To pistol or not to pistol...

[Shorikid]

If it were not for the cost, and the fairly good braces now, I would be talking SBR. As it is, I am looking at ridding myself of my carbine and going with an 11.5 pistol with a LPVO.

I'm in north eastern TN, traveling to KY often. The area I am in is broken up and more vertical than not. A long shot would be 300 yards in most cases. Mostly enjoyment in shooting, maybe some training when money isn't so tight. I might hunt white tails once the kids are both out of the house. This would be a do it all long gun under 400 yards. Is there enough loss of performance between the 11.5 and a 16in barrel to be worth keeping my current carbine?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Old Man Winter]

The 11.5 is more than capable of handling what you've described. If you roll with the pistol / brace combo keep in mind the ATF can change the rules at anytime as they recently have with measuring overall length. How much does that 4.5" difference impact how you use the blaster?

[HCM]

The 11.5 is more than capable of handling what you've described. If you roll with the pistol / brace combo keep in mind the ATF can change the rules at anytime as they recently have with measuring overall length. How much does that 4.5" difference impact how you use the blaster?

ATF did not “change the rules” they merely clarified the previously ambiguous information on measuring OAL. In fact the portion of the clarification re-iterating that braces are accessories and therefore not part of the gun like stocks are actually reinforces the existing interpretation on braces.

ATF rule making is not just “what ever they feel like.” They are bound by precedent and subject to court challenge. As such the brace genie is pretty firmly out of the bottle at this point.

One advantage to pistols in some cases is they are covered by state CCW Carry laws for pistols vs many states which prohibit loaded long guns in vehicles as an anti poaching measure.

[Sigfan26]

ATF did not “change the rules” they merely clarified the previously ambiguous information on measuring OAL. In fact the portion of the clarification re-iterating that braces are accessories and therefore not part of the gun like stocks are actually reinforces the existing interpretation on braces.

ATF rule making is not just “what ever they feel like.” They are bound by precedent and subject to court challenge. As such the brace genie is pretty firmly out of the bottle at this point.

One advantage to pistols in some cases is they are covered by state CCW Carry laws for pistols vs many states which prohibit loaded long guns in vehicles as an anti poaching measure.

Didn’t the ruling apply to those using an “other” classification so they could use a vfg?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Man Winter]

ATF did not “change the rules” they merely clarified the previously ambiguous information on measuring OAL. In fact the portion of the clarification re-iterating that braces are accessories and therefore not part of the gun like stocks are actually reinforces the existing interpretation on braces.

ATF rule making is not just “what ever they feel like.” They are bound by precedent and subject to court challenge. As such the brace genie is pretty firmly out of the bottle at this point.

One advantage to pistols in some cases is they are covered by state CCW Carry laws for pistols vs many states which prohibit loaded long guns in vehicles as an anti poaching measure.

I'm not tracking. There are multiple ATF letters stating this is how we measure OAL. Now, it appears they're saying the method for measuring OAL is different. How is that not changing the rules? What keeps the ATF from changing their opinion on braces tomorrow and forcing people into a SBR or 10-years behind bars scenario? Sure it would be challenged in court but who wants to be the test case?

Yes, I was aware of the loaded long gun vs loaded pistol in a vehicle as my state doesn't allow loaded long guns in a vehicle.

[HCM]

Didn’t the ruling apply to those using an “other” classification so they could use a vfg?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.

“Other firearms” have seen a big increase in popularity since they are not so called “assault weapons” under some state laws like NY and CT. The rule clarification was directly related to a CT case.

[HCM]

I'm not tracking. There are multiple ATF letters stating this is how we measure OAL. Now, it appears they're saying the method for measuring OAL is different. How is that not changing the rules? What keeps the ATF from changing their opinion on braces tomorrow and forcing people into a SBR or 10-years behind bars scenario? Sure it would be challenged in court but who wants to be the test case?

ATF can’t just “change their opinion” that would be what the law calls “arbitrary and capricious.” They would have to come up with a new reason to reverse course on braces which would stand up in court. This is why when braces took off in popularity a few years ago, ATF could not and did not just “change their opinion” but rather proposed a new argument that shouldering a brace “made” it a stock and thus an SBR since stocks are part of the gun vs braces which are accessories.

That went away because A) ATF figured out that would be a loser in court and B) there were already so many braces out there it would impractical to try and enforce action against them.

As I recall the guns in the CT case were >26” OAL with braces extended and < 26” OAL collapsed. That is an invitation for confusion. (26” has long been ATF’s dividing line between “concealable” and “not concealable.”)

As demonstrated by the various court challenges to the Trump administration’s regulatory changes to Immigration processes, you don’t have to wait for a defendant in a criminal case for an organization to file a legal challenge to an agency’s regulatory changes. The whole reason braces became a thing in the first place is due to several years of SIG litigating and appealing the ATF’s initial denial that SIG braces were “accessories” to aid one handed firing not “stocks.” and therefore SIG brace guns were truly “pistols.”

The ATF definition of a “pistol” is a “concealable” gun designed for one handed fire. Even though we commonly shoot conventional pistols with two hands today, we are using both hands on one grip. That was also a factor in the arguments against how you hold a brace pistol changing its legal status since a Glock 17 doesn’t become an AOW if you shoot it with two hands since the G17 is “designed” to be shot one handed.

[BK14]

I have an SBR and pistol lower that I swap my 11.5 upper with depending on situation. Work vs traveling out of state being the big one. I also have a 14.5 pinned middy set up almost the same, both wearing variable 1-6 optics.

Personally, unless you NEED the shortness of the 11.5, I actually prefer the pinned 14.5 (or 16” if that’s you thing). While the 11.5 is nice for working in/around vehicles and in buildings, I don’t think you’re losing much with a 14.5 for general use. My 14.5 is more accurate, has better terminal ballistics (especially if 400 yards is your distance), , recoils way less and I have no worry in the world about ATF hassle.

That being said, the 11.5 is much easier to discreetly travel with since it’s going to be more compact to load into bags that look less like a rifle case.

Try plugging some data in with a ballistic calculator to look at what your rounds will do out of each at 400.

Lastly, while I’ve never seen an actual ruling, I’m always a little concerned with having a variable 1-6 on a pistol lower. If the pistol is designed to be shot one handed while your arm is within the brace, the variable would basically cancel that ability due to eye relief. I have a secondary sighting system on my upper so it’s a non-issue for me, but something I’ve been thinking of in regards to potential issues with claiming the design of the setup as a pistol.

[Shorikid]

I have an SBR and pistol lower that I swap my 11.5 upper with depending on situation. Work vs traveling out of state being the big one. I also have a 14.5 pinned middy set up almost the same, both wearing variable 1-6 optics.

Personally, unless you NEED the shortness of the 11.5, I actually prefer the pinned 14.5 (or 16” if that’s you thing). While the 11.5 is nice for working in/around vehicles and in buildings, I don’t think you’re losing much with a 14.5 for general use. My 14.5 is more accurate, has better terminal ballistics (especially if 400 yards is your distance), , recoils way less and I have no worry in the world about ATF hassle.

That being said, the 11.5 is much easier to discreetly travel with since it’s going to be more compact to load into bags that look less like a rifle case.

Try plugging some data in with a ballistic calculator to look at what your rounds will do out of each at 400.

Lastly, while I’ve never seen an actual ruling, I’m always a little concerned with having a variable 1-6 on a pistol lower. If the pistol is designed to be shot one handed while your arm is within the brace, the variable would basically cancel that ability due to eye relief. I have a secondary sighting system on my upper so it’s a non-issue for me, but something I’ve been thinking of in regards to potential issues with claiming the design of the setup as a pistol.

11.5 vs. 14.5, a lot of what I am looking toward is portability, light weight, handling in smaller spaces. Those spaces could be my home, some fairly rough and heavily wooded/tangled woods. This would also serve secondary duty as a gun for my daughters to learn on and maybe their stand by weapon for when I am not home. On the range issue, here outside of a clear cut or along a power line cut, getting to 200 yards is not common and a clear 300 yard shot is the exception.

LPVO on a pistol, I am not overly concerned with. Current braces are leaps ahead of what they were even 5 years ago. So, with the generous eye box on some of the mid range optics, I think I'm ok there. The legality of scopes on pistols, I do not see as an issue. They are pretty common, and scopes on pistols has been a thing for a long time. I was shooting an Aimpoint on a S&W .22 to hunt with, and a Leopold on a model 29 back in the 80s. I have family with land out of state about 15 from my home, so the paper work for SBRs to travel is a big issue for me. Cost, and difficulty to transfer is another.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[BK14]

11.5 vs. 14.5, a lot of what I am looking toward is portability, light weight, handling in smaller spaces. Those spaces could be my home, some fairly rough and heavily wooded/tangled woods. This would also serve secondary duty as a gun for my daughters to learn on and maybe their stand by weapon for when I am not home.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I gotcha. A lot of guys are using full length rifles doing CQB. Perfect world I’d take a shorty, but clearing a building with a rifle isn’t an issue with proper technique, and mostly outside the scope of the normal civilian world.

For new shooters, or home defense, I’d take a 14.5/16” over an 11.5. Less blast, less recoil.

Maneuvering the gun in/out of the car isn’t bad with a rifle, it’s shooting from the vehicle/deploying it from a rack that’s easier with a pistol.

Re: scopes, I’m not saying I’m actually concerned about the legality, but just something to consider.


All in all, either would work great. In general I’d recommend a rifle as a primary gun for people, then possibly a pistol as a second gun, unless they have a particular set of needs that the shorty is needed for. Either option is gtg. I’ve got both setups, I like both, I carry the 11.5 for work because of vehicles, but either would be great.

Good luck in the journey to 1000 rifles.