Jump to content

Screwball

Members
  • Content Count

    1,487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    100%

Community Reputation

482 Excellent

About Screwball

  • Rank
    NJGF Addict
  • Birthday February 16

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    ME

Recent Profile Visitors

3,118 profile views
  1. When you guys going to vote him out? I saw that the other day, literally an hour or so after I spent almost $3,000 on suppressors. Was worried, then I saw who sponsored the bill... especially after Biden called to register ARs on the NFA because crime rarely occurs with those firearms. Guess Menendez didn’t get the memo that suppressors are on the NFA.
  2. Stocks are measured unfolded... and for a little bit, that’s how braces were measured. ATF put out a letter when people were trying to put folders on 26+” AR pistols (Other firearms), which required a vertical grip. Their decision was if it is a folding buffer tube, even if the gun cannot function when folded, OAL is determined with it folded... making OAL shorter. Their argument is something like a rifle/shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder, so the stock should be deployed in OAL measurement. Pistols or Others... the brace is an “accessory,” so shouldn’t be considered in OAL if it can be folded. Made a lot of BS with that decision. So, if you put a folder on an Other, and folded it is less than 26”... you made an AOW (pistol with vertical grip).
  3. As it sits right now, it is business as usual. The proposal clearly states that it does not hold the weight of law. ATF has that proposal up for review/comments. Will be open until 01/04/2021. After that, will depend on how much interest is shown. As of now, 21,444 comments on braces. Example... which I’m getting from Mrgunsngear’s video that was released tonight. When 7N6 was on the chopping block, a similar proposal had less than 5,000 comments. Similar time period, another one came up for M855 to be banned. That one had 80,000 comments. If ammo was in stock right now... which of the two could you buy today? I feel if the comments get over 100,000... we have a shot of the ATF blinking on this. They could say the hell with it and do it... but if a minimum of 100,000 people commented... that is 100,000 people likely to flip them the bird on it.
  4. I still like my MCARBOed SUB-2000... but I got it in the wrong caliber. .40 is nice, and was good when NJ had the 15 round limit (I went with M&Ps, since I have two). We switched from .40 to 9mm Glocks at work... so I have my SUB-2000 up for sale. Replaced it with an AR 9mm, which takes Glock magazines. It is a nice setup, but just easier to go with AR/Glock magazines, and not hunt down another SUB-2000 to do all that work on again.
  5. They aren’t per say banning braces... they are considering their status as shouldering devices is certain situations. That is being based on a lot of BS characteristics... which they really didn’t say what exactly means what. If it comes down to it, I believe they will turn into SBRs. Stock/shouldering device makes it as such... unless they allow OAL to be a qualifier for the brace (having two hands might also be another thing, again ambiguity). So, can’t really answer your question with what we know now. I’m actually more interested it if TAC-14s and Shockwaves will be included... and then if they will become SBS or AOW. Other firearms like Troy’s should fit in a similar situation... just swap SBR with SBS. Living outside of NJ, I’m also not too keen on SBRing all my braced pistols, since now they are on a registry. Yes, could be saving $1,200 in stamps, and would be able to actually put stocks on them... but sort of a back door registration program. Just keeps reminding me of Gun Control in the Third Reich (by Stephen Halbrook). Now, I really need to research on whether NFA items can be easily confiscated (legally, not physically)... or if there is any mention of it in the NFA. That will be my deciding factor.
  6. I have (not in the thread here, though)... have you seen the picture that the Q released, which isn’t directly said to be from an ATF opinion letter, but is definitely identical in format to other letters? I mean, ‘13 and 9/16”’ is a very odd number to be specified in this entire situation without some sort of reason behind it. And it’s funny that Q’s corrected measurement is like 13.33” (if I remember correctly; if not, is pretty close to that)... which hovers right around that 13.5” in a very convenient way. https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/honey-badger-sbr-decision-put-on-pause-a-possible-reason-for-classification/ That being said, this is not just a simple back/forth between ATF and Q. Q does have lawyers guiding their release of material related to this situation. Just because one letter, which was topping two months old when it was finally released, came out... does not mean it is the only letter. I definitely suggest listening to the YouTube interview between the owner of Q and Tim from Military Arms Channel (the one with the owner from SB Tactical also gives a lot of background in what the industry was looking for over the years). He does a good job pointing out that there is a lot more behind the scenes info, and is being directed from his attorneys to not put it all out in the open. The August letter was likely released to give Honey Badger owners the info required for making their decision on how to move forward... not to mention it specifies the actual cease/desist (sort of important to get out to the owners). ATF has been floating that 13.5” LOP for at least two or three years. I agree that there is not one statute in the CFR or USC related to 13.5” LOP... but which side of the fence do you want to be on when it is pretty clear on what they are trying to do? Even the 60 day pause on this decision is clearly being done to see where the chips will fall after the election. Personally, I really don’t care that much about it (whether 13.5” is the limit for LOP). 12.5” is fine for me with my AR pistol. But I’m not going to give someone asking about it a partial answer, especially with everything going on now.
  7. The current situation with the Q Honey Badger... which the ATF incorrectly measured the brace and stated it is over 13.5” (there is a picture floating around of a tape measure angled to make the LOP over that number; correct measurements should be taken parallel to the bore... which Q supplied showing it is under that mark). But it has been the issue with braces over the years... no actual specifications on what is legal, and ATF becomes the deciding factor in them (which an agency within the Executive Branch is not supposed to decide that... they are supposed to enforce the law).
  8. Officially, there is no statute that has anything about length of pull and braces. But really... a brace wasn’t designed to be shouldered, so really LOP can not apply. From the BS that the ATF has pulled with Q among other mentions of it... 13.5” seems to be their cut off of saying it is a magically a stock. If I remember correctly, the A5 adds 0.75” to the length of a standard carbine buffer tube. So, if your brace setup is less than 12.75” with the standard tube... you should be good. Food for thought... the SBA3 gives you 12.5” LOP standard. The SBA4 is 13.25” standard. By basic logic, the SBA3 would be good to keep it under that mark with the A5... giving you roughly the same length as the SBA4. If ATF’s BS limit is correct (again that isn’t on any official document supplied to the public or private company that states as much), an A5 tube and SBA4 would be a Waco/Ruby Ridge type of problem.
  9. Not that confusing in my eyes... fired round that you have to manually eject is along the lines of a malfunction (talking about semi-autos). So, the rifle is not ready to fire at that time... when in most circumstances, it should be (you pull the trigger on a semi-auto, fired case is ejected/new round is chambered). Unless you train to the point that you’d likely be wearing out that bolt tail quick/fast/in a hurry, you are going to be shooting it unfolded 99.9% of the time. That means the subsequent rounds will go off without cycling the action. Where are you going to default to? All the YouTube videos showing it does work folded are nice, but what happens when you are amped up, don’t unfold the gun, and treat it as a malfunction? Bolt is locked up, charging handle isn’t moving... not something I’d want to be diagnosing under stress. It is a lot easier to perform that task when you have a camera recording (which can edit out mistakes), and nothing is being fired back at you. I rather chamber a round from Jump Street knowing the gun will fire until empty than maybe fire folded, unfold, and possibly not cycle the action... leaving a spent case in the chamber. Gun isn’t going to go off when you need it to after that point. Consistency is a very nice thing to have in your corner. Grab the gun, try moving the selector to safe... it doesn’t. Obviously, the hammer is down and nothing is in the chamber. Chamber a round, either you are ready to fire or you are putting on the safety. And the biggest part... no odd quirks to consider. Besides, it isn’t what I’m using to shoot from the driver’s seat. Having it folded and getting into the fight isn’t the biggest concern for why I have it (it sits in my truck at some work locations where long guns are not present; or if I was ever off duty, and something along the lines of an active shooter occurred). If it were a big enough concern, it would be a pistol that fires 100% from the folding orientation (my AK-P... for example). I don’t see the negatives outweighing the positives, especially when not needing the shorter profile... and that doesn’t even get into the $270 price tag.
  10. I was looking at it for my truck gun... but not a fan of it firing folded... then having to cycle the action once the brace is deployed. The tail that fits in the bolt isn’t that nice to have to deal with (extra complexity when taking the gun down). I also don’t keep it with a round in the chamber. I guess CBP is running off on me... been stowing it in hot standby (hammer down, on fire, loaded magazine inserted). I confirmed zero today since I just got my upper back... and did it instinctively. I’ve been doing upkeep on our M4s at the port, so do it to each rifle every other month. Besides, my AR pistol is damn near close to 26”... I think maybe 1/8” short... and it is pretty compact as it sits. It might be more compact folded, but so was my PSA AK-P. Firing it like that guy with the plated AK underfolder in that movie 13 Hours isn’t too effective. Yes, you can send rounds downrange... but not going to be as accurate as if you utilized the brace. If I do a folding pistol... I’ll probably do the BRN-180S and then I don’t necessarily need to do the buffer tube. Fill the hole with a 1913 adapter, and can use a lighter setup.
  11. For the original question... no, you can’t put it on your other firearm. OAL is important, and must be over 26”. ATF changed their view, and the measurement is not done with braces unfolded... which is the opposite of how long guns are measured. What also put the death nail in the Black Aces DT, as was folders on TAC-14/Shockwave firearms. The folding setup would put OAL well under 26”. If you install it on your firearm, it will either make it a pistol (illegal) or an AOW, if you leave on the foregrip.
  12. I have the Caldwell... first one was defective. Called up, sent a replacement. Haven’t had a chance to try it, but actually turns on.
  13. That being said, can always put a brace on it, judging it doesn’t fold. I’m AOWing my TAC-14 for that reason (folding brace), since the current measuring method says it would be 24”. If you get out of NJ and decide to go NFA with it, I feel it is more efficient than SBS, mainly for transportation reasons. Plus, put the stock grip back on, back to the original format. SBS, you have to put an 18” barrel on to make it back to non-NFA status, since it was turned into a shotgun.
  14. You want broke? That got an all expense paid trip back to Adams Arms... and my PSA AK-P out as my truck gun.
  15. Different situation... but electronic media is covered under our (CBP’s) border search authority. It is a tool, but most people know that if it is something we abuse... we will lose it fast. Regular travelers... I don’t think I’ve heard of a phone being searched. Possible terrorist ties, organized crime, or something along those lines... it is usually considered for obvious reasons. That being said, it is required to put it on Airplane mode prior to a search, specifically because our authority does not extend to Cloud services. If there is a loaded page that gives Cloud info, it is fair game... judging you aren’t going to be able to look further than file names or thumbnails (unless the owner downloaded it previously). Not too knowledgeable on what the protocol would be for Cloud access, if we could even get it with a warrant. Whether or not NJ views Cloud data as the same as what’s on the phone... no idea. I doubt it, due to the fact that the info isn’t located at a specific location. However, there are multiple people that I’ve seen have child porn on their phones due to What’sApp downloading attachments to the phone. Literally heard that excuse twice within a month. So, worrying about the Cloud isn’t as important as what people don’t notice is being downloaded on the phone, itself.
×
×
  • Create New...