Did 'Black Aces Tactical' just screw the pooch?

[Chevtec]

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.

[UWone77]

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]

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]

http://www.shootingsportsretailer.co...the-sig-brace/ Coincidentally, this article just came across my FB feed.

[rob_s]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.