PDA

View Full Version : Did 'Black Aces Tactical' just screw the pooch?



Chevtec
19 November 2014, 10:15
Paragraph 3/4 directly conflicts another infamous letter concerning the Sigtac SB-15 brace, but paragraph 5 says the ruling only applies to the submitted prototype. This company only deals in Mossberg shotguns and I'm not sure what sample he sent to the ATF, but I don't like the sound of this letter he posted to his Facebook page.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10733991_663823030396956_4531065527360029346_n.jpg ?oh=0cbe686f2fcbd583689bc06d51723619&oe=54D9234F&__gda__=1423142391_9413115a9aadfa0dc150a86b13c0933 9

UWone77
19 November 2014, 10:26
Who didn't see this coming?

The ATF letter is not the law, but an opinion, which can be changed on a whim or by an administration change.

I hope you guys didn't invest too much $$ in Sig Braces. Like I said before... they suck.

Chevtec
19 November 2014, 10:31
Eh, I've lost $99 on much stupider endeavors. I can live without it, but I do like the one I have. One is enough, though.

Chevtec
19 November 2014, 10:35
http://www.shootingsportsretailer.com/2014/11/19/could-this-mean-the-end-of-the-sig-brace/ Coincidentally, this article just came across my FB feed.

rob_s
19 November 2014, 10:35
Who didn't see this coming?

The ATF letter is not the law, but an opinion, which can be changed on a whim or by an administration change.

I hope you guys didn't invest too much $$ in Sig Braces. Like I said before... they suck.

God, I agree. This has been the derpiest trend in ARs since the enedine buffer and color-inlaid logos.

UWone77
19 November 2014, 10:36
Eh, I've lost $99 on much stupider endeavors. I can live without it, but I do like the one I have. One is enough, though.

If more people would have just STFU, and used the Brace as they saw fit, it would probably be an non-issue. Too many guys flaunting how this was the new "loophole" and chastising those who were paying to SBR their lowers probably did not help.

Brilliant marketing the last few years by Sig though!

Ride4frnt
19 November 2014, 10:38
I'll use mine promptly until an SBR stamp comes back. Likely will file for a SBR and sell the sig brace before I ever build the gun.

Gaspipeshooter
19 November 2014, 10:38
Who didn't see this coming?

The ATF letter is not the law, but an opinion, which can be changed on a whim or by an administration change.

I hope you guys didn't invest too much $$ in Sig Braces. Like I said before... they suck.

It doesn't help that every guy out there posting pix on Facebook and forums is shouldering the thing...

KW900A
19 November 2014, 10:42
If more people would have just STFU, and used the Brace as they saw fit, it would probably be an non-issue. Too many guys flaunting how this was the new "loophole" and chastising those who were paying to SBR their lowers probably did not help.

Brilliant marketing the last few years by Sig though!

Social media can be a blessing and curse for many companies/products

MonkeyBomb
19 November 2014, 10:53
I think the bigger issue is the people who buy it without ever intending to use it for it's intended purpose and making video's stating as much.

I think where this "ruling" comes in, is a mossberg shotgun doesn't have a pistol buffer tube and doesn't need one to function. An AR pistol does. Adding a buffer tube to a shotgun "pistol" or to and AK pistol is pushing any ruling. The purpose is to attache something to shoulder the "pistol".

Stupid people are the reason we can't have nice things.

GOST
19 November 2014, 10:54
Who didn't see this coming?

The ATF letter is not the law, but an opinion, which can be changed on a whim or by an administration change.

I hope you guys didn't invest too much $$ in Sig Braces. Like I said before... they suck.

My money went towards a Form 1.

Chevtec
19 November 2014, 10:55
If more people would have just STFU, and used the Brace as they saw fit, it would probably be an non-issue. Too many guys flaunting how this was the new "loophole" and chastising those who were paying to SBR their lowers probably did not help.

Brilliant marketing the last few years by Sig though!

Agreed. You could take it as far back as a photo of Ian Harrison in RECOIL mag issue 9.

UWone77
19 November 2014, 10:57
I think the bigger issue is the people who buy it without ever intending to use it for it's intended purpose and making video's stating as much.

I think where this "ruling" comes in, is a mossberg shotgun doesn't have a pistol buffer tube and doesn't need one to function. An AR pistol does. Adding a buffer tube to a shotgun "pistol" or to and AK pistol is pushing any ruling. The purpose is to attache something to shoulder the "pistol".

Stupid people are the reason we can't have nice things.

100% agree with this. I first thought about it when MAC reviewed a POF MP5 with the Brace. I was thinking, that's gotta be a gray area (not that I didn't feel the Brace was one before) since the MP5 does not require a receiver extension to operate. In the case of the MP5 pistol, to me it was clearly designed to be used as a stock only.


My money went towards a Form 1.

I never understood if you lived in a free state, why you would pay $150 for a Sig Brace, and not the $200 for a SBR. I get the whole registration thing, but a real stock is so much more functional.

Thompson
19 November 2014, 11:18
I never understood if you lived in a free state, why you would pay $150 for a Sig Brace, and not the $200 for a SBR. I get the whole registration thing, but a real stock is so much more functional.
That's a good point, I've never really looked at the dollar-to-dollar difference between the two. Definitely puts that into perspective for me now. I might go the SBR route instead depending how things play out.

Chevtec
19 November 2014, 11:25
The somewhat funny part about all this is he obviously didn't get the approval he was hoping for, but went full retard on FB with it anyway.

Chevtec
19 November 2014, 11:32
I never understood if you lived in a free state, why you would pay $150 for a Sig Brace, and not the $200 for a SBR. I get the whole registration thing, but a real stock is so much more functional.

There are other benefits. In Ohio, I cannot keep a SBR loaded in my vehicle, but I can with an AR pistol and Concealed Handgun License. I am free to take an AR pistol across state lines without notification/permission. A friend/relative doesn't have to be a trustee on a NFA trust to take a pistol to the range without me. ...and as you stated, some just aren't too keen on weapon registration.

UWone77
19 November 2014, 11:34
There are other benefits. In Ohio, I cannot keep a SBR loaded in my vehicle, but I can with an AR pistol and Concealed Handgun License. I am free to take an AR pistol across state lines without notification/permission. A friend/relative doesn't have to be a trustee on a NFA trust to take a pistol to the range without me. ...and as you stated, some just aren't too keen on weapon registration.

I hear this all the time.

For me, I'm not going to base my firearm decisions around something I might do less than 1% of the time.

I would rarely if ever carry an AR pistol or SBR (if it was legal) loaded in my car. I would rarely if ever drive across state lines with an AR pistol/SBR.

To me, it's like guys who gear their AR SPR/DMR guns around the 1 or 2 times in their entire lives they "might" shoot 800-1000 yards, when 99.99% of their shooting will be within 300 yards.

Your mileage may/will definitely vary on this one.

Computalotapus
19 November 2014, 11:48
I never understood if you lived in a free state, why you would pay $150 for a Sig Brace, and not the $200 for a SBR. I get the whole registration thing, but a real stock is so much more functional.

Well I made a change on my pistol build spreadsheet I sent you earlier. I will say the key factor in me wanting to do a AR pistol vs a SBR isn't the tax stamp paper work, it is the fact that I can use the pistol as a vehicle weapon and not have to worry about all the BS that comes with taking a SBR across state lines when driving to visit family. Now the question is why do I need a AR Pistol when traveling might come up and I will probably ask why not? Will I take it on every trip? Probably not but if I decided to take it I wouldn't have to worry about filing a written request to ask permission to take it and say where I am taking and for what purposes. In all honesty how fast is the turn around on a letter like that, what if it is a spur of the moment trip and I don't have time to file a letter and wait for permission to take my own property I own with me on my trip.

If that did away with that stupid part of owning a SBR/SBS I would own one sooner than later and have no problems filing out the paperwork for a stamp and paying $200 for it.

Ride4frnt
19 November 2014, 11:51
Well I made a change on my pistol build spreadsheet I sent you earlier. I will say the key factor in me wanting to do a AR pistol vs a SBR isn't the tax stamp paper work, it is the fact that I can use the pistol as a vehicle weapon and not have to worry about all the BS that comes with taking a SBR across state lines when driving to visit family. Now the question is why do I need a AR Pistol when traveling might come up and I will probably ask why not? Will I take it on every trip? Probably not but if I decided to take it I wouldn't have to worry about filing a written request to ask permission to take it and say where I am taking and for what purposes. In all honesty how fast is the turn around on a letter like that, what if it is a spur of the moment trip and I don't have time to file a letter and wait for permission to take my own property I own with me on my trip.

If that did away with that stupid part of owning a SBR/SBS I would own one sooner than later and have no problems filing out the paperwork for a stamp and paying $200 for it.

From what I read you can file the 5320.20 for up to a year at a time, and it's usually approved within 2 weeks.

UWone77
19 November 2014, 11:53
I didn't know so many people wanted to carry their AR pistols in their car. Seems silly to me, and here's why:

Neighboring states to me don't have CPL reciprocity.

If I leave my car, I'm not leaving any firearms inside it, locked or otherwise.

CCW of an AR pistol would be hard, if not impossible.

I train with my handgun 100x more than an AR pistol, including drawing and reholstering from "regular clothing"

This is coming from a LEO with nationwide CCW... so if I wanted, I could carry my AR pistol anywhere.

In the end for me, it makes no sense, and like I stated previously, I don't buy gear around the less than 1% of the time I might do something with my firearm.

GOST
19 November 2014, 11:57
For me I can understand the pistol vs SBR argument, but have a problem with the Sig brace. When the local shops started carrying them they pushed them on everybody to try. So once I shouldered one it was very apparent that it was not a stock. The Sig brace may look like a stock, but does not feel like one to me. I personally rather shoot a pistol build without the Sig brace.

GOST
19 November 2014, 12:02
If I leave my car, I'm not leaving any firearms inside it, locked or otherwise.


One of co-workers always had loaded firearms left in his truck. He also loves stickers. So every time someone who buy a new firearm he would ask for the stickers to put on his truck. This practice resulted in him having park on county property outside of the CLA, and also to replace a wind shield.

Ride4frnt
19 November 2014, 12:03
I didn't know so many people wanted to carry their AR pistols in their car. Seems silly to me, and here's why:

Neighboring states to me don't have CPL reciprocity.

If I leave my car, I'm not leaving any firearms inside it, locked or otherwise.

CCW of an AR pistol would be hard, if not impossible.

I train with my handgun 100x more than an AR pistol, including drawing and reholstering from "regular clothing"

This is coming from a LEO with nationwide CCW... so if I wanted, I could carry my AR pistol anywhere.

In the end for me, it makes no sense, and like I stated previously, I don't buy gear around the less than 1% of the time I might do something with my firearm.

I agree. If I'm carrying a gun in my car for defensive purposes it's gonna be a handgun.

My problem is, I DO travel state to state to shoot regularly. My house is literally a half mile inside MD. I can walk to PA in under a minute. I shoot there regularly. All of the better ranges around here are in WV, which I'm 10 minutes from. I shoot there too. It's logistically easier for me to build a pistol. Plus I don't have to pay attention to the 29" rule in md (not that I would build an SBR with shorter than 10.5" barrel)

With that being said, my intentions are to build a SBR, and if I have to file a form for interstate travel yearly, so be it. And if I don't want to, I'll just take my non NFA items across the lines.

GOST
19 November 2014, 12:11
I've not tried the Thorsden saddle kit, but it looks more comfortable than the Sig brace.

Computalotapus
19 November 2014, 13:06
My trip from Michigan to Alabama every state I drive through reciprocates. Pretty much anywhere I drive to does. And I am not talking about it being out laying on the seat next to me. Plans will be for a nice carry back (maybe a sling bag) setup. And you are right 99% of the time I will just take the G19 and the wife carries her Shield. But also I am looking to do a lot more backpacking and something that is small and compact and light to carry will make a nice backpacking weapon. Once we get out of Michigan and plant our feet I will SBR a rifle so I dont have to worry about pistol hunting laws and start doing a lot more backpack hunting.

But for now since I do not plan on staying in Michigan I will hold off on a SBR and just do a pistol build. I will most likely get the Thorsden saddle kit instead of the brace.

Former11B
19 November 2014, 13:17
It's bad enough the ATF knows how many suppressors I have but I'm against registering any guns. Some may think that reason is silly but its my reason. No firearm owner does things exactly the same as another, so I don't judge anything anyone else does with their guns (unless it's a three light/two laser bipod vertical foregrip combo...I do judge those things)

cagekicker204
19 November 2014, 13:50
Kinda glad I did a form 1, no regrets now. I bet you will see a lot of trusts being started and Efile form 1s submitted. Good it's not that scary do some research, ask some questions, $200 bucks isn't that much compared to all the pistols with $300 rails and high end optics. The more mainstream the NFA items become the better. I will pay for a stock on my rifle the Sig brace my brother is rocking costs him almost that much but he didn't believe me. I am shocked at all the misinformation about the NFA process floating around. It's easy and addictive.

Soisauss
19 November 2014, 14:27
If more people would have just STFU, and used the Brace as they saw fit, it would probably be an non-issue. Too many guys flaunting how this was the new "loophole" and chastising those who were paying to SBR their lowers probably did not help.

Brilliant marketing the last few years by Sig though!

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/45/45439cd6d55d18f83d442376405d61d076fd70bcef2f56b231 e8ec853324fdab.jpg


Well said UW

voodoo_man
19 November 2014, 14:43
This has nothing to do with AR15s. The letter clearly says shotgun and using it specifically for a stock.

They just shit the bed on shotguns, that is all.

voodoo_man
19 November 2014, 14:45
Just to add. I carry an ar pistol everywhere. totally doable as long as you dont mind walking around with a backpack.

KevinBLC
19 November 2014, 14:46
This has nothing to do with AR15s. The letter clearly says shotgun and using it specifically for a stock.

They just shit the bed on shotguns, that is all.

Not yet...

Former11B
19 November 2014, 15:05
This has nothing to do with AR15s. The letter clearly says shotgun and using it specifically for a stock.

They just shit the bed on shotguns, that is all.

It's the fact that the Sig Brace is being used in an attempt to skirt the rules and the ATF keeps having to weigh in on it at peoples' REQUEST no less, they're eventually going to move from opinion letters to an outright ruling.

voodoo_man
19 November 2014, 15:12
Cant we just be happy that this is allowed accept it without having to criticize?

I for one enjoy my 7.75" barrel.

GaSwamper
19 November 2014, 15:48
It's the fact that the Sig Brace is being used in an attempt to skirt the rules and the ATF keeps having to weigh in on it at peoples' REQUEST no less, they're eventually going to move from opinion letters to an outright ruling.

Bingo! Must be my short arms but the brace works fine to me, HEAVY, but feels fine.
All previous response letters I've seen on the subject the ATF states the rules only tell you how to configure to be a pistol, they can't tell you how to use it. If how to use is brought into question we're all wrong cause I know I can't shoot a handgun one handed for shit.

Uffdaphil
19 November 2014, 16:44
I don't stand with the yahoos taunting the ATF any more than With the idiots in Starbucks with slung ARs. But even more I don't like the feeling that we have to cower in fear of the arbitrary 2A infringements by government bureaucrats.

The difference between a brace and an SBR is far more than $50. It's the freedom to travel, loan out, and stay off of the Priority Confiscation registration list. Hopefully there are enough brace users out there by now to put some heat on their pols to nip any ban in the bud.


We are too damn close to "shakin' it boss" and too far from, "'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

bschmelt
19 November 2014, 17:12
I have a pistol with the brace. I had originally not gotten it because I didn't really care for the looks. I didn't care for the cheek weld with just the extension and foam pad, so I ordered it and put it on. It definitely felt better, but the diameter of the tube was too small, so it has a lot of movement. Will SBR a lower sooner or later and then just get rid of the brace.

Thompson
19 November 2014, 17:29
I've not tried the Thorsden saddle kit, but it looks more comfortable than the Sig brace.
That's something that I've been looking at doing, if I decide to go the pistol route. Although, according to the ATF - the two parts the comprise of the kit (saddle + buffer tube) have been analyzed by the ATF and declared not a stock, but here's the catch - this was considering both items separately, not combined as it's clear intended use.

Chevtec
20 November 2014, 06:47
TTAG takes a step back and a few deep breaths....

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/robert-farago/atf-letter-is-not-the-end-of-the-sig-brace/

CarbonScoring
20 November 2014, 07:26
I've got 1 AR pistol and it does have a brace. I've assumed, since I built it, that this was eventually going to be banned. When I built it, it was with the intention of building a range toy, that in the event it was deemed illegal, I could always just have it as a standard pistol.

While I wanted an SBR, the local CLEO won't sign (or so I was told), and I couldn't see spending the money on a trust for one SBR. With Coyote Rifleworks offering them more afford ably, that totally changed for me (Form 1 submitted 10 days ago).

I don't for one second think that I'm any worse off having registered my gun with the ATF, and while I do disagree with the whole NFA law, I've spent more than $200 on some pretty stupid things in my life. I look at it as just another component.

CarbonScoring
20 November 2014, 07:29
And one other thing, if you're asking if ''Black Aces Tactical' just screw the pooch?', then you're asking that because you know what you're doing is iffy at best.

Uffdaphil
20 November 2014, 07:40
Good to know. I'm in Bloomington too and did not know there was a problem getting the signature. I still may get a trust for one SBR lower along with the braces. But even if just in principle I would feel worse off registering it from a slippery slope toward universal requirement perspective. I'm old and ornery enough not to worry much about the goons coming to my door. If I was a young guy with a family I might want to keep a lower profile.


Edit: Carbon, Love your avatar. Just enlarged it. Heretofore I thought it was you in tac get-up. My eyes are really getting bad.

voodoo_man
20 November 2014, 09:04
Im not remotely worried as the atf would have to release a set of guidelines in order to actually stop people from using it a different way than it was intended.

I have an sbr, but for simplicities sake the pistol makes a lot of sense.

WHSmithIV
20 November 2014, 09:51
The ruling on the shotgun was a no brainer when I read it. There is no pistol classification for a shotgun. So, it really is an illegal SBS in this case. Nothing really to do with the brace. The SIG brace is an aid as an arm brace. Not so sure if I'll get one or not for the pistol I'm building and even if I do it will be down the road aways. I like the Thordsens kit also and that is most definitely not a stock for the shoulder. There's a review of the install of that also on another forum. For me and the pistol I'm building I'm not so sure I see a real benefit from either of them over the foam pad on the buffer tube though the SIG brace on the arm would definitely be an aid for one handed shooting of this AR47 pistol. So, it is likely that I will eventually get one just to find out how well it will work for that.

I'm not building this for it to be a SBR. If I was, I'd be planning a little longer barrel than 10.5" and I'd certainly want a proper stock for it plus, of course, the required tax stamp. I'm building it for what I've designed it to be - a pistol that fires 7.62x39 ammo and that I can shoot one handed when necessary. So far with how it's coming together I'm quite pleased with the simple foam covered pistol buffer tube. I haven't designed this to have a stock of any kind. If I had wanted this AR47 to actually be a real shoulder fired weapon I would have designed it differently.

rob_s
20 November 2014, 09:58
Saying that your reason for having the brace instead of the SBR is so that you can prepare for your personal SHTFantasy does NOT make for a more rational argument.

Just sayin.

CarbonScoring
20 November 2014, 10:00
Good to know. I'm in Bloomington too and did not know there was a problem getting the signature. I still may get a trust for one SBR lower along with the braces. But even if just in principle I would feel worse off registering it from a slippery slope toward universal requirement perspective. I'm old and ornery enough not to worry much about the goons coming to my door. If I was a young guy with a family I might want to keep a lower profile.


Edit: Carbon, Love your avatar. Just enlarged it. Heretofore I thought it was you in tac get-up. My eyes are really getting bad.

I was told no CLEO in the area would sign off, but I was at Atomic Tactical and was informed that Stanek will. Whether that helps you, I don't know. You'd need to live in Hennepin County.

And my avatar IS me in tac get-up. [:D] Here it is bigger:

http://1funny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pirate-squirrel.jpg

GOST
20 November 2014, 10:08
http://1funny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pirate-squirrel.jpg

^For when a squirrel desperately needs to bust a nut^

WHSmithIV
20 November 2014, 10:10
If more people would have just STFU, and used the Brace as they saw fit, it would probably be an non-issue. Too many guys flaunting how this was the new "loophole" and chastising those who were paying to SBR their lowers probably did not help.

Brilliant marketing the last few years by Sig though!

I most definitely agree with you on this UWone. I may eventually get one to try it for it's intended use. I don't see it as being really useful as a stock period. People have been buying them up for their 'look cool' factor as near as I can tell. I have long arms too. For a shoulder fired weapon I want a proper stock, not something that I pretend is a stock and doesn't suit the purpose as such. If I want a SBR, then that is exactly what I will design. A SBR. I'd go the route of designing it right, getting a NFA trust and designing it to have 3 round burst also. I can't think of a reason why I'd need one though. I design for my needs and what is actually useful as a tool for me, not as toys.

GOST
20 November 2014, 10:14
For me the Sig brace may have it's place, but when I tried it I didn't like it. To me it made the rifle look like a SBR but did not feel any better than a foam wrap on the extension. It reminds me of the argument of I can't afford a full auto so I bought a Slide Fire.

WHSmithIV
20 November 2014, 10:25
I'll use mine promptly until an SBR stamp comes back. Likely will file for a SBR and sell the sig brace before I ever build the gun.

If you do so Ride4frnt, I'd be interested in trying it out for it's intended purpose. I'm curious as to how well it will work for that. That's why I never designed this gun I'm building to be a SBR. People keep asking me "are you going to put a SIG brace on it?" and I honestly doubt that I want to bother spending $115 just to test one. I am curious as to how well one 'might' work for me for it's intended purpose. I have a distinct feeling that it may be more of a hinderance than an aid though. One option could be to mount it offset 45 degrees to be used with 45 degree sights though.

WHSmithIV
20 November 2014, 10:31
I didn't know so many people wanted to carry their AR pistols in their car. Seems silly to me, and here's why:

Neighboring states to me don't have CPL reciprocity.

If I leave my car, I'm not leaving any firearms inside it, locked or otherwise.

CCW of an AR pistol would be hard, if not impossible.

I train with my handgun 100x more than an AR pistol, including drawing and reholstering from "regular clothing"

This is coming from a LEO with nationwide CCW... so if I wanted, I could carry my AR pistol anywhere.

In the end for me, it makes no sense, and like I stated previously, I don't buy gear around the less than 1% of the time I might do something with my firearm.

I'm not a LEO UWone but this is all common sense to me. I train with my .45 and even my wife's little .25 for carrying and I NEVER leave a firearm in our truck. I have my firearms for specific purposes and that's what they get used for. My 12 guage shotgun get's used less than anything else. It's for bird hunting.

Chevtec
20 November 2014, 10:44
I most definitely agree with you on this UWone. I may eventually get one to try it for it's intended use. I don't see it as being really useful as a stock period. People have been buying them up for their 'look cool' factor as near as I can tell. I have long arms too. For a shoulder fired weapon I want a proper stock, not something that I pretend is a stock and doesn't suit the purpose as such. If I want a SBR, then that is exactly what I will design. A SBR. I'd go the route of designing it right, getting a NFA trust and designing it to have 3 round burst also. I can't think of a reason why I'd need one though. I design for my needs and what is actually useful as a tool for me, not as toys.

I'm gonna be completely candid here and say if you want to buy one to use for it's intended use, don't bother. (Unless you have physical limitations and need assistance in supporting the pistol.)

WHSmithIV
20 November 2014, 10:52
I'm gonna be completely candid here and say if you want to buy one to use for it's intended use, don't bother. (Unless you have physical limitations and need assistance in supporting the pistol.)

That's what I've been thinking too. I'd like to try one, but that's about it.

Former11B
20 November 2014, 11:02
I like taking the AR pistol along (secured and in a case, of course) in addition to a small "get home bag" in my car when I go away from home (a couple hours' drive or more). It's more convenient than my full size ARs. Having one SBR'd lower would be nice but I still see a benefit in having both.

As far as the thread deviation pertaining to the comments like "Sig Brace crowd taunting/chastising those who pay for an SBR tax stamp", it's no different than the SBR owners saying the Sig Brace is useless. Neither are constructive and honestly its a petty debate. To each, his own. Some see utility in it, some do not. It doesn't mean either are right or wrong.

UWone77
20 November 2014, 11:04
For the record, I never said it was useless, I just said it sucked. [:D]

I tried one for awhile, and in my opinion, for the original intended use, it's sucks, and as a shouldering stock, it sucks.

Everyone has different shooting tastes and styles, and like I said before, your mileage may and will vary.

WHSmithIV
20 November 2014, 11:10
My guns all have specific uses. My old .303 is my deer rifle. I check it each year and fire a couple rounds through it to make sure it's sighted in - then go get a deer. My 12 guage is my bird gun. Hardly ever fire it but test one shell each year then go get a bird when i need one. The AR I built and then had to sell I built it for protecting our sheep in winter at night. I had to fend off a couple wolves from them with my .45 when it was pitch black out. So, I built something that would be better for that. That is what my AR pistol will be used for. I'll be mounting my tac light on it.

I have one pistol I bought just because it's old and I like old guns. That's my .32 S&W top break. My .45 - that's my .45 and it has multiple uses and definitely does get used. Had to put or old horse down with it last February sadly. I have an old .38 six shooter. I don't use it much but it's for having to put down sheep or goats and I have had to do so. I do also slaughter lambs we raise for meat. The .223 cartridge is well suited for that though a .22 will do fine. I don't have a .22 though currently so that is what I wlll get when I can afford one. The AR is good for coyotes during the day when you can see them.

My firearms are not toys. They each have their purpose. They are tools. I don't always need or use some of my wrenches either or my fire extinguishers, but I have them when I need them or if I need them. The only gun I have that is not for 'normal' use is that little .32, but I sometimes do carry it in my truck with me when going up the valley just in case some animal runss right in front of me and it's impossible to avoid it. Deer run across the roads all the time here. I won't let one suffer so I take a gun with me in my truck. Usually that's the .38, once in a while that old .32. Kat's .25 is in her purse but she's not always with me.

Former11B
20 November 2014, 12:16
For the record, I never said it was useless, I just said it sucked. [:D]

I tried one for awhile, and in my opinion, for the original intended use, it's sucks, and as a shouldering stock, it sucks.

Everyone has different shooting tastes and styles, and like I said before, your mileage may and will vary.


I agree as a wrist strapping single handed shooting brace...it sucks and looks laughable. As a shouldering stock, it's not as good as any real stock, but it's far better as a shoulder stock than it is a wrist strap. It's not ideal but it is better than just a buffer tube for those who can't or won't (or are waiting) SBR their rifles. Just my opinion of course

CarbonScoring
20 November 2014, 14:11
For the record, I never said it was useless, I just said it sucked. [:D]

My favorite quote from this site. Period. [:D]

WHSmithIV
20 November 2014, 17:44
Glad to hear the opinions. I won't bother thinking about putting one on the pistol I'm building [:D]

mustangfreek
21 November 2014, 00:36
Sig brace sux

Form 1 or go home..

Lol...i have neither..just provoking

Dark1
21 November 2014, 01:21
Sig brace sux

Form 1 or go home..

Lol...i have neither..just provoking

You have to remember a lot of us live in Non class III states where you can have a AR or AK hand gun but no SBRs