Why are so few AR pistols for sale?

[pgb205]

I've been looking around for quite some time but very few brands(that I recognize) seem to make them still. Very few are in stock in many online gun shops that I've checked. Is there a reason for that?

[Double Naught Spy]

Because most with the cool wrist stocks are now considered SBRs.

See here...
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...ighlight=wrist

[RickB]

You're not seeing them in local stores, or you're fearful that nobody is making them, anymore?
In the last year, I've seen/read reviews on models from Bravo Company, CMMG, Wilson Combat, Rock River, Sons of Liberty, Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson, Ruger . . .
Some distributors and retailers may be waiting to see what will happen, short term, with the legality of arm braces.

[ghbucky]

I saw a dealer post that they would no longer accept them for transfer because if the ATF puts the rule in place while they are holding a transfer they are now stuck with an SBR and probably can't transfer it.

[pgb205]

not a troll :-) I just make a point to NOT pay attention to so called 'news'. I think it's:
1. Often misleading--on purpose
2. Not relevant to my life
3. Nothing I can do to influence the situation
On the rare occasions such as this where it is relevant to my life I can always find out from people who aren't trying to 'sell me' something; as has happened here.

This article explains my viewpoint wonderfully
https://gwern.net/doc/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf

thank you all for replying.

[pgb205]

Originally Posted by RickB

You're not seeing them in local stores, or you're fearful that nobody is making them, anymore?
In the last year, I've seen/read reviews on models from Bravo Company, CMMG, Wilson Combat, Rock River, Sons of Liberty, Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson, Ruger . . .
Some distributors and retailers may be waiting to see what will happen, short term, with the legality of arm braces.

I was looking for AR pistol by SW/Ruger/Aero, even Sig if they make them. Something a bit more refined than my home made AR pistol. I couldn't find anything in stock in my favorite online stores(after checking back for many months) so came here to ask.

I really don't need a brace on my pistol, so hopefully either of the mentioned names start making them with/without a brace.

[44 AMP]

One reason you're not seeing them "instock" even at online dealerships is simply $. Having something "in stock" means they physically have it, and that means money is tied up in it, until it sells.

Many dealers won't tie up money in anything they don't think will sell rapidly, and something that may sit for several months before moving isn't attractive to them, and some won't keep things like that "in stock".

Right now, many folks are still waiting to see how the whole "brace/stock" thing finally shakes out, and how the current push to ban or further restrict "assault weapons" goes before purchasing an AR pistol, or anything else the GOVT seems likely to further restrict or even take away with a stroke of next week's pen....

[44caliberkid]

“LOL” was my intent, just teasing, not to offend. I don’t watch the news either but the pistol arm brace ban was the hot topic of discussion on this forum in General Discussions and Semi Auto Pistols for two months prior to the ban. Also prominent on every gun and second amendment forum and YouTube channel for months. Every gun owner should keep up with these things and the recent assault weapons bans in Washington and Illinois. Before it comes to a state near you.

[Double Naught Spy]

Not everybody lives and breaths gun stuff. Despite driving more than 35,000 miles per year and owning 3 vehicles, I know nothing of car legislation issues. I am not up on what are or are not illegal modificaitons. I just don't follow that stuff, but a buddy of mine (shade tree mechanic) eats it up. He is actually politically motivated to write his congressman about automotive laws coming up that I never gave a second thought when they were mentioned on the news. He then gets me to do the same thing, so I get him to write in on 2A stuff which he doesn't follow despite being a hunter.

I do follow the gun stuff, but for the life of me I could not recount to you what the issues were on the pistol brace nonsense and what is or is not okay. I don't have any and so really don't track the specifics. I read through the stuff quite some time ago, determined that I didn't agree with it, and really haven't followed the day-by-day developments or all the banter that went with it, some of which was informative and a lot of which was noise.

[stinkeypete]

The good thing about an AR pistol is that it's easy to make it a proper rifle. That's about it, in my book.

Then maybe a clever fellow will make a sort of T/C Contender or Remington XP-100 that can use all these excess short barrels!

[RickB]

I'm watching a video about gun laws in Washington state, there's a state "assault weapons" ban about to take effect, and while there appears to be a rush to buy, dealers aren't selling, as guns ordered or purchased this week may not be delivered in time to avoid the ban.

[44 AMP]

Currently the bill has not yet been scheduled for a Senate floor vote.

A few years ago, WA changed the legal definition of semi auto rifles to "semiautomatic assault rifles". EVERY SINGLE ONE. Not just military look alikes (AR AK, etc) but every single semi auto rifle, no matter what caliber, how old, fixed magazine or detachable, ALL are now legally defined as semiautomatic assault rifles.
Buying one now requires a 10 day waiting period, a special safety class, and approval of local law enforcement agency. ALSO included in that law are requirements that your personal medical records must be given to the LEO agency so they can determine your "fitness" to posess such a weapon.


Then a couple years after that the passed a law banning "manufacture, sale, transfer" (etc) of magazines holding over 15 rounds. You can keep what you had, but can't buy any more, or sell (or give) what you have to anyone in the state.

I recently sold a semi auto rifle out of state (via FFL dealer), because while I could have legally sold the rifle in state, I couldn't legally sell the rifle's magazine in WA! (nobody will pay much for a semi with no magazine)

NOW, the proposed law would ban the sale of assault WEAPONS which is not only semi auto rifles, but also pistols and shotguns, that meet the definitions specified in the bill.

I don't believe these people are not going to be satisfied stopping there, either. AR pistols, AS PISTOLS would be eliminated, forget all the Fed crap about braces, the pistol with no "brace" at all would be gone.

Local gunshop (who does focus on the "Tactical" market) is doing $20-25K business DAILY right now. And, no, they don't have any AR pistols on the shelf, either.

Everytime they get one, somebody buys it...

[reddog81]

I think most have stopped selling them with braces due to the ATFs new rules. An AR pistol without a brace is just a ginormous handgun that is hard to handle or shoot in any reasonable manner.

[Double Naught Spy]

An AR pistol without a brace is just a ginormous handgun that is hard to handle or shoot in any reasonable manner.

It wasn't that long ago that such ginormous AR pistols had a small but dedicated group of owners/followers. Some people had holsters made for them and everything. You just never know what some people may like and enjoy. Of course, then the braces came along and the popularity exploded. Now, not so much.

[Kreyzhorse]

Build your own. Get exactly what you want and in my opinion, an arm brace may be a nice option, but certainly not needed.

Legally, I'd also guess a pistol is pretty easy to make a SBR so maybe some companies would just rather stay away from producing a gun that easy converts.

[Nathan]

I think you will find that up until January, the AR Pistol market was defined as pistol with brace.

Now those are illegal. Sure we have until May to react, but nib is now regulated as SBR.

So, I think most retailers don’t want to buy a bunch of unbraced pistol inventory until it is more clear what the lawsuits are doing.

[RickB]

A buddy called me from a Washington gun store yesterday, waiting along with thirty other people.
They're selling everything in stock.
I know a guy or two working at Rainier Arms, and another at Aero Precision, and those businesses may be very much in peril; don't know how the new law affects "exporting" to other states?

[JERRYS.]

none of the law suits against the batfe moving the goal post again will make it to the scotus this year.

[44 AMP]

Now those are illegal. Sure we have until May to react, but nib is now regulated as SBR.

I would point out that there is a difference between "illegal" and "regulated as an SBR".

Not a LOT for most people, highly restricted might as well be illegal in practical (and economic) terms for most of us, but there is a significant difference in legal status.

AR pistols were sold as handguns before "braces" became a thing, and can still be sold now, as handguns, without a "Brace that is a stock" in the eyes of the Govt.

Or at least they can be until/unless another "assault weapon" law prohibits them.

[RickB]

One thing ATF is not interested in telling you, is that there are laws affecting the taking of NFA items across state lines, such as filling out forms, notifying authorities in neighboring states before crossing the border, etc.
And, of course, SBRs are not legal in some states, so that's not an option if you really want "something" against your shoulder.

[Nathan]

I would point out that there is a difference between "illegal" and "regulated as an SBR".

Yea, I should have said illegal for non-class 3 to transfer. Class 3’s will need to regulate as SBR.

[ballardw]

I'm waiting for some enterprising developer to create a brace that connects to the wrist of the shooter that has a shoulder stock, not to the weapon. Maybe not as good as a "brace" or rifle stock but would dearly love to see the BATF logic used when they decide to go after that.

Who know, maybe such a conversion of "brace" to actual "wrist brace" would be interesting.

[44 AMP]

I'm waiting for some enterprising developer to create a brace that connects to the wrist of the shooter that has a shoulder stock, not to the weapon.

Your wait is over...about 50 years ago....

Though I cannot now remember the name, there was such a thing, made and sold in the late 60-early 70s. Plastic "stock" with a metal ball end. which fit into a socket worn on a wristband.

Universal fit, nothing attached to the firearm, worked with any handgun.
COMPLETELY LEGAL everywhere....and, it actually did work...

SO, OF course, the market killed it.....

Almost nobody was interested. BACK THEN....

Today, it might be a different matter, it is a different "era". I'm willing to bet if you got some kids...youthful adults.. using them on UTube and telling the world how cool they were, you'd probably sell truckloads.

Might even appeal to some of us older folks, who sadly have come to realize that despite what our memories tell us, reality tells us that we no longer are as steady as we were in the glory of our youth.

Heck, you might market it as an aid for elderly and handicapped people.
(a point I never used to consider, but now have to...)

[smee78]

"Heck, you might market it as an aid for elderly and handicapped people." So was the pistol brace and we see how well the atf ruled on that.

[44 AMP]

So was the pistol brace and we see how well the atf ruled on that.

SO???

Apples and watermelons in a manner of speaking.

The wrist brace I'm referring to does NOT attach to the gun. In fact, it never even touches the gun. So, its NOT "part of the firearm". The ATF does not have jurisdiction over it. It is neither Alcohol, Tobacco, nor a Firearm. The NFA (and ALL other gun control laws DO NOT APPLY. Gun control laws don't apply to the wrist brace any more than they apply to the watch you're wearing, or the shoes you have on.

Now the clever and overreaching folks in GOVT might TRY and claim it is a firearm "accessory" but I doubt any such claim would pass review in court. Its a brace, yes, but its not something that is part of a gun, and its not something that ONLY braces a gun, it braces your ARM, to steady it no matter what you have in your hand. Could be a pistol, sure. Could be a CAMERA, or a set of Binoculars (or today, your phone!) if you wanted to you could make something like it out of wood and leather.

The "braces" that the ATF has now ruled are stocks, were attached to the firearm, MAKING THEM PART OF THE FIREARM, so the ATF had legal standing to rule on them.

An "arm brace" that doesn't attach to or hold the firearm in any way won't be popular with the kids playing "run dodge and jump" games with AR pistols, because it would be more cumbersome and much slower to use than a brace attached to the pistol, but it would be 100% legal and unregulated under current existing LAW.

I can't see any stretch of logic that would allow something that is not part of a gun, does not, and cannot be attached to a gun to be ruled a gunstock by the ATF, or anybody else.

Which, of course doesn't mean some anti gun OCD possessed idi..er..person won't TRY. I just don't see how they could succeed, even if they were a political figure or worked for the DOJ, or the Press, I just don't see such an argument prevailing.