I have had many Glocks over the years but this customized 19 is my last one. It was given to me by my siblings for my 50th birthday.
Lately I have been shooting nothing but my steel red dot CZ’s and Walther Q4SF, so this guys was getting little love. I ordered the Recover Tactical 20/20 brace and took her to the range yesterday. This went from a get it done gun, to a really good get it done gun….lol. 25-50yd hits were easier and more accurate. The gun is so compact that it fits into the center console of my Toyota Avalon and a small backpack.
My Sig 365 XL is my on body gun, but this makes a great backpack gun.
Posts: 1142 | Location: Orange Park, FL. | Registered: November 26, 2000
Originally posted by limblessbiff: Careful, you’ll shoot your hand off kid..
I almost did that with my Daisy Red Ryder BB gun….lol. All joking aside, I am very careful of hand placement. It is not a problem and even less of a problem when shooting suppressed.
Posts: 1142 | Location: Orange Park, FL. | Registered: November 26, 2000
So cut off the strap and now you have a folding stock and jail time. Screw the ATF and the NFA.
The pistol by itself would be even smaller. . Hell, there are many PDW 9mm that are only little bigger and have higher capacity.
________________________________________
-- Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. --
Posts: 17725 | Location: New Mexico | Registered: October 14, 2005
I don't get it. It's bulkier than just the pistol alone and screams for attention from the ATF. The legal justification for a "brace" is that it makes things like AR pistols more usable by the disabled with the use of one hand. Here we have a "brace" mounted on a handgun designed to be used with one hand. This is clearly a stock and is the kind of thing that started the whole brace ban nonsense.
Yes. The SBR laws are stupid. They are still the law. Transparent attempts to circumvent the law will not end well and could have unintended consequences.
Originally posted by copaup: I don't get it. It's bulkier than just the pistol alone and screams for attention from the ATF. The legal justification for a "brace" is that it makes things like AR pistols more usable by the disabled with the use of one hand. Here we have a "brace" mounted on a handgun designed to be used with one hand. This is clearly a stock and is the kind of thing that started the whole brace ban nonsense.
Yes. The SBR laws are stupid. They are still the law. Transparent attempts to circumvent the law will not end well and could have unintended consequences.
I promise you…there is no attempt to circumvent any laws on my end. I have several SBR stamps and 9mm PDW’s and would have no issues doing a SBR on this one as well. My MKE94k SBR is huge in comparison.
These have been around for several years. They are not a new company. If banned by the ATF tomorrow, I am out $100 and would abide by any laws pertaining to what I would need to do with it.
Posts: 1142 | Location: Orange Park, FL. | Registered: November 26, 2000
Originally posted by copaup: Yes. The SBR laws are stupid. They are still the law. Transparent attempts to circumvent the law will not end well and could have unintended consequences.
Are you advocating following the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law?
______________________________________________ Carthago delenda est
If I’ve got any ire with anyone it would be the designer not an individual owner. To me the responsibility should be on the seller to ensure their product meets legal requirements.
I’m advocating not designing or marketing products designed specifically to get around a law that will draw the attention of an already hostile agency looking for an excuse to crack down on owners of a currently legal product, especially when the legality of that product is based on an interpretation made by that very agency of its intended use. This product would appear to violate both the letter of the law (it’s clearly meant to be a stock. Using it as a brace would put it at an angle that would be impractical at best) and the spirit of the law (braces allowed under ADAA as a primary purpose but if someone chooses to use one as an uncomfortable stock as a secondary purpose ATF looks the other way). It has to at least conceivably be primarily be designed to function as a brace to be defined as such.
Look at the angle and length of the brace. If it’s designed as an arm brace, where is that loop going to go and what angle will that put ones wrist in relation to the grip? There is no way that design cleared an ATF review. End of the day we end up with private citizens who purchase a product they have every reason to believe is legal who later find themselves involved in another squabble over the interpretation of an ATF letter. Company ends up with the money and the consumer ends up with the headache.
But that’s just my opinion which is worth exactly what you paid for it. I’m not a lawyer and if I was I wouldn’t be representing ATF, especially on this topic. I’m sure it’s a hoot to shoot. Enjoy.
Originally posted by copaup: I don't get it. It's bulkier than just the pistol alone and screams for attention from the ATF. The legal justification for a "brace" is that it makes things like AR pistols more usable by the disabled with the use of one hand. Here we have a "brace" mounted on a handgun designed to be used with one hand. This is clearly a stock and is the kind of thing that started the whole brace ban nonsense.
Yes. The SBR laws are stupid. They are still the law. Transparent attempts to circumvent the law will not end well and could have unintended consequences.
I own SBRs and I also have braced pistols that I shoulder. GCA is unconstitutional. ATF doesn't get to make law.
_______________
#COMMUNISTMANBAD
Posts: 1776 | Location: TX | Registered: November 09, 2005
Originally posted by copaup: I’m advocating not designing or marketing products designed specifically to get around a law that will draw the attention of an already hostile agency looking for an excuse to crack down on owners of a currently legal product, especially when the legality of that product is based on an interpretation made by that very agency of its intended use.
Oh, I'm fully in support of it. If they want to write stupid laws that infringe on our constitutional and God-given right to defensive arms, I happily encourage all attempts to legally skirt them. The ATF fucked up on this brace thing at every turn, and they're poised to lose in court. I'm thrilled about it. They can choose to interpret the law how they want, I'm happy to see it all get figured out by this Supreme Court.
quote:
Originally posted by copaup: This product would appear to violate both the letter of the law (it’s clearly meant to be a stock. Using it as a brace would put it at an angle that would be impractical at best) and the spirit of the law (braces allowed under ADAA as a primary purpose but if someone chooses to use one as an uncomfortable stock as a secondary purpose ATF looks the other way). It has to at least conceivably be primarily be designed to function as a brace to be defined as such.
I think if the ATF agreed with you, it wouldn't be on the market, and we know how they feel about braces now. As for the brace thing writ large, there's going to be action on that front soon. Current state of Mock v. Garland:
Originally posted by copaup: If I’ve got any ire with anyone it would be the designer not an individual owner. To me the responsibility should be on the seller to ensure their product meets legal requirements.
I’m advocating not designing or marketing products designed specifically to get around a law that will draw the attention of an already hostile agency looking for an excuse to crack down on owners of a currently legal product, especially when the legality of that product is based on an interpretation made by that very agency of its intended use. This product would appear to violate both the letter of the law (it’s clearly meant to be a stock. Using it as a brace would put it at an angle that would be impractical at best) and the spirit of the law (braces allowed under ADAA as a primary purpose but if someone chooses to use one as an uncomfortable stock as a secondary purpose ATF looks the other way). It has to at least conceivably be primarily be designed to function as a brace to be defined as such.
Look at the angle and length of the brace. If it’s designed as an arm brace, where is that loop going to go and what angle will that put ones wrist in relation to the grip? There is no way that design cleared an ATF review. End of the day we end up with private citizens who purchase a product they have every reason to believe is legal who later find themselves involved in another squabble over the interpretation of an ATF letter. Company ends up with the money and the consumer ends up with the headache.
But that’s just my opinion which is worth exactly what you paid for it. I’m not a lawyer and if I was I wouldn’t be representing ATF, especially on this topic. I’m sure it’s a hoot to shoot. Enjoy.
Guess what? The ATF is going to fucking hate you regardless. A PDW brace isn’t going to draw some imaginary ire any more than the pistol it’s attached too.
. Hell, there are many PDW 9mm that are only little bigger and have higher capacity.
