enforce this, but they'll sure as hell screw you for it if it's discovered. n Be it through some other violation with a search, or in your car, etc.  Or maybe they'll send out letters and keep you on the 'list' of y don't show compliance, perhaps block yo from further firearms purchases.