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.
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.
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.
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.
Even if they measured it correctly, the whole 13.5" LOP is an entirely arbitrary and made-up standard by ATF.
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.
Even if they measured it correctly, the whole 13.5" LOP is an entirely arbitrary and made-up standard by ATF.
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.
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.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.
It wasn’t done while we controlled all 3 branches. What chance do you think it has when we don’t?Gun Owners of America says that this whole issue can be easily resolved by removing SBRs from the NFA
It wasn’t done while we controlled all 3 branches. What chance do you think it has when we don’t?
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.
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.For me, I wouldn't bother owning an AR pistol minus a brace.
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.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).
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?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?
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."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.
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.
You beat me to it...Yeah, like the rubber foot off a crutch, I'll bet that's never been done before...
It wasn’t done while we controlled all 3 branches. What chance do you think it has when we don’t?
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.
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!
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....
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.
??? Aren't all approval letters "private"?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.
??? Aren't all approval letters "private"?
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.It wasn’t done while we controlled all 3 branches. What chance do you think it has when we don’t?
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.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.