Jump to content
Lawnmower2021

ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces

Recommended Posts

As promised in my earlier post I am sharing my observations regarding the Pistol Storage Device 
sold by Pistol Mounted Solutions  (pistolmountedsolutions.com).

A few disclaimers/caveats up front:
- IANAL, I repeat IANAL.
- I am not trying to promote this product.  Just sharing information for your awareness.    Do your own due diligence.  The "2A Edu" Youtube channel did a review of it about one year ago.   That is where I first learned of it.
- I purchased it out of curiosity and wanted to assess whether it could be adapted for use on our Others.
- Aesthetically it is better than just living with a bare buffer tube. Plus, it does offer  some practical benefits.

P2060008.thumb.jpg.064240148478035f6efcf65f0ede6930.jpgP2060010.thumb.jpg.e51b11b15390ea1b3e860929db6b3883.jpgP2060002.thumb.jpg.4f94dee3948b074e8772fd2892a8e2c9.jpgInstallation instructions and their 2016 ATF letter are available on their website.

So, ASSUMING the Brace Rule withstands the many legal challenges in progress and ASSUMING removal of the brace is ultimately legally viable for NJ owners of Others; then for me this is the option I will go with at least for short to medium term.

I have included three pictures:
The first with a 10 round PMAG inserted.
The second with the Troy 10 round long mag (which came with the firearm) inserted.
The third shows how out it extends past the buffer tube by approx 1/2 inch.

I have had several email exchanges with their representative.  The bottomline is they are of the opinion that they have their 2016 letter from the ATF, their product is not a brace, and therefore this rule does not affect the use of their product.

The last paragrah of their 2016 ATF letter:  "Based on FTISB's examination of you device, FTISB finds that your device is designed to be
attached to a pistol and hold an additional magazine. Providing the modifications are made as described above, the PMSD would not be designed to support an AR-15 pistol from the shoulder of a shooter during firing. Consequently, the attachment of your PMSD would not change a pistol's classification to a "SBR.''  

Nevertheless, it is now 2023 and I am uncomfortable using the PSD as is given the criteria in the ATF Brace Rule having to do with extending LOP and providing rear surface area with which to shoulder the firearm.

To mitigate my concern, I suppose a potential modification would be to cut 1/2 inch off the front of the PSD so that the buffer tube protrudes out the back a small amount.  Note that doing so may necessitate also removing some material from the bottom front corner of the wings so they do not dig into your hand.

- Installation was easy.  You can see in the pics where I chose to insert the screws through the wings.
- Holds the magazines securely in place. I have not yet applied Loctite nor fired the firearm with it mounted.
- Given the Troy "rifle style" buffer tube has the ridge running along its bottom, I had to omit the "Part B- Buffer Spacer". OK to do so per the instructions.
- Especially with the longer mag, the ability to rest/press the mag against your forearm does provide another contact point with which to  steady the firearm.
- And of course, it holds an extra mag.

Lastly, the manufacturer's instructions state "Please don't be an idiot with our product by doing idiot things with our product".  I don't think anything I stated above constitutes being an idiot.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with a little practice, not having the stabilizing brace means little. yea, can't shoulder, but its a 5.56 pop gun anyway with very little recoil. I'd be more than happy if after its all said and done I can just keep the other with no brace. I doubt that, but we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

As promised in my earlier post I am sharing my observations regarding the Pistol Storage Device 
sold by Pistol Mounted Solutions  (pistolmountedsolutions.com).

A few disclaimers/caveats up front:
- IANAL, I repeat IANAL.
- I am not trying to promote this product.  Just sharing information for your awareness.    Do your own due diligence.  The "2A Edu" Youtube channel did a review of it about one year ago.   That is where I first learned of it.
- I purchased it out of curiosity and wanted to assess whether it could be adapted for use on our Others.
- Aesthetically it is better than just living with a bare buffer tube. Plus, it does offer  some practical benefits.

P2060008.thumb.jpg.064240148478035f6efcf65f0ede6930.jpgP2060010.thumb.jpg.e51b11b15390ea1b3e860929db6b3883.jpgP2060002.thumb.jpg.4f94dee3948b074e8772fd2892a8e2c9.jpgInstallation instructions and their 2016 ATF letter are available on their website.

So, ASSUMING the Brace Rule withstands the many legal challenges in progress and ASSUMING removal of the brace is ultimately legally viable for NJ owners of Others; then for me this is the option I will go with at least for short to medium term.

I have included three pictures:
The first with a 10 round PMAG inserted.
The second with the Troy 10 round long mag (which came with the firearm) inserted.
The third shows how out it extends past the buffer tube by approx 1/2 inch.

I have had several email exchanges with their representative.  The bottomline is they are of the opinion that they have their 2016 letter from the ATF, their product is not a brace, and therefore this rule does not affect the use of their product.

The last paragrah of their 2016 ATF letter:  "Based on FTISB's examination of you device, FTISB finds that your device is designed to be
attached to a pistol and hold an additional magazine. Providing the modifications are made as described above, the PMSD would not be designed to support an AR-15 pistol from the shoulder of a shooter during firing. Consequently, the attachment of your PMSD would not change a pistol's classification to a "SBR.''  

Nevertheless, it is now 2023 and I am uncomfortable using the PSD as is given the criteria in the ATF Brace Rule having to do with extending LOP and providing rear surface area with which to shoulder the firearm.

To mitigate my concern, I suppose a potential modification would be to cut 1/2 inch off the front of the PSD so that the buffer tube protrudes out the back a small amount.  Note that doing so may necessitate also removing some material from the bottom front corner of the wings so they do not dig into your hand.

- Installation was easy.  You can see in the pics where I chose to insert the screws through the wings.
- Holds the magazines securely in place. I have not yet applied Loctite nor fired the firearm with it mounted.
- Given the Troy "rifle style" buffer tube has the ridge running along its bottom, I had to omit the "Part B- Buffer Spacer". OK to do so per the instructions.
- Especially with the longer mag, the ability to rest/press the mag against your forearm does provide another contact point with which to  steady the firearm.
- And of course, it holds an extra mag.

Lastly, the manufacturer's instructions state "Please don't be an idiot with our product by doing idiot things with our product".  I don't think anything I stated above constitutes being an idiot.

I appreciate the creativity, but the 'letter of the law vs. spirit of the law' setups always seem destined for failure.

Particularly when gun laws (like in NJ) are written by people who hate guns and know very little about them, those who buy these products can quickly find themselves felons with the stroke of a pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 124gr9mm said:

I appreciate the creativity, but the 'letter of the law vs. spirit of the law' setups always seem destined for failure.

Particularly when gun laws (like in NJ) are written by people who hate guns and know very little about them, those who buy these products can quickly find themselves felons with the stroke of a pen.

We are in a precarious position.  As if threading the needle legally was not enough of a challenge when we originally purchased our Others, we now have the complex criteria and complications of the Brace Rule to navigate.

In today's edition of AMMOLAND (https://www.ammoland.com/2023/02/citizens-rights-group-seeks-emergency-restraining-order-against-weapon-ban/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN))  there is an article on SAF's new lawsuit against Connecticut. 

From the article:  "ATF’s new rule suddenly reclassifies certain “other” firearms (firearms that are neither rifles, shotguns, nor pistols) as being “rifles.” This technical change pushes “others” within the definition of “assault weapon” under Connecticut’s ban."

This is concerning and does not bode well for us.  It seems the SAF's legal team has concluded that the Brace rule has in fact reclassified our "Others" as "Rifles".  

I think the bottomline legal question in NJ is whether our "Others" are still "Others" if you just remove the Brace.

If yes- then we are fine.   

If no- I fear we are screwed.  Then perhaps extending the barrel or swapping the upper to make it a normal non-SBR rifle would be the only remedy.  Even then, does the fact my receiver is engraved with "Other" and was sold/transferred that way matter at all.

(Btw, when I refer to removing the brace I really mean removing the brace and then discarding/destroying/storing it offsite to avoid constructive possession.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:

We are in a precarious position.  As if threading the needle legally was not enough of a challenge when we originally purchased our Others, we now have the complex criteria and complications of the Brace Rule to navigate.

In today's edition of AMMOLAND (https://www.ammoland.com/2023/02/citizens-rights-group-seeks-emergency-restraining-order-against-weapon-ban/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN))  there is an article on SAF's new lawsuit against Connecticut. 

From the article:  "ATF’s new rule suddenly reclassifies certain “other” firearms (firearms that are neither rifles, shotguns, nor pistols) as being “rifles.” This technical change pushes “others” within the definition of “assault weapon” under Connecticut’s ban."

This is concerning and does not bode well for us.  It seems the S AF's legal team has concluded that the Brace rule has in fact reclassified our "Others" as "Rifles".  

I think the bottomline legal question in NJ is whether our "Others" are still "Others" if you just remove the Brace.

If yes- then we are fine.   

If no- I fear we are screwed.  Then perhaps extending the barrel or swapping the upper to make it a normal non-SBR rifle would be the only remedy.  Even then, does the fact my receiver is engraved with "Other" and was sold/transferred that way matter at all.

(Btw, when I refer to removing the brace I really mean removing the brace and then discarding/destroying/storing it offsite to avoid constructive possession.)

 It seems the SAF's legal team has concluded that the Brace rule has in fact reclassified our "Others" as "Rifles".   

This is for Others with braces which is what the overwhelming majority of Others have.  ATF has said that removing the brace and making it so that it cannot be re-attached (re-locating it is fine) would make the weapon legal so long as you don't add another device that adds surface area that can be shouldered.  Basically remove the brace and leave a bare buffer tube is fine (so long as the buffer tube is required for operation).    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ESB said:

 It seems the SAF's legal team has concluded that the Brace rule has in fact reclassified our "Others" as "Rifles".   

This is for Others with braces which is what the overwhelming majority of Others have.  ATF has said that removing the brace and making it so that it cannot be re-attached (re-locating it is fine) would make the weapon legal so long as you don't add another device that adds surface area that can be shouldered.  Basically remove the brace and leave a bare buffer tube is fine (so long as the buffer tube is required for operation).    

 

Very good point and I completely agree.  I think at this point I have too far gone down a mental rabbit hole on this whole topic.  Time for me to detach and go medal detecting on the beach, lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ESB said:

 It seems the SAF's legal team has concluded that the Brace rule has in fact reclassified our "Others" as "Rifles".   

This is for Others with braces which is what the overwhelming majority of Others have.  ATF has said that removing the brace and making it so that it cannot be re-attached (re-locating it is fine) would make the weapon legal so long as you don't add another device that adds surface area that can be shouldered.  Basically remove the brace and leave a bare buffer tube is fine (so long as the buffer tube is required for operation).    

 

Why remove it if it's reclassified as "rifle"?

These "rules" are only for the ATF and federal enforcement of the NFA. 

At the state level, our Others have not changed legal definition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

Why remove it if it's reclassified as "rifle"?

These "rules" are only for the ATF and federal enforcement of the NFA. 

At the state level, our Others have not changed legal definition. 

Because if your newly reclassified "Rifle" has a barrel of less than 16" it is now an unregistered Short Barrel Rifle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

Even then, does the fact my receiver is engraved with "Other" and was sold/transferred that way matter at all

Whether "Other" is written on it or not is immaterial. You could write "Dobbin" on it, but it would not become a horse.

On the 4473 there are 3 check boxes for the type of firearm. If it is a pistol, or rifle/shotgun then one of those two checkboxes is marked. If it is neither, like a stripped lower (which could be made into either or neither, such as a non-NFA Other) the 3rd checkbox is marked - this makes it transferred as an other firearm. The use of "other" in this sense is different from "other" in AOW or non-NFA Other. It just means not a pistol, rifle or shotgun.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Whether "Other" is written on it or not is immaterial. You could write "Dobbin" on it, but it would not become a horse.

On the 4473 there are 3 check boxes for the type of firearm. If it is a pistol, or rifle/shotgun then one of those two checkboxes is marked. If it is neither, like a stripped lower (which could be made into either or neither, such as a non-NFA Other) the 3rd checkbox is marked - this makes it transferred as an other firearm. The use of "other" in this sense is different from "other" in AOW or non-NFA Other. It just means not a pistol, rifle or shotgun.

Agreed. The receiver could even say Pistol Only and it would not matter.

To further explain, a dealer's A&D book would indicate what the actual firearm was, ie >

HANDGUN = Pistol, Revolver, Derringer, etc.

LONG GUN = Rifle, Shotgun, BB Gun (nj), Pellet Gun (nj), Muzzleloader (nj), etc.

OTHER = Receiver, Frame, Pistol-Grip Firearm, Non-NFA Firearm, Silencer, AOW, MG, SBS, SBR, DD, etc.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ESB said:

Because if your newly reclassified "Rifle" has a barrel of less than 16" it is now an unregistered Short Barrel Rifle.  

"Rifle" and "Short barreled Rifle" are two distinctly different things by statutory definition. That's why is asked why the SAF said it was a "Rifle" and not a "SBR" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that legally they are different.  But you are going by the strict interpretation of what someone quickly wrote while paraphrasing a group that is paraphrasing a rule.  It's very likely that someone along this telephone game chain meant Short Barreled Rifle instead of Long Rifle when the shortened to Rifle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrest seizure pictures like this certainly don't help. Although it should be noted, the person arrested with these firearms was a prohibited person, so .....

 

Maryland

https://mdcoastdispatch.com/2023/02/07/firearms-drugs-seized-after-multi-agency-investigation/

seized-items-drug-and-weapons-bust.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A4 other is my first gun purchase.  I don’t really follow a lot of what’s happening in the “gun world”.  I just happened to come across this news by chance.  No official notices to owners of these firearms?   I’m supposed to just know this stuff?  If I didn’t come across this, I’d be going along fat, dumb and happy until I went to the range where a lot of Police Officers frequent.  That would be a heck of a way to find out that I was breaking the law.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FunGun said:

The A4 other is my first gun purchase.  I don’t really follow a lot of what’s happening in the “gun world”.  I just happened to come across this news by chance.  No official notices to owners of these firearms?   I’m supposed to just know this stuff?  If I didn’t come across this, I’d be going along fat, dumb and happy until I went to the range where a lot of Police Officers frequent.  That would be a heck of a way to find out that I was breaking the law.

Which is why the constitution doesn't really allow for them to make your firearm illegal after owning it legally. Defacto seizure. 

The ATF wants you to register it, but they have openly ignored these were legal before and in NJ, there is no way to register one even if you wanted to. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Porthole said:

Arrest seizure pictures like this certainly don't help. Although it should be noted, the person arrested with these firearms was a prohibited person, so .....

 

Maryland

https://mdcoastdispatch.com/2023/02/07/firearms-drugs-seized-after-multi-agency-investigation/

seized-items-drug-and-weapons-bust.jpeg

Assuming the buffer tube on the green one is required for use, only the 2 with pistol braces would be considered SBR's now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FunGun said:

The A4 other is my first gun purchase.  I don’t really follow a lot of what’s happening in the “gun world”.  I just happened to come across this news by chance.  No official notices to owners of these firearms?   I’m supposed to just know this stuff?  If I didn’t come across this, I’d be going along fat, dumb and happy until I went to the range where a lot of Police Officers frequent.  That would be a heck of a way to find out that I was breaking the law.

Yes, you can wake up one day a felon and not even know it.   Btw, I have a Troy A4 also and love it.  In addition to NJGUNFORUMS(which is an excellent source of quality info),  I recommend you also join ANJRPC and the New Jersey Firearms Syndicate Facebook group, as well as listen to the GUNFORHIRE and Gun Lawyer podcasts.  If you do so, you will be fully be in the know going forward as far as NJ law is concerned..

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2023 at 10:27 AM, PK90 said:

Anybody remember this mag holder?

https://www.colddeadhands.com/pics/extar_exp556.htm

I guess I should take down that page. :facepalm:

I still got it :D

5th lawsuit filed against the ATF Ruling - by GOA/GOF + a Texas FFL.

Summarizing:

  • GOA/GOF joined together on the case + a FFL in Texas, as well as several plaintiffs. 
  • They have a plaintiff that is disabled and needs to use a brace - and lives in a state that doesn't allow for SBR's.  They would have to surrender and destroy their firearm.
  • They have active military plaintiffs that are subject to court martial under UCMJ for possession of a braced firearm now, and also overseas deployed military members would not be able to register their firearms within 120 days.
  • Also cites multiple violations of APA (Administrative Procedure Act) - saying the ATF doesn't have the authority to make law (redefining "rifle"), they don't have the power to do it, violating constitutional rights, unlawful effective date...
  • Violation of the the 2nd amendment - It's not in the constitution and there's no history/tradition of what the ATF is trying to do.
  • 5th amendment violation - self incrimination
  • 6 states + DC make it impossible to register a SBR
  • 24 states where registration will provide evidence of state crimes (again 5th amendment)
  • 5th amendment violation - intentionally vague
  • Invalid exercising of taxing power
  • Prohibited unapportioned direct tax

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From PSA:

Here at Palmetto State Armory, we believe the BATF has clearly overstepped its constitutional authority. The most egregious example of this is the January 31, 2023 pistol brace ruling, and other arbitrary and capricious rules over the years.

The best way to reign in the BATF is through the legal system. Palmetto State Armory is a key member of the Federal Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC).

We are donating time, money, and resources as a member of FRAC to help spearhead a legal challenge to this rule that we have filed in court today (February 9th, 2023). We believe this lawsuit has a very good chance of stopping the ATF's unconstitutional overreach.

This litigation is suspected to cost several million dollars. 

FRAC Press Release:

https://www.fracaction.org/post/brace-litigation-filed-in-north-dakota-federal-court

Link to litigation/docket page:

https://www.fracaction.org/challenging-atf-brace-rule

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Tech Ops:

The fight has begun!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SB Tactical® Files Lawsuit Challenging ATF Rule on Pistol Stabilizing Braces
Bradenton, Fla. (February 9, 2023) – SB Tactical®, in conjunction with the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), B&T USA, Rick Cicero, and a massive coalition of states, has filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) challenging the legality of a federal rule that reverses a decade of relied upon agency precedent and retroactively bans or forces the registration of millions of pistols equipped with stabilizing braces, contrary to federal statutes enacted by Congress.
“Under the guise of ‘public safety,’ the ATF has placed millions of law-abiding firearm owners in legal jeopardy,” said Jeff Creamer, president and CEO of SB Tactical. “It’s a gross overreach of the Bureau’s authority and, if allowed to stand, will result in the largest gun registration scheme in U.S. history.”
FRAC, as lead plaintiff, filed the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. A coalition of 25 states, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, have also echoed the demands for accountability by joining this litigation against the ATF.
“As we’ve seen with similar cases like Cargill v. Garland, wherein FRAC, SB Tactical, and B&T USA all appeared as amici curiae, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that such regulatory overreaches are not within the ATF’s authority,” said Travis White, president and CEO of FRAC. “We feel that there is a positive trend towards regulatory accountability in the Courts, and we are confident that the Courts will continue to hold the ATF accountable for their pattern of regulatory overreach and ever-shifting positions.”
In addition to encouraging all manufacturers who are frustrated by the ATF’s arbitrary and capricious approach to regulation to join FRAC, SB Tactical would also like to sincerely thank the National Rifle Association (NRA) for their tremendous support and assistance with this litigation.
WV, ND, AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WY
About SB Tactical®
SB Tactical®, the originator of the Pistol Stabilizing Brace® and manufacturers of industry-leading firearms accessories, is setting the bar for innovation and product development in the large frame pistol category. The SB Tactical line of products is U.S. veteran designed and proudly manufactured in the U.S.A. For more information on the brand’s growing line of products for multiple firearms platforms, visit www.sb-tactical.com.
About FRAC
The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., was created by firearms industry leaders and its stakeholders to improve business conditions by ensuring that firearms regulatory agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), operates in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.
FRAC serves as the premiere national trade association representing U.S. and international firearms manufacturers, importers, and innovators on regulatory and legislative issues impacting the industry in the United States. To learn more, visit www.fracaction.org
 
May be an image of text that says '8:50 Instagram 5GW FRAC fracaction Washington D. ATTENTION! MAJOR LAWSUIT FILED! TODAY, FRAC, IN CONJUNCTION WITH KEY INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS AND MASSIVE COALITION OF STATES,* AGAINST ATF OVER THE BRACE RULE. THE CAVALRY HAS ARRIVED- ACCOUNTABILITY IS COMING! wV, AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MO. MT, MS, NE, NH, ND, OK, sc, SD, TN, UT, VA, and WY Liked by sb.tactical and 4,279 others fracaction Today, FRAC led coalition of key Industry stakeholders and half the States in filing... more View all 172 comments kill_flash_photography Thank you!!' Add a comment... 17 hours ago'
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

Sc arms is saying these buffer tube kits are legal. I can definitely see someone getting in trouble for this unfortunately......

Implications on Classifications

Previous ATF classifications involving “stabilizing brace” attachments for firearms are superseded and considered null and void as of January 31, 2023.

Firearms with such attachments may be submitted to ATF for re-classification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

Sc arms is saying these buffer tube kits are legal. I can definitely see someone getting in trouble for this unfortunately. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/15/thorsden-customs-ar-pistol-buffer-tube/amp/

These may have been legal before the updated ATF rule, but there is a lot going on here that the ATF has said they would consider it a stock.  The Tube itself may be legal.  But once you add the Buffer Tube Cover which was clearly designed to give you a cheek weld and gives more surface area to shoulder it, I think they would consider it a stock. 

The nail in the coffin is the video on their own site showing and saying how it is designed to be shouldered with a good cheek weld and giving you a longer length of pull.  Even the shitty prosecutor from Kyle Rittenhouse's trial could probably convict you.  ;)  

 

image.thumb.png.84417412b46a21cd61a32fef001cafc2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a follow-up to my Feb 6th post regarding the Pistol Storage Device.  Please refer to it first.  The information below is intended to complete my writeup of my experience with this device.  Do with this what you will.  YMMV & IANAL.

The three pics below show the PSD mounted on my Troy A4. 

- No modification at all was done to the Troy, other than sliding off it's SBA3 brace.

I did the following modifications to the PSD:

1) Using a Dremel tool and cutting wheel, I removed 3/4" of material from the front of the PSD "Buffer Cover".  (I wrapped bright colored 3/4" electrical tape around it and then cut along the edge of the tape.  The material melts as you cut though it but is easily removed.)   This enabled me to mount the PSD close to the castle nut and have the buffer tube extend approx 1/4" inch beyond the rear edge of it.  Thus not extending LOP nor providing surface with which to shoulder it.

2) I Dremeled off some material from the lower front edge of the PSD wings so that it does not dig into my hand behind my thumb.

3) With regards to PSD "Part B" (see the instructions), I cut off the back cap, sanded the sides of the straight portion to enable the buffer cover(Part A) to clamp tightly and securely, and enlarged  two of its(Part B's)  holes for the screws that pass through it.  This was required since its holes do not line up perfectly with those of the Buffer Cover.  (I.e. because these are rifle, not pistol, buffer tubes.)

4) Put blue Loctite on all screws/nuts.

A few days ago I took it to the range and shot 40 rounds.    My impressions are:

- Aestheticaly, it looks much better than a bare buffer tube. 

- It stayed secure and did not loosen up or crack.

- Am right handed, so I held and shot the firearm with my left hand holding the VFG with my arm fully extended. My right hand holding the grip and the PSD/magazine resting lightly against the side of my right forearm.   Used the Romeo5 red dot as my optic.

- While in a normal world I would prefer shouldering a brace, it was reasonably comfortable and steady to shoot the firearm in this configuration.  I was also pleased with the accuracy and consistency of my shots.  The recoil impulse was fine even with my now 70 year old hands.   (Geeze, 70. How the heck did that happen, lol.)

- One other downside of removing the brace is that you lose the rear sling attachment point.  

With the above now completed,  I plan to reattach my brace while monitoring the progress of the Brace Rule legal challenges that are underway.  

Anyway, hope you found this informative and helpful.  

P3040013.thumb.jpg.6ae3090f12133a898d7e88957e91996c.jpgP3040014.thumb.jpg.855ecfe29a77844fbce56ee188cdc6e5.jpgP3040012.thumb.jpg.f9ea30213592b5ad8e14f60214bbcdf9.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...