ATF 2021R-08: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

osmosis_cajones

osmosis_cajones

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
119
Location
NW Raleigh, NC
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
See the ATF's new proposed rules for determining whether firearms incorporating stabilizing braces should be considered pistols or short barreled rifles (SBRs) here:

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule was published in the...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov

The proposed rule uses a number of criteria concerning both the design of the brace, as well as its configuration on the weapon, in order to determine whether the weapon is intended to be shouldered. For existing weapons which would be considered short barreled rifles under the proposed rule, no provision will be made for grandfathering those weapons, and the ATF will not be waiving the $200 NFA tax stamp for anyone.

A couple things which would prevent classification as a braced pistol outright:

* Overall length shorter than 12" or longer than 26"
* Unloaded weight without accessories of less than 4 pounds
* Unloaded weight with accessories of more than 7.5 pounds
* Length of pull over 13.5"
* Vertical fore-grips (no change)
* Rifle scopes with limited eye relief (lower penalty for red dot magnifiers)
* Any brace which is based on an existing shoulder stock design (criteria left unspecified)
* Any cuff-style brace where the arm strap has been removed after purchase
* Any acceptable brace which has been modified to increase ease of shouldering

...the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 has a point system assigning a weighted value to various characteristics of the fully assembled firearm as configured when submitted for classification. A firearm that accumulates less than 4 points in Section II (Accessory Characteristics), and less than 4 points in Section III (Configuration of Weapon), will generally be determined not to be designed to be fired from the shoulder, unless there is evidence that the manufacturer or maker expressly intended to design the weapon to be fired from the shoulder. A firearm that accumulates 4 points or more in Section II or Section III will be determined to be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
Click to expand...

ATF Worksheet 4999: FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH ACCESSORIES commonly referred to as "STABILIZING BRACES"​

Section I - Pre-requisites​

1. The weapon must weigh at least 64 ounces (4 pounds). (Weighed with unloaded magazine and accessories removed)
2. The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 inches. (Length measured with all non-operational accessories remove)

Weapon must meet both Prerequisites In order to proceed to Section II.

Section II - Accessory Characteristics​

ACCESSORY DESIGN​

0 points - Not based on a known shoulder stock design
1 point - Incorporates shoulder stock design feature(s)
2 points - Based on a known shoulder stock design

REAR SURFACE AREA​

0 points - Device incorporates features to prevent use as a shouldering device
1 point - Minimized rear surface lacking features to discourage shouldering
2 points - Rear surface useful for shouldering the firearm
3 points - Material added to increase Rear Surface for shouldering

ADJUSTABILITY​

0 points - Non-adjustable, fixed design
2 points - Adjustable or telescoping attachment designed for shouldering

STABILIZING SUPPORT​

0 points - Counterbalance Design -Non-Folding
1 points - Counterbalance Design that Folds creating Rear Contact Surface
0 points - "Fin-type" design WITH Arm Strap
2 points - "Fin-type" design WITHOUT Arm Strap
0 points - "Cuff-type" design that FULLY wraps around arm
1 point - "Cuff-type" design that PARTIALLY wraps around arm
2 points - "Cuff-type" design that FAILS to wrap around arm
3 points - "Split-stock" configuration not designed to wrap around shooter's arm

Weapon must score LESS than 4 in order to proceed to Section III.


Section III - Configuration of Weapon​

LENGTH OF PULL​

Measured with Accessory in rear-most "Locked Position"
Measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder device/"stabilizing brace"
0 points - Less than 10- 1/2 Inches
1 point - 10-1/2 but under 11-1/2 Inches
2 points - 11-1/2 but under 12-1/2 Inches
3 points - 12-1/2 but under 13-1/2 Inches
4 points - 13-1/2 Inches and Over

ATTACHMENT METHOD​

0 points - Standard AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube (6-6-1/2 Inches)
1 point - AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube with Adjustment Notches (KAK-type)
1 point - Adjustable Rifle Buffer Tube
1 point - Adjustable PDW-type guide rails
2 points - Extended AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube
2 points - Inclusion of Folding Adapter extending length of pull
2 points - Use of "Spacers" to extend length of pull
3 points - Modified shoulder stock with rear replaced by "stabilizing brace"
3 points - Attachment method creates an unusable aim-point (slant)

"STABILIZING BRACE" MODIFICATIONS/CONFIGURATION​

2 points - "Cuff-type" or "fin-type" design with strap too short to function
2 points - "Cuff-type" or "fin-type" design with strap made out of elastic material
2 points - "Fin-type" lacking an arm strap
4 points - "Cuff-type" design with strap REMOVED
4 points - "Brace" accessory modified for shouldering
4 points - Modified Shoulder Stock (originally a Shoulder Stock)

PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES​

2 points - Presence of a Hand Stop
4 points - Presence of a Secondary Grip (indicating two-handed fire)
1 point - Presence of Rifle-type Back-up/ Flip-up Sights / Or no sights
2 point - Presence of Reflex Sight with FTS Magnifier w/ Limited Eye-Relief
4 points - Presence of a Sight/Scope with Eye Relief Incompatible with one-handed fire
2 points - Presence of a bipod / monopod
4 points - Weapon as configured weighing more than 120 ounces (Weighed with unloaded magazine)

A score of 4 or more on Section III indicates a shoulder-fired design.
 
Last edited:
A couple things which would prevent classification as a braced pistol outright:

* Overall length shorter than 12" or longer than 26"
* Unloaded weight without accessories of less than 4 pounds
* Unloaded weight with accessories of more than 7.5 pounds
* Length of pull over 13.5"
* Vertical fore-grips (no change)
* Rifle scopes with limited eye relief (lower penalty for red dot magnifiers)
* Any brace which is based on an existing shoulder stock design (criteria left unspecified)
* Any cuff-style brace where the arm strap has been removed after purchase
* Any acceptable brace which has been modified to increase ease of shouldering
 
Last edited:
There's going to be a run on 16" barrels. The folks who want to comply best get moving on that option before the community at large figures out the problem they're facing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
Probably gonna be a run on <16” barrels as well, for the contingent of folks out there who wanna tell certain people to pound sand.

Can’t wait to see the comments when they publish this and open it up for public discussion.
 
Last edited:
Reading the proposed point system, it looks like almost nothing changes for most people. The point system looks like it's built so almost all current brace designs are three points or fewer in both Sections on any gun under 26" OAL and under 7.5 lbs.

Seems like 99% of AR pistols (10.5", maybe 11.5" or shorter barrels) would be 3 points or fewer in each Section as-is or with a minimal mods (no BUIS, no short-eye-relief scopes). Certain brace designs are definitely fewer points, so handstops/AFGs may only be okay with certain braces).

Scorpions and MP5 clones with strapped braces/tailhooks on rails or buffer tubes seem to be the same amount of points (three or fewer in each Section). No penalties for lights/IR accessories. Nothing is caliber or magazine dependent.

Future of the non-NFA firearms (>26" OAL / VFG) seems a little nebulous under the proposed rules... it's clear as mud in that respect. The 11.5-to-unpinned 14.5" barrel world might be SBR only under the proposed rules.

None of the proposed rules seems necessary, rational, or appropriate... but until the legislative or judicial landscape changes, the proposed rules are not exactly the "rifle-type pistol" or "brace" ban these were psyched up to be. Braceless AK-type and MP5-pattern pistols are unaffected. If anything, it looks like the most substantive impact proposed rules would have is they tie optics and handstops/AFG to particular brace choices... and that's about it.
 
Last edited:
Catfish said:
How do you measure length of pull on something that doesn't have a stock?
Click to expand...
They actually address this using the word brace. Measure from center of trigger to center rear of brace is what I recall reading. The presumption is all braces are stocks.
 
Last edited:
Catfish said:
How do you measure length of pull on something that doesn't have a stock?
Click to expand...
Would the length of pull on an AR pistol be from the grip to the trigger?
Timfoilhat said:
They actually address this using the word brace. Measure from center of trigger to center rear of brace is what I recall reading. The presumption is all braces are stocks.
Click to expand...
What if there is no brace, just the buffer tube?
 
JRV said:
Reading the proposed point system, it looks like almost nothing changes for most people. The point system looks like it's built so almost all current brace designs are three points or fewer in both Sections on any gun under 26" OAL and under 7.5 lbs.

Seems like 99% of AR pistols (10.5", maybe 11.5" or shorter barrels) would be 3 points or fewer in each Section as-is or with a minimal mods (no BUIS, no short-eye-relief scopes). Certain brace designs are definitely fewer points, so handstops/AFGs may only be okay with certain braces).

Scorpions and MP5 clones with strapped braces/tailhooks on rails or buffer tubes seem to be the same amount of points (three or fewer in each Section). No penalties for lights/IR accessories. Nothing is caliber or magazine dependent.

Future of the non-NFA firearms (>26" OAL / VFG) seems a little nebulous under the proposed rules... it's clear as mud in that respect. The 11.5-to-unpinned 14.5" barrel world might be SBR only under the proposed rules.

None of the proposed rules seems necessary, rational, or appropriate... but until the legislative or judicial landscape changes, the proposed rules are not exactly the "rifle-type pistol" or "brace" ban these were psyched up to be. Braceless AK-type and MP5-pattern pistols are unaffected. If anything, it looks like the most substantive impact proposed rules would have is they tie optics and handstops/AFG to particular brace choices... and that's about it.
Click to expand...
You seem to have a optimistic view of this. I ran through the list and the way I tally up section two put every common brace I'm aware of at 4 or 5 points easy.
 
beamernc said:
Would the length of pull on an AR pistol be from the grip to the trigger?

What if there is no brace, just the buffer tube?
Click to expand...
I didn't see that addressed. I did a fast-ish read of the 16 pages. It's my belief that they are targeting braces specifically. Use the checklist for points on a buffer tube only gun and see what it scores. It's probably is fine unless weight, length or accessories disqualify it.
 
Timfoilhat said:
You seem to have a optimistic view of this. I ran through the list and the way I tally up section two put every common brace I'm aware of at 4 or 5 points easy.
Click to expand...
Further down the proposal, they have some examples:
The SB Mini would be considered an acceptable brace.
The SBA3 would not be unacceptable due to the adjustable length and excessive rear surface area.
The Shockwave Blade would be unacceptable, primarily due to the lack of an arm strap; it looks like if it had been set up with an arm strap, it would have been okay.
 
Last edited:
Timfoilhat said:
You seem to have a optimistic view of this. I ran through the list and the way I tally up section two put every common brace I'm aware of at 4 or 5 points easy.
Click to expand...
I did what you did and came up with >4 pts fairly readily. Key to this is that a number of things let the scorer tally points for the same thing multiple times. For example, a brace that 'incorporates shoulder stock design features' such as, say, the ability to telescope with a pre-set locking length and a flat "rear surface that is useful fore shouldering the firearm" ... is scored a 1 pt for the telecoping bit and 2 pts for the flat rear surface ... and then the same platform gets scored with another 2 pts for having an 'adjustable or telescoping attachment designed for shouldering' in another section.

That's 5 pts, right there, for telescoping functionality and a flat rear surface, since telescoping capability and a flat rear surface is a shoulder stock design feature and useful to shouldering ... while telescoping gets ding'd on its own further down the list.

No proposed NFA tax forgiveness and no grandfathering in the proposal, btw. They just want to instantly make people felons, it seems.
 
Timfoilhat said:
You seem to have a optimistic view of this. I ran through the list and the way I tally up section two put every common brace I'm aware of at 4 or 5 points easy
Click to expand...

Any
- non-adjustable blade (e.g. the original KAK) fitted with a strap (included by the OEM or as a user mod, since the proposed rule review process applies to the individual firearm as submitted to the BATFE),
- SB tactical friction-fit brace (e.g. SBM4, SB Mini), and
- non-telescoping tailhook-style brace is going to be three points or fewer under Section II, as it's written.

The newer adjustable braces that are basically stocks (rigid with tons of surface area and use the same carbine or PDW buffer tubes used on rifles, e.g. the SBA3, the SBPDW)... you can definitely see that those are the targets of the proposed rule.

The proposed rules are rewinding the clock to 2015-2016 for AR pistols. Pretty much any 7.5-10.5" AR pistol that has a SB15/SBM4/SB Mini/strapped Blade/original Tailhook brace conforms to the proposed point system so long as the pistol has a red dot on top. Same goes for Scorpions, AKs, and MP5 clones. So, if the rule goes through, a whole bunch of pistols won't need to be altered at all. Some will be, but it will be cheaper than the cost of a stamp to make those mods. A pistol buffer tube and pretty much any of the cheaper braces on the market will satisfy the points system. I can't really think of an AR pistol that would be banned or "California-neutered-into-uselessness" by the point system. They just won't have the highly-adjustable "not-a-stock" braces.

I DO NOT SUPPORT TO NFA OR THINK IT SHOULD BE LAW. That said, it is, until SCOTUS overturns it or Congress repeals it. As someone that's worked with manufacturers and distributors in the industry, they'll probably appreciate the certainty of the points system as opposed to investing risky capital in "grey areas" of the NFA.
 
JRV said:
Any
- non-adjustable blade (e.g. the original KAK) fitted with a strap (included by the OEM or as a user mod, since the proposed rule review process applies to the individual firearm as submitted to the BATFE),
- SB tactical friction-fit brace (e.g. SBM4, SB Mini), and
- non-telescoping tailhook-style brace is going to be three points or fewer under Section II, as it's written.

The newer adjustable braces that are basically stocks (rigid with tons of surface area and use the same carbine or PDW buffer tubes used on rifles, e.g. the SBA3, the SBPDW)... you can definitely see that those are the targets of the proposed rule.

The proposed rules are rewinding the clock to 2015-2016 for AR pistols. Pretty much any 7.5-10.5" AR pistol that has a SB15/SBM4/SB Mini/strapped Blade/original Tailhook brace conforms to the proposed point system so long as the pistol has a red dot on top. Same goes for Scorpions, AKs, and MP5 clones. So, if the rule goes through, a whole bunch of pistols won't need to be altered at all. Some will be, but it will be cheaper than the cost of a stamp to make those mods. A pistol buffer tube and pretty much any of the cheaper braces on the market will satisfy the points system. I can't really think of an AR pistol that would be banned or "California-neutered-into-uselessness" by the point system. They just won't have the highly-adjustable "not-a-stock" braces.

I DO NOT SUPPORT TO NFA OR THINK IT SHOULD BE LAW. That said, it is, until SCOTUS overturns it or Congress repeals it. As someone that's worked with manufacturers and distributors in the industry, they'll probably appreciate the certainty of the points system as opposed to investing risky capital in "grey areas" of the NFA.
Click to expand...
thank you for spelling this out.
 
Last edited:
JBoyette said:
the American with Disabilities Act is the angle I think is critical for braces, its the whole reason a brace was made in 2013.
Click to expand...
There are, or were braces available that allow the use of an AR-based pistol braces that the BATF still consider acceptable. The important point is that they must do an acceptable job as forearm braces but not work well as shoulder stocks. This was pointed out in the March 2017 letter from the BATF to SB Tactical that approved ONE PARTICULAR brace. The particular brace that SB Tactical submitted for evaluation had floppy foam for the forearm brace and was pretty terrible as a shoulder stock.


Here is the important part of the letter:
"With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not "make" a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by the FATD, it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder."

The ATF even noted that is was not enough that a brace be : "designed, intended and marketed for use only to shoot from the arm."

As near as I can tell, ATF never gave a BLANKET approval to pistol braces despite what the companies who sell them claim. SB Tactical will email you a copy of this letter from BATF, but it requires registering at SB's site. https://www.sb-tactical.com/resources/batfe-letter-reversal-opinion-use/

edited to clarify ATF quotes from document
 
Last edited:
We can fulminate all we want here, but how many of us are just going to quietly dispose of our stuff? And for those that keep it, you won't be able to actually shoot it unless you have very private land and if you ever get your house searched by the Sturmabteilung, sorry PD it will throw you in jail even if they don't find anything else.

Anyone else heartily sick of both federal agencies changing the law when it suits them and us for putting up with it?
 
Last edited:
It’s almost as if someone, at some point said “wow these guidelines are too simple, even a liberal Democrat can understand them” and someone took it as personal challenge to prevent that from ever happening again.
 
Tarowah said:
It’s almost as if someone, at some point said “wow these guidelines are too simple, even a liberal Democrat can understand them” and someone took it as personal challenge to prevent that from ever happening again.
Click to expand...
We dared to follow the letter of the law, not kowtow to it's mighty-phallused guardians and now we must be punished. And let's face it, every manufactured charge they can use to disenfranchise someone who might vote against massive overweening state authority is a good thing in their eyes.
 
Dale Gribble said:
Different times, man...I think a lot of folks have reached their boiling point and their GAF gauge is on empty.

Not one of them has been held responsible for the arson/murders in Waco TX.

Not one of them has been held responsible for facilitating the transfer of arms to Mexicsn drug cartels, which resultedin the murder of U.S. Marine/BPA Brian Terry.

They have not moved forward with the prosecution on Hunter Biden for lying on his 4473 form.

Oh...but we must do “this/that” because they decide that is what the “rules” are?

FFFFFFFFFFF THAT!

I’m a citizen, not a circus animal that jumps through hoops.

They can go get f’ed.
Click to expand...
They got rewarded for being good little murderers at Waco.

They will never prosecute their Inner Party.

I'm actually to the point where it might be time to rehome my poor pupper and once she is safe let the chips fall where they may. This country has changed so much in the last 19 years I don't recognise it anymore. I'm old, fat, hypertensive (and don't much bother with my medication) and have zero retirement and zero cushion. One bad day could put me on the streets and I find myself caring less and less every day, because I am starting to think I don't have to worry about my long term prospects any more. Some bright shiny and obedient tool of the state is going to take care of that for me for the crime of being a recalcitrant smart arse who is sick and goddamn tired of tin gods and government mandates and being lied to so badly you can't even begin to believe it without being a moron.

This country has radicalized the hell out of me and I am so tired of trying to give a damn.
 
I consider myself a moderately intelligent guy...but that list lost my pretty quick. Most my pistols have KAK braces, and none came with a strap. So, I have no idea what’s going on. I am partially on the side of “I don’t care” though.

A lot of this sounds like “gotcha” stuff anyway, as I have never heard of anyone I know, or anyone here ever mentioning, having a LEO or anything ask them about their AR pistols. I also have an extremely difficult time believing that most police officers are going to take the time to memorize an obnoxious list like this to use for those extremely rare times they run across someone with an AR pistol.

That said, this >seems< more like something that will direct manufacturers just to change their products to fit the new rules. Small braces lined with lead so they weigh more or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B00ger said:
I consider myself a moderately intelligent guy...but that list lost my pretty quick. Most my pistols have KAK braces, and none came with a strap. So, I have no idea what’s going on. I am partially on the side of “I don’t care” though.

A lot of this sounds like “gotcha” stuff anyway, as I have never heard of anyone I know, or anyone here ever mentioning, having a LEO or anything ask them about their AR pistols. I also have an extremely difficult time believing that most police officers are going to take the time to memorize an obnoxious list like this to use for those extremely rare times they run across someone with an AR pistol.

That said, this >seems< more like something that will direct manufacturers just to change their products to fit the new rules. Small braces lined with lead so they weigh more or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You're right on the guidance for manufacturing. They want to stop the proliferation of guns they consider SBRs that don't get registered.

Near the end of the screed, the ATF states something about should someone build something that passes the points test, but they still don't like it that they reserve the right to still call it an SBR. The whole thing is essentially BS since they can still pull a" we know it when we see it."
 
B00ger said:
I consider myself a moderately intelligent guy...but that list lost my pretty quick. Most my pistols have KAK braces, and none came with a strap. So, I have no idea what’s going on. I am partially on the side of “I don’t care” though.

A lot of this sounds like “gotcha” stuff anyway, as I have never heard of anyone I know, or anyone here ever mentioning, having a LEO or anything ask them about their AR pistols. I also have an extremely difficult time believing that most police officers are going to take the time to memorize an obnoxious list like this to use for those extremely rare times they run across someone with an AR pistol.

That said, this >seems< more like something that will direct manufacturers just to change their products to fit the new rules. Small braces lined with lead so they weigh more or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Reading the proposed rules, it looks like the old-school KAK blades with something like this wrapped around it would be good-to-go.
 
B00ger said:
A lot of this sounds like “gotcha” stuff anyway, as I have never heard of anyone I know, or anyone here ever mentioning, having a LEO or anything ask them about their AR pistols. I also have an extremely difficult time believing that most police officers are going to take the time to memorize an obnoxious list like this to use for those extremely rare times they run across someone with an AR pistol.
Click to expand...
They won't, they'll seize the potentially infringing firearm(s), arrest and detain you and toss the whole thing upstairs for someone else to sort out. You meanwhile will either be in detention or out a bunch of money for bail, assuming you have someone with resources to post it for you (I know I don't) and they'll make YOU prove your firearms obey their rules as they choose to interpret them on any given day at their goddamn whim.

This is purely designed like 922r was. To make it difficult for ordinary people to exercise their constitutional rights in a manner that doesn't require an enormous amount of hassle and potential harm. Because some folks will just shrug and quit trying every time they wheel out another hurdle to jump over.

It's more control without banning, it's more power to unelected bureaucrats and faceless civil servants and yet another bite taken out of our rights and freedoms with no process for us to have any sort of say at all. If I wanted a king/queen I would have stayed in Britbong land, the beer was better.

I haven't had some sorts of freedom all my life, I guess this makes me ragingly sensitive when I see flagrant end runs around our rights by power-hungry unelected thugs who burn women and children to prove a point. And brother I am fuming.
 
Last edited:
* Overall length shorter than 12" or longer than 26"

Since there’s currently a different method of measuring OAL for a pistol vs a rifle, wonder which method they prefer for this crap? 🙄
 
JRV said:
Reading the proposed rules, it looks like the old-school KAK blades with something like this wrapped around it would be good-to-go.
Click to expand...

Yeah...might get some of those...or just get a long piece of nylon strap and toss it on em. It doesn’t specify how said strap must be secured around the arm. Just that a strap of appropriate length is there.

The fact that this stuff is so easy to already mitigate is just more proof of its absurdity.

It would make more sense just to say “if you shoot someone it’s bad” and leave it simple...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B00ger said:
Yeah...might get some of those...or just get a long piece of nylon strap and toss it on em. It doesn’t specify how said strap must be secured around the arm. Just that a strap of appropriate length is there.

The fact that this stuff is so easy to already mitigate is just more proof of its absurdity.

It would make more sense just to say “if you shoot someone it’s bad” and leave it simple...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It not jut the choice of brace. It's length, weight, accessories, sights...the whole package matters.
 
Timfoilhat said:
It not jut the choice of brace. It's length, weight, accessories, sights...the whole package matters.
Click to expand...

I am brutally aware of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's funny how I used to read things like this and say damn, gotta make sure I'm good. Now I read this, share it with friends but don't give a damn. Not checking anything, not changing a thing and not taking them on my boat! 🤷‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom