corbin 621 Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Hi guys I own a Draco and it's pretty much just been a range toy. I'm considering getting one of those forearm braces however to make it more handy. like this My question is.... If I were to install an ACE folding mechanism on the back of the Draco and have an AR pistol buffer tube for the brace (so it could fold), would that be legal? I'd be adding the folding mechanism that would make it pretty simple to add a stock, if I were feeling like going to prison. While it would be more involved than sliding a vertical grip onto the rail of a Glock (and making an AOW) or putting a regular AR stock on an AR pistol, it's still got me wondering. I saw that Sig, I think it was, now has a 5.56 pistol with a folding forearm brace. Would this be any different? Thoughts? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 No reason why it should be any different. I've seen it done. The only possible concern would be constructive possession, if you also have a compatible stock and no other weapon it is meant for. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paprotective 362 Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Figure it this way.. a pistol tube added to a pistol.. still a pistol.. A folding pistol tube on a pistol. still a pistol.. The arm brace is nothing according to the BATF as it is NOT a stock.. ^^ someone explained that to me and it made sense ^^ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
corbin 621 Posted August 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't know if drilling the rear trunnion the same way you would to attach an ACE stock would be an issue, since the hole pattern is the same for a folding mechanism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Nope. A standard AR receiver is designed to accept a stock - or a tube. Similarly, that hole pattern can accept an Ace stock - or a folding mechanism with something that is not a stock. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paprotective 362 Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Well the standard I am not a lawyer routine would apply to my post above and ymmv. I got a M92 coming and am using a Wildbill 6 degree shim to level the Ace folding mechanism. Also got a KAK pistol tube and SB in route. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paprotective 362 Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 I ordered the Ace folding mech with the pignose permanently attached for my setup. Makes it obvious that I intend to run an AR pistol tube IMO. Again everyone on all the ak forums have been back and forth over this with no legal ground either way. And again I am not a laywer so YMMV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
corbin 621 Posted August 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) Of course, I understand "someone on the internet said it's ok" is NOT a good legal defense, but I appreciate everyone chiming in. I already own a spare ACE folding mechanism and I just bought a "pig nose" AR tube adapter. Now to get a tube and the SB15. Still debating if I want to have the receiver drilled and tapped or just buy an adapter. I understand KAK makes a nice buffer tube specifically meant for use with the SB15. EDIT: I talked with Dinzag a little (he's local) and it sounds like the rear trunnion might need to be annealed before attempting to drill. Because he doesn't have a drill press with enough depth, we might have to remove the trunnion first. Trying to come up with other options. Edited August 23, 2014 by Corbin 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
corbin 621 Posted November 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) I guess I wasn't the only one thinking about this: Atlantic Firearms is now selling a folding kit for the "wrist brace". Edited November 13, 2014 by Corbin 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
U.S. Pratorean 1,234 Posted January 2, 2015 Report Share Posted January 2, 2015 I guess I wasn't the only one thinking about this: Atlantic Firearms is now selling a folding kit for the "wrist brace". What the OP was asking is perfectly legal. The caveat that ATF is now stating is that the brace used on a pistol as designed, is legal but if you are putting it on to use it in a fashion it was not designed for, i.e. shouldered, you have manufactured an SBR and must comply with NFA regs. Places like Atlantic and Sig that are selling these on pistols are also within legal avenues because they are selling it to be used as it was intentionally designed. A wrist brace. They have no control over how an individual decides to use or in ATF's opinion misuse it. Probably won't be seeing many more YouTube vids of folks using these shouldered. Yes, totally stupid and nonsensical but it is what is. Cool while it lasted. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted January 2, 2015 Report Share Posted January 2, 2015 ...now all we need is someone to market a bumpfire pistol arm brace. BATFE would have kittens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the BATFE ... the federal prisoner does! Let us look at it from another point of view ... and the ONLY point of view that truly matters here ... the view of the BATFE. Anything and everything else with this issue is moot and non relevant. Bear with me here. Devils Advocate. Does not matter that 90% of what the BATFE does is non Constitutional. They are a 400 pound Gorilla. They have changed their determination on the fore arm brace already. We all by now know this. So ... "FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW you have INTENTIONALLY modified a BUTT STOCK to let it fold in a matter of a folding BUTT STOCK". "Does not matter that it is STILL a forearm brace". "It is now a butt stock". Another good word here is intent or possessive intent. A sad state of affairs, but there you have it. "Why would you want to NOT USE something that is already on the pistol?" Because it now is a folding butt stock on a un tax stamped SBR.This has nothing to do with the US Constitution or the Second Amendment ... it has everything to do with how some ATF individual, (or individuals) deciding to come down against the likes of us. And we have president Obama. Lame duct President. An anti Constitutional BATFE director. Do the math. How do you think it will play out? I am not a lawyer. Nor do I work for the BATFE. What I am trying to convey is that the stupid rules are subject to change upon just the whims of nameless non responsible bureaucrats. I for one would not do it. That choice is yours. Write another inquiry letter to the BATFE? Good luck with that. HB of CJ (old coot) All US Code Laws And NFA Rules Apply Quote Link to post Share on other sites
U.S. Pratorean 1,234 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Just to throw another wrench in the works, I spoke with a very large distributor that also sells these with some of their guns and was at shot show and spoke at length with some ATF folks. Their response was the letter was generated because of two things: 1) There were so many letters asking if a brace could be shouldered. 2) It was written to address one single individual who was basically telling ATF that " look, I can make an SBR without paying a tax and you said I could, blah, blah". So they we're going to come down on him. They also said they won't be enforcing it. It will be like 922r stuff. An add on charge. I.E., you committed a crime with your firearm and it happened to have a brace on it which you shouldered. Add on charge. Take it for what it is. Then again, it is the ATF talking.....or double talking. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spacehog 2,218 Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Just to throw another wrench in the works, I spoke with a very large distributor that also sells these with some of their guns and was at shot show and spoke at length with some ATF folks. Their response was the letter was generated because of two things: 1) There were so many letters asking if a brace could be shouldered. 2) It was written to address one single individual who was basically telling ATF that " look, I can make an SBR without paying a tax and you said I could, blah, blah". So they we're going to come down on him. They also said they won't be enforcing it. It will be like 922r stuff. An add on charge. I.E., you committed a crime with your firearm and it happened to have a brace on it which you shouldered. Add on charge. Take it for what it is. Then again, it is the ATF talking.....or double talking. Bingo....Do not write the BATF asking the same question over and over again. You will eventually get the response you don't want to hear. Edited February 3, 2015 by Spacehog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.