$5 says it’s the SBA3, too much like a standard collapsible stock in ease of adjustment. I’m just glad SOMEBODY is standing up for gun owner’s rights. Fingers crossed the ATF stays the course and doesn’t change the brace laws.
I agree
Being they use a standard mil-spec receiver extension, I've always questioned how they were legal.
I didn't think you could put a carbine/rifle receiver extension on a "pistol"
You gotta clarify this, because it reads probably like you don’t want it to (and we know you know a ton about the platform).
The ar direct impingement system has to have a buffer tube, even in pistol configuration. Then along came Sb tactical a few years back and stuck a formed piece of rubber onto the tube that’s always been there, and said it was designed to slip over your forearm to help stabilize the pistol when firing it like a pistol. And people said, hmmm, instead of putting that rubber over my forearm, I can butt it up against my shoulder and it’ll be kinda like a stock even though it wasn’t designed as a shoulder stock or for that purpose. Those pieces of rubber could be moved up and down the buffer tube to adjust length (remember there were ODIN Works locking rings used originally to keep the rubber Sb brace in place from sliding up the tube). The A3 brace is just an evolution that solves the problem of allowing adjustability of the brace for forearm length without having to use a locking ring.
