• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Q Honey Badger Pistol is an SBR... Your Brace is Next!

ColdDayInHell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
24,847
Likes
10,669
Location
North Shore
Before braces were a thing I shouldered a pistol off the receiver extension and was able to fire it just fine. Ideal? No, but far from useless.
81722436.jpg
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,666
Likes
1,275
Before braces were a thing I shouldered a pistol off the receiver extension and was able to fire it just fine. Ideal? No, but far from useless.

I guess, but I like a short pull and find a buffer tube much too short on it's own.

For me, I wouldn't bother owning an AR pistol minus a brace.
 

PappyM3

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
2,636
Likes
2,797
I guess, but I like a short pull and find a buffer tube much too short on it's own.

For me, I wouldn't bother owning an AR pistol minus a brace.

Put on an A5 buffer tube then, and also get the performance benefits as well ;)

But I agree, carbine tube by itself is too short. I can do a SOPMOD stock fully collapsed though.
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,666
Likes
1,275
Even if they measured it correctly, the whole 13.5" LOP is an entirely arbitrary and made-up standard by ATF.

Ya I agree, #1 the whole SBR thing is a nonsense idea that if there was ever anything to it has become outdated #2 if we are going to have legal mumbo jumbo it should be defined as law and not by a government agency who can just change their mind later...

But with that said, I'm not up on all the pistol versus rifle ATF clarification garbage and I knew 13.5 was the current "bar". I don't understand why they wouldn't have just kept the measurement undoubtedly below 13.5. Alternatively I believe they could have approached the ATF for evaluation and made small adjustments as needed. I'm all for creating controversy, making a point, suing the government, etc etc, but as a business you really shouldn't expose your customers to it.
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,666
Likes
1,275
Put on an A5 buffer tube then, and also get the performance benefits as well ;)

But I agree, carbine tube by itself is too short. I can do a SOPMOD stock fully collapsed though.

Ya that's something I was thinking about on the rifle tube, maybe that will be the next generation of pistols - a rifle tube with a padded end.

I run a carbine stock out 1 or max of 2 clicks, fully collapsed on something that is made to be compact would be totally OK.
 

edmorseiii

Navy Veteran
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
20,601
Likes
14,922
Location
NH
Even if they measured it correctly, the whole 13.5" LOP is an entirely arbitrary and made-up standard by ATF.

Just like 16" barrel to make a rifle. [laugh]

With God knows how many ≤ 14.5" barrels are in current use between .mil and LE agencies, shouldn't that be challenge-able based on Miller?
 

Mesatchornug

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
2,736
Likes
3,465
Location
Medford
I don't understand why they wouldn't have just kept the measurement undoubtedly below 13.5. Alternatively I believe they could have approached the ATF for evaluation and made small adjustments as needed. I'm all for creating controversy, making a point, suing the government, etc etc, but as a business you really shouldn't expose your customers to it.
They did. If you review the tape, he discusses the fact that historically, the way it's been measured is parallel to the bore of the barrel. This inspector measured at an angle to gain the necessary length.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
212
Likes
219
Location
New Hampshire
Gun Owners of America says that this whole issue can be easily resolved by removing SBRs from the NFA

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6hMIrfRrWY&feature=youtu.be



 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
212
Likes
219
Location
New Hampshire
It wasn’t done while we controlled all 3 branches. What chance do you think it has when we don’t?

I have no idea. We didn't get nationwide carry or sound suppresor deregulation either. I guess we could blame Paul Ryan, Kevin Brady, Kevin McCarthy and other weak house republicans. But I think GOAs point is that this issue of braces and SBRs is so confusing even ATF does not understand it so repeal of SBRs in the NFA is the best way to solve the problem. Maybe if the election goes well and other gun groups realize that GOA is right and would stop asking ATF for guidance and instead push congress to change the law we might make some progress. How can ATF guide anything when the term pistol brace does not appear in the law?
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,666
Likes
1,275
They did. If you review the tape, he discusses the fact that historically, the way it's been measured is parallel to the bore of the barrel. This inspector measured at an angle to gain the necessary length.

What I read is it actually measures 13.335 if done correctly, as was meant to be dimensioned (and who is to say tolerances for an adjustable brace aren't +/- an eight of an inch or more).

I'm saying if you are going to skip the nicey nicey ATF process, dream up your own brace instead of using one that has already been vetted, maybe leave an actual 1/4 inch, or even 1/2 or more (maybe so no matter how canted a measurement its < 13.5), to try to keep your customers out of harms way?

Myself the only reason I would buy a "production" pistol is in doing so I would assume it was a bona-fide legal gun. I am all for a small 2A supporting company but there is a "good business" aspect to this that I'm not sure was followed and as a result customers are dragged into the drama.
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,897
Likes
2,780
Location
WNW of MHT
For me, I wouldn't bother owning an AR pistol minus a brace.
I was registering ARs as SBR before the surge in brace popularity, and if they are no longer an option, I guess I'm back to writing $200 checks.

I'm more into bullpups anyway, and there is (currently) no legal "brace" equivalent for PS90 and such.
 

Mesatchornug

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
2,736
Likes
3,465
Location
Medford
What I read is it actually measures 13.335 if done correctly, as was meant to be dimensioned (and who is to say tolerances for an adjustable brace aren't +/- an eight of an inch or more).
Hopefully, the manufacturer. It's machined metal and molded plastic. Those parts should have tolerances in the area of .005" on critical dimensions. Yes, there's creep on longer parts, and tolerances stack, but it should never be over 0.125". They're capable of reliably making parts that contain explosions, they can make a stock that is the target length.

I'm saying if you are going to skip the nicey nicey ATF process, dream up your own brace instead of using one that has already been vetted, maybe leave an actual 1/4 inch, or even 1/2 or more (maybe so no matter how canted a measurement its < 13.5), to try to keep your customers out of harms way?
Except the ATF doesn't offer guidance on uninstalled braces any more, only on completed firearms. Should no manufacturer ever use a newer design than the SBA2? Further, if the rule is 13.5" in a given direction, you should be able to make parts that meet that spec. You shouldn't have to build them to every possible wrong interpretation, else what's the point of having the original guidance?

Myself the only reason I would buy a "production" pistol is in doing so I would assume it was a bona-fide legal gun. I am all for a small 2A supporting company but there is a "good business" aspect to this that I'm not sure was followed and as a result customers are dragged into the drama.
He went above and beyond. He made a firearm that in his understanding is a pistol, then asked the ATF to confirm. They then took a different method of measuring than has been their guidance, and told him it's wrong. When he asked for more information to understand their decision and redesign the brace to be "legal," they refused. Then they said to send samples of other firearms that use the commercial SBA3 brace that is used on other companies firearms, because they "think those firearms might not be legit either."
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,666
Likes
1,275
Hopefully, the manufacturer. It's machined metal and molded plastic. Those parts should have tolerances in the area of .005" on critical dimensions. Yes, there's creep on longer parts, and tolerances stack, but it should never be over 0.125". They're capable of reliably making parts that contain explosions, they can make a stock that is the target length.


Except the ATF doesn't offer guidance on uninstalled braces any more, only on completed firearms. Should no manufacturer ever use a newer design than the SBA2? Further, if the rule is 13.5" in a given direction, you should be able to make parts that meet that spec. You shouldn't have to build them to every possible wrong interpretation, else what's the point of having the original guidance?


He went above and beyond. He made a firearm that in his understanding is a pistol, then asked the ATF to confirm. They then took a different method of measuring than has been their guidance, and told him it's wrong. When he asked for more information to understand their decision and redesign the brace to be "legal," they refused. Then they said to send samples of other firearms that use the commercial SBA3 brace that is used on other companies firearms, because they "think those firearms might not be legit either."

The point is if they had submitted all those designs, ie the whole gun as a sample, to the ATF first they would know before they made it out to customers.

From what I am reading, basically these were being sold as production guns and now the legality is in question because such was never done prior.

As far as the brace goes, the spec chosen was very close, unnecessarily close for something that is so scrutinized and subjective.

I agree the process is bullshit and unfair, should be down right illegal, but as a gun manufacturer that is the game they need to play to serve their customers IMO.
 

atmay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
9,158
Likes
2,371
Location
Free 'murica
The point is if they had submitted all those designs, ie the whole gun as a sample, to the ATF first they would know before they made it out to customers.

From what I am reading, basically these were being sold as production guns and now the legality is in question because such was never done prior.

As far as the brace goes, the spec chosen was very close, unnecessarily close for something that is so scrutinized and subjective.

I agree the process is bullshit and unfair, should be down right illegal, but as a gun manufacturer that is the game they need to play to serve their customers IMO.

They are not required to submit to the ATF for a determination. There is nothing about the gun (i.e. some novel config or operation) that would have prompted them to submit for a determination.

As for “unnecessarily close”, if 13.5” is the limit, then 13.5” is the goddamn limit. 13.3” is within that limit.

And what wouldn’t be “unnecessary”? 13.2? 13.1? 13.0?!

What about barrels? When you see a 16.1” barrel, does that strike fear into your heart? That’s only a 0.625% margin they’re leaving themselves there!
 

Brewer

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
3,916
Likes
10,694
Location
Erebor
It wasn’t done while we controlled all 3 branches. What chance do you think it has when we don’t?

The 2017 Vegas shooting interrupted it and nobody wanted the optics of expanding gun rights immediately after. Maybe if we try again.

But big news, just got this email from Q:
Q said:
UPDATE: Q Issued 60-Day Cease & Desist Suspension

Dear Customer:

Last Friday, October 9, 2020, our attorneys received a letter from ATF Chief Counsel Joel Roessner “temporarily suspending the Cease and Desist letter” associated with the Honey Badger Pistol by Q®. The letter states that the suspension, “will remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) days . . . unless withdrawn or extended by ATF.” The stated purpose of the suspension is to allow the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) an opportunity, “to further review the applicability of the National Firearms Act to the manufacture and transfer of the model ‘Honey Badger Pistol’ firearm.”

Our attorneys quickly followed up to inquire if the underlying Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division evaluation was also suspended but have not received a response. Regardless, until we are told otherwise by the U.S. government of a permanent decision, we must assume that the suspension of the Cease and Desist letter does not impact the ATF’s position that the Honey Badger Pistol is a National Firearms Act (“NFA”) weapon, as the ATF could arbitrarily withdraw the suspension at any time.

We believe this 60-day suspension is an effort to put manufacturers, distributors, and consumers at ease, and to postpone the issue past the presidential election in hopes that a new administration will take a different view. Using licensees as political pawns is unbecoming of a regulatory agency and ignoring the underlying evaluation in this letter is simply irresponsible. Q will not succumb to this level or irresponsibility. Therefore, without further clarification from ATF on their evaluation, we will not continue manufacturing the Honey Badger Pistol.[1]

Once again, we urge you to continue the pressure and contact the Department of Justice (ATF’s parent agency) by using this Take Action link provided by the National Rifle Association.

Additionally, we encourage you to continue reaching out to the White House and ask President Trump to halt and rollback ATF’s efforts to issue arbitrary and capricious decisions affecting millions of legal gun owners.
White House Comment Line:
(202) 456-1111 / Email
Residents from the following states and districts should reach out to their congressional representatives to let them know what they think of ATF’s actions:
Kentucky - Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) - U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell
(202) 224-2541 / Email

Alabama – Sen. Richard Shelby (R) - Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and oversees funding of DOJ/ATF. United States Senator Richard Shelby
(202) 224-5744 / Email

Kansas – Sen. Jerry Moran (R) – Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) which is responsible for funding the ATF.
(202) 224-6521 / Email

South Carolina – Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) – Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for ATF oversight.
(202) 224-5972 / Email

Ohio 4th District - Congressman Jim Jordan (R) – Ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over 2nd amendment issues. U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan
(202) 225-2676 / Email

If you’re not from one these States, you can find your representative’s contact information here: Contacting Congress

We sincerely thank everyone for their support in this situation. We, in conjunction with SB Tactical®, the NRA®, and other industry partners soon to be announced, will continue to do everything in our power to resolve this matter amicably for all parties involved.


Regards,

Q, LLC


______________________________
Adam Johnson, CEO

[1] This statement does not constitute legal advice, nor may it be relied upon as stating a legal opinion regarding the proper regulatory treatment of the Honey Badger pistol.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
75,723
Likes
47,538
It would be nice if they could not be c***s for once and just say something like "hey if you take this brace and reduce it to size X and we will stop whining about it". Then Q can just do a retrofit program and then things arent so retarded....
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,666
Likes
1,275
They are not required to submit to the ATF for a determination. There is nothing about the gun (i.e. some novel config or operation) that would have prompted them to submit for a determination.

As for “unnecessarily close”, if 13.5” is the limit, then 13.5” is the goddamn limit. 13.3” is within that limit.

And what wouldn’t be “unnecessary”? 13.2? 13.1? 13.0?!

What about barrels? When you see a 16.1” barrel, does that strike fear into your heart? That’s only a 0.625% margin they’re leaving themselves there!

By clearing their guns with ATF they would be looking out for their customers. Sure it is not required but such prevents drama like this and ultimately is better business. It may even save them $$ when a bunch of customers demand to return the $2000 gun marketed and sold to them illegally, which is what I would be doing if I got stuck with one.

If there was nothing about the gun that might have raised concerns the mess wouldn't have happened. Braces have been coming up with the ATF for as long as there have been braces. We know that, they know that.

Barrel length has been very settled for a long time. It is nearly impossible to not measure a barrel straight.

Measuring length of pull, and I agree there is a right way, is a lot more like measuring a fish. The truth can be influenced a little by wishful thinking. My only braced pistol I purposely set at 12.5 because I didn't want to concern myself with it, had they have done the same we wouldn't be talking about this.
 

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
20,365
Likes
20,458
Location
Back from Motherland
It would be nice if they could not be c***s for once and just say something like "hey if you take this brace and reduce it to size X and we will stop whining about it". Then Q can just do a retrofit program and then things arent so retarded....

yeah but they have not done this with Q as they bitch about it multiple times and they NEVER done it with any other builds going back 10-15 years. All those approval letters are private too.

It's so retarded that they demand accessories present, like the case of and SVD importer who had to send a sample with optics on, then ATF says too easy to convert to MG so they never send importer his SVD and neither the scope. Talk about rape without the courtesy of reach around.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
24,794
Likes
16,534
Measuring length of pull, and I agree there is a right way, is a lot more like measuring a fish. The truth can be influenced a little by wishful thinking. My only braced pistol I purposely set at 12.5 because I didn't want to concern myself with it, had they have done the same we wouldn't be talking about this.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows, backside of the butthole, twice around the scrotum, to the tip. Then multiply by 1.27 just to be safe. 1.35 if you're Irish like me.
 

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
20,365
Likes
20,458
Location
Back from Motherland
??? Aren't all approval letters "private"?

yes, they are, and apply to specific sample sent to ATF, so publishing them publicly isn't against the law, it's just that ATF is not telling public that everyone can do it. The one issue that Q run into is the issue that has been there forever, i.e. ATF NEVER publishes guidelines publicly about builds.

You want to go even further ... the guidelines to correctly demill guns only exist for few guns. The "saw cut" often seen on GB are not legal but were never prosecuted. And of course determination of "receiver" is a whole different ball of wax, ATF never made specific statements and prefers to give you assurance on case to case basis.

Assurance is the key word here, because all these "approval" letters are technically, as ATF describes them "due diligence" and technically does not protect you from ATF deciding to file a law suit against you even if you followed the "approval" letter to the t. Read the fine print.


In short, most people know that ATF is an agency that does whatever the f*** they want, laws be damned. I really don't know of any other agency that does as much public impact over so many people on a pure whim. It has been a systemic problem that existed for decades and periodically it surfaces. Mark my word, the shit show with Q will be over and all will be quiet until the next time. Companies big and small, uber-patriotic and not so much will lick ATF's penus and tell everyone how nice they are.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
3,225
Likes
2,827
It wasn’t done while we controlled all 3 branches. What chance do you think it has when we don’t?
We haven't had control of SCOTUS until after ACB is affirmed. At that point we will and a judicial review of the NFA should get pushed thru the courts because Miller vs US only set a precedant for shotguns, I don't know of any SCOTUS cases that have come before that dealt with short barrel rifles or pistols.

So, we may never get sawed off shotguns removed from the NFA, but we could get other things removed by SCOTUS.

Republicans in Congress, specifically the senate, have proven that they will never undo anything that is related to the NFA, GCA, or anything dealing with machine guns.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
3,225
Likes
2,827
I was registering ARs as SBR before the surge in brace popularity, and if they are no longer an option, I guess I'm back to writing $200 checks.

I'm more into bullpups anyway, and there is (currently) no legal "brace" equivalent for PS90 and such.
Can't say I prefer a bullpup to a standard rifle, but the legality of a bullpup is not in the same jeopardy as braced pistols are, thus my interest in them has gone up a lot over the past year.

The Kel Tec RDB is the lowest priced bullpup that uses AR mags. If I wanted a short OAL rifle for home defense, that would be my top pick. The shitty bullpup triggers are fine for distances of less than 7 yards and adequate for 100 to 200 yards.
 
Top Bottom