Pistol AR15

[stagpanther]

Let's put it this way: in a hypothetical defensive situation, when adrenaline is flowing, is anyone going to be able to tell if you were actually shouldering the brace or if you had it an inch or two away from your shoulder? I mean c'mon here. Use some common sense.

We all know that--but the judge and jury might not.

[raimius]

Fishbed, the ATF released an opinion that shouldering a pistol with a brace is "redesigning" it into an SBR, so while you are correct (there is no illegal way to shoot a pistol), the ATF will call it an unregistered SBR if you shoulder it.

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

We all know that--but the judge and jury might not.

But no federal prosecutor would ever take a case like that to trial unless there was absolutely clear evidence to show it was shouldered. They'd likely plead the case WAY down beforehand.

And there would be no witnesses at my house if I had to use my AR pistol for defense. So I don't sweat the petty stuff. And I certainly don't pet the sweaty stuff.

[Skans]

I'm going to assume that EVEN IF THE SIG-BRACE PISTOL IS REGISTERED AS A SBR, it cannot effectively be shouldered. If it could, someone would have explained how that can be done EFFECTIVELY, by now.

[themalicious0ne]

Skans, I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying, theoretically, if you were to sbr your pistol with a brace attached that you could not shoot as effectively as an sbr with a stock?

[stagpanther]

But no federal prosecutor would ever take a case like that to trial unless there was absolutely clear evidence to show it was shouldered. They'd likely plead the case WAY down beforehand.

And there would be no witnesses at my house if I had to use my AR pistol for defense. So I don't sweat the petty stuff. And I certainly don't pet the sweaty stuff.

That's an assumption you may be willing to make--but I'm not. It's entirely conceivable that a case could be brought against you were the burden of proof would be on YOU to prove your weapon IS NOT an SBR--all the more difficult in my view as the original intent of the pistol was as an assistive device for handicapped users, so just how handicapped you are I could see as a potential argument.

I take as conservative approach as possible--document the original parts purchase--first build state clearly as a pistol, use a smooth, non adjustable buffer extension and a tight fit sig barce which is almost impossible to adjust on the fly in the field. I've practiced enough with it in a unique configuration that I wouldn't shoulder it even if I could.

[Skans]

Skans, I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying, theoretically, if you were to sbr your pistol with a brace attached that you could not shoot as effectively as an sbr with a stock?

What I'm saying is that trying to even shoulder an AR pistol with the Sig brace (or something similar) looks uncomfortable, unsafe, unwieldy, awkward, and just plain ridiculous. I'd much rather just shoot the thing as a pistol - away from my face; or like someone else pointed out use a sling to stabilize the AR pistol.

[Fishbed77]

Fishbed, the ATF released an opinion that shouldering a pistol with a brace is "redesigning" it into an SBR, so while you are correct (there is no illegal way to shoot a pistol), the ATF will call it an unregistered SBR if you shoulder it.

Except that the ATF doesn't write law. They merely offer an "opinion."

Just shows how screwed up the system has become since lawmakers began deviating from the Constitution.

[rickyrick]

I put my brace on so far foward that I'd need to actually try to put it to my shoulder and the shooting position would be awkward. Additionally the scope relief would not allow for a brace to shoulder shooting position.

This is all theory that I worked out on paper with lots of drawing and measurements; math and geometry as well.

[rickyrick]

I must add that this whole SBR stuff is silly.

Can't cut down a rifle, can't put a stock on a pistol but you can put a barrel and a stock on a pistol and then cut it back down into a pistol.

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by Skans

What I'm saying is that trying to even shoulder an AR pistol with the Sig brace (or something similar) looks uncomfortable, unsafe, unwieldy, awkward, and just plain ridiculous. I'd much rather just shoot the thing as a pistol - away from my face; or like someone else pointed out use a sling to stabilize the AR pistol.

Well you may want to try one before forming an opinion. I can tell you from actual experience that a Shockwave Blade fired from the shoulder (on a 16" rifle) feels no different than an actual stock. Not uncomfortable in the least bit, certainly not unsafe, not any more awkward than a collapsible stock (which is to say not awkward at all), and not unweildy.

You are certainly free to form an opinion based on looks alone, but I'm here to tell you that you're flat wrong.

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

That's an assumption you may be willing to make--but I'm not. It's entirely conceivable that a case could be brought against you were the burden of proof would be on YOU to prove your weapon IS NOT an SBR--all the more difficult in my view as the original intent of the pistol was as an assistive device for handicapped users, so just how handicapped you are I could see as a potential argument.

It's my understanding that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution, not the defendant. So the prosecutor would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a brace was actually shouldered. That would be nearly impossible since holding the stock away from you as little as an inch would mean it's actually NOT being shouldered. That's a big reasonable doubt right there. I know what side of the odds I'm playing. Not trying to change your mind at all. I'm just sharing my thoughts.

[stagpanther]

It's my understanding that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution, not the defendant. So the prosecutor would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a brace was actually shouldered. That would be nearly impossible since holding the stock away from you as little as an inch would mean it's actually NOT being shouldered. That's a big reasonable doubt right there. I know what side of the odds I'm playing. Not trying to change your mind at all. I'm just sharing my thoughts.

Then why bother paying for an SBR license? There is really no significant difference between the two in practical functional terms except one can be shouldered and one cannot. I wouldn't assume that "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" is necessarily needed--I don't think it's wise to assume that a jury will be made up with firearms experts who can tell the difference in intent based on just the set-up.

Personally, I think the likelihood is remote of being hauled in by the ATF--but once it happens it can be a whole big can of worms that I don't have the time and money to fight.

[HughScot]

After reading this page it's beyond a mess and only if I made my living as a gun shop owner would I worry about it. I will never believe the ATF is going to be standing around at gun ranges just waiting for someone to shoulder a pistol. After reading all this I won't be worrying about it.

[Old Bill Dibble]

Then why bother paying for an SBR license? There is really no significant difference between the two in practical functional terms except one can be shouldered and one cannot. I wouldn't assume that "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" is necessarily needed

With an SBR you can put any kind of stock you want on it as well as a VFG without any more paperwork.

Also there is no such legal standard in criminal law.

[raimius]

I'm going to assume that EVEN IF THE SIG-BRACE PISTOL IS REGISTERED AS A SBR, it cannot effectively be shouldered. If it could, someone would have explained how that can be done EFFECTIVELY, by now.

It most certainly can work well. In fact, my AR with a SB-X brace on a Phase 5 buffer tube (the way it came as a legal pistol from Sig) was actually at my preferred length of pull (5 of 6 on a normal M4 stock). I left the SB-X brace on there for a few days after my Form 1 came through, before replacing it with a Magpul stock. It was perfectly usable as an improvised stock. Really, the only reasons I put the Magpul on were for a better cheek weld and sling attachment point.

This would work fine as a rifle, if the ATF wasn't so ornery about it.

Now, it's a legal SBR and I can hold it any way I want.