SB Tactical is the originator if the stabilizing brace concept. They’re regularly rolling out new versions and the SBA3 is their latest.
The SBA3 fits on a mil-spec lower receiver extension (buffer tube) and incorporates an ambi QD sling socket.
Available in Black or FDE.
Tags: SB Tactical
How long before someone pushes the envelope just a bit too far and ATF bites back? These forearm braces are really just hollow stocks at this point.
So what?
What part of shall not be infringed don’t you get?
I think he is suggesting that the confusing ATF rules making these compliant based on intended proper use (ie no brace to shoulder), not functional design properties, are ripe for abuse and therefore potentially revision. Not saying one is right or another, but I get his point.
I, and I believe the vast majority of this site’s readers, agree with the sentiment. But making “not a stock” stocks that are creeping more and more towards, well, actual stocks, might eventually catch the BATFE’s eye and then they revisit their interpretation and crack down on pistol braces entirely. I’m with you, they’re dumb rules and all infringements. Kind of the same concern as making “solvent traps” and DIAS “paper weights.”
Don’t speak for the entirety of this site. Not everyone here has a giant tampon string hanging out of them.
Damn dude. Set the coffee down and step back from the keyboard. Well aware of the 2nd Amendment and how ludicrous the concept of the GCA, NFA and ATF regulatory are. Was just commenting on the inevitable pushback from the government if/when someone just straps a length of velcro tape to the side of a standard collapsible stock and calls it a forearm brace.
Are you TominVA here to push for a full confiscation AWB or something? Most readers here ARE pro 2A.
If you mistook my comment for supporting infringement, the “sentiment” is referencing “shall not be infringed.” Could have been clearer I suppose.
Or maybe they just take SBRs off the registry, because its pointless anyway.
do pushups, dum-dum.
I’m of the opinion that the BATFE knows it’s pointless to fight the brace issue (because it’s almost impossible to enforce a no shouldering law) and is just letting them go, but won’t give in on the SBR/NFA side of it because of losing face and credibility to the Anti-2A people.
I was under the impression that the shoulder braces had to be mounted on “pistol” receiver that don’t have the ability to mount a regular stock. This appears to be on a regular carbine receiver extension.