MagPul: No “Arm Braces” From Us for Awhile

IMG_14781-660x260

Duane Liptak, Jr., the Director of Product Management & Marketing at MagPul Industies, responded to a thread on M4Carbine telegraphing the companies intent on “Arm Braces”. Direct Quote below:

More braces and more opinion requests might just hasten an end to this whole market through an opinion reversal, which isn’t good for anyone, so we’ll likely steer clear of any products in this vein. I would prefer to see the ATF realize that this whole SBR thing is silly, as pointed out by the arm brace opinion, so that short barrels are no longer a determinant of NFA status. With all the more strict gun control in many, less free nations around the world, I’m not aware of anyone else that sees barrel length as something that needs to be controlled. It’s silly.

In short, do not expect to see a MagPul arm brace for some time until the ATF has let the clamor surrounding them to quiet down.

Personally, I agree with the approach.



Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • MacK

    Good and maybe ill get my tax stamps refunded **cold day in hell**

  • Fred Johnson

    Does Sig have a patent on arm braces for now? That’d be another reason for Magpul to wait. I’d hate to come up with a patent avoiding design, just to have the ATF say “no” to that patent avoiding design.

    • ClintTorres

      I think I read that Sig bought the patent from the inventor.

      • Cymond

        I think they licensed it, which is a very small difference. From what I understand, the Century Arms AK pistol brace is also licensed from the inventor.

  • Gaston_kalash

    The picture in this post shows a vertical grip which is illegal on a pistol without a tax stamp and kinda defeats the purpose of the “arm brace”.

    • Daniel

      In some cases it’s not. Fulton armory has an ATF letter stating it’s legal to put one on their pistols as there is no chance you’d be trying to conceal it.

      • BillC

        In this case, it is. The FA uses a loophole because of the really long barrel length.

        • ClintTorres

          I think it’s an overall length greater than 26″.

      • ClintTorres

        I believe it’s Franklin Armory.

      • Daniel

        Franklin armory. Sorry. Thanks for the correction.

    • mark1234

      If its over 26″ it is not illegal

    • jeff

      according to the atf it is illegal to put a vertical foregrip on ANY pistol regardless of bbl length . unless it is a registered sbr . i await someone to show me proof otherwise.

      • John
      • Cymond

        Technically, you are correct. However a ‘pistol’ with an OAL of move than 26″ is no longer classified as a “pistol” when a VFG is added.

        If the Fraklin Armory XO-26 doesn’t convince you, then go research the Thompson A5 pistol.

        Also, what is the legal classification of a Mossberg Cruiser? It isn’t a shotgun (not designed to be fired from the shoulder), it isn’t a pistol (bore is over .50 and not rifled), and it an it isn’t an AOW (OAL length and barrel length are too long to be an AOW).

        • echelon

          And what this really should show everyone is that all of this is fictional nonsense.

        • Paul Epstein

          It’s literally just classified as a firearm. All of the general rules regarding firearms apply, but none of the specific subsections do.

          • Cymond

            Yeah, I know the classification of a Cruiser, I was just hoping to lead jeff down a thought path. Some people have trouble accepting the concept of an unclassified “firearm” and must be beaten over the head with proof.

    • Porty1119

      This photo was from when the brace first came out…it was mounted onto a registered SBR lower to eliminate all questions of legality. VFGs are obviously totally fine on registered SBRs.

    • Literally every time this photo is posted I have to explain that I used an SBR lower for that test, because at the time nobody was sure of how kosher using as a stock was.

  • Tim U

    Have to agree with magpul. I think the massive rush on these braces may cause a reversal.

    • erwos

      It’s the after-market guys who are producing accessories to make the braces more usable as improvised stocks who will eventually screw this up. Plausible deniability only works so long as it’s plausible.

      • Aside from KAK spacers what other aftermarket modifications are available for the SIG brace?

        • Shady_Spectre

          Not Sig brand braces but Rapid Fire Tek makes sling mounts and spacers for the SB47 braces for AK pistols to make them more user friendly.

          • Cymond

            The spacers are arguably a concern, but I don’t see the problem with a sling mount. I mean, these are huge pistols and ungainly to carry. They certainly don’t fit in a holster, so what’s so bad about a sling?

            Also, I should mention that I do have a sling on my AR pistol, which does not have a brace yet.

    • kingghidorah

      That doesn’t make any sense. It’s not a Slidefire, and guess what, no reversals or bans on those things.

  • Michael R. Zupcak

    Magpul has the right idea, just keep pushing for barrel length to be removed from the NFA. You think those ATF agents really believe a “pistol” with an arm brace is “safer” than the same gun with a stock? You think those ATF agents like doing paperwork?

    If we get a good Republican in the White House next term, I think there’s a good chance of some changes to the NFA. I won’t hold by breath for new machine guns, though.

    • echelon

      That would work if anyone ACTUALLY were pushing to remove the NFA. Nobody is and that’s the real problem.

      • Michael R. Zupcak

        I think certain people/corporations are, just in a quieter way (no pun intended). Look at SilencerCo or Advanced Armament and their “Can U”. Eventually so many people will have an interest in them that, potentially, an ATF backed by a gun-friendly Presidential administration would consider removal from NFA. Likewise, there are more and more manufacturers offering factory SBRs, increasing their proliferation. IMO, SBR/SBS would likely be removed first, as “short barrel” doesn’t sound nearly as scary as “Silencer” or “machine gun”. Next step is to keep hitting on the point that silencers don’t really “silence” anything larger than a .22LR, then try to get those removed.

        • echelon

          I think what you say sounds good in theory, but in practice that’s not how it works.

          We have had so called “gun-friendly Presidential administrations” on and off for years and there doesn’t seem to be any rush to remove the already criminal acts. And that’s what they are.

          I personally like what Sig is doing and actually taking the ATF to court. The only problem is that the game is rigged and so every unconstitutional rule and statute will typically be upheld or neutered so as to be harmless.

          And rather than everyone getting righteously angry about it and proactively doing something to regain they’re lost freedoms, they’ll just throw up their hands and go “oh well, I guess we lost that one” and then dutifully do whatever they’re told.

          Any “law” or statute, no matter how cruel or unjust, can be easily overturned when a sufficient number of people with pure motive decide to take a stand. That and money/resources.

          There is no reason why the combined numbers and resources of all of the gun owners, gun manufacturers and accessory makers, the NRA and other 2A orgs couldn’t overturn these things in a heartbeat.

          So the question one needs to ask is then why isn’t it so?

          • KestrelBike

            I blame the old/establishment guard of the NRA. I have a feeling that New-guard NRA is a bit different and more modern. (Remember, old-guard NRA are the ones discouraging any “movement & firing”)

          • echelon

            Possibly. I’ve read many things from them that state that they only fight battles that they can “win”.

            And even then some of their goals are more than off putting…such as their fervent zeal for getting national concealed carry reciprocity enacted. They were willing to give into “universal background checks” to get their crown jewel approved!

            And the end result would surely be a national database of concealed carry permit holders…gee, how convenient.

          • Cymond

            I can understand wanting to focus on cases they can win. First, they have limited resources, so it’s best to spend their time & money where it will actually help. Second, a lost court case could set a bad precedent that would be used against us.

          • echelon

            It’s possible. But once again I think this speaks to the utter wretchedness of our supposed “justice” system than anything else.

            Plus there’s always the “risk small, gain small” philosophy.

            Once again to me the outcomes are quite clear: Either we fight -in court, courteously and civilized and take back what is ours by Right or the gloves come off and they move to take it all away. Either way we know where we stand. None of this cowering in the corner hiding, hoping the master won’t see us and come kick us a little more…

            Unfortunately we live in a place where men have no chests, so velvet chains it is then.

        • More manufacturers are offering NFA items because inflation has rendered the $200 tax-stamp nigh irrelevant.

  • gunslinger

    does the ATF actually have the power to “remove” SBR status from the NFA?

    • joe

      yes

      • McThag

        ATF doesn’t have that power because the definition of SBR is part of the US Code and isn’t a promogulated regulation.

        Congress has to change this, not ATF.

        • M

          Yup. If I understand correctly, the ATF is on the enforcement side and not the legislative.
          If the law says no SBRs/AOWs/etc (followed by the measurement guidelines) without regulation, they have to enforce it.

          I think most of the annoyance is the way they enforce those laws (i.e. flip flopping their interpretations, going too far with enforcement, etc)

          • The U.S. Gov is not doing such a great job of enforcing immigration laws. Why not just stop prosecuting NFA violations?

            That’s a rhetorical question. I know that advocating a policy of not enforcing laws is extremely dysfunctional.

          • jpcmt

            The ATF ‘defines’ what is what as shown in their technology branch letters that everyone reads when finding out if their sig brace, AFG, or overall length of their pistol is ok or not. The ATF can define what an SBR is I’m sure and as we all know, it doesn’t have to make sense. On topic, as soon as some idiot gets the wrong ‘press’ with his AR pistol with arm brace, the definition will change. Same with that dumbass bump fire stock which can change any day. Didn’t the aurora movie theater killer use a bump fire stock and a drum mag?

          • The drum mag jammed. I think the story was that they found a bump-fire stock in his apartment, after the shooting.

          • M

            They can’t define what an SBR is, congress has already done so.
            Congress established the Gun Control act of 1968, which defines an SBR as: “The term ‘short-barreled rifle’ means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.”

            AFGs, Sig Braces, and bumpfire stocks teeter the gray zone so it goes to arbitration by the ATF’s tech branch, but they cannot suddenly say SBRs are now 18″. What they can say is whether Sig Braces are stocks or not and declare AR-pistols with Sig braces SBRs.

            In other words, the tech division molds definitions to make certain iteams fall under illegal, but it doesn’t write those laws.

          • M

            A good example of how, even though the US govt is on the ATF’s side, but in the end, they’re not the ones actually writing the laws:

            In the 80s, a man named William York tried to circumvent the established definition of a machine gun
            (which then stated that it was defined as a weapon that fired more than once with one pull of the trigger)
            with is [modified] sten, which didn’t have a trigger. His sten fired by charging the bolt (and emptied the magazine). This hence did not fall under the extant definition of a machine gun.

            However, the ATF was not able to declare his firearm a machine gun on its own and so had to go to the supreme court, with York and the ATF making their case. It was the ruling by the Supreme Court, not the ATF, that redefined what a machine gun was.

            People might call this a ‘corrupt’ system, since all the ATF would have to do is ask the supreme court. However, even if we coerced the ATF into asking for a repeal, this would mean that people other than the ATF officials would have to review the the existing SBR laws whether it be wise to repeal it [i.e. politicians, i.e. not likely]. In the end they are two separate entities.

          • Anon. E Maus

            He didn’t use a bump-stock, but he did use a 100 round mag, the Beta-C, which isn’t known for it’s great reliability, and it malfunctioned just about immediately, it can be argued that his choice of using a high-capacity magazine changed peoples odds for the better.

          • Jenkem Jones

            No, the ATF has wide authority to (re)interpret the law as they see fit. Many of the most popular rifle calibers are now classified as pistol ammunition and the ATF has to grant ‘Sporting Use’ status to much of the ammunition that cannot pass the armor piercing ammunition definition.

        • mrsatyre

          But the ATF is notorious for rewriting the rules to suit themselves without any consultation of Congress. They do it through obfuscation and “prosecute now, attempt to justify later”.

  • mark1234

    +1 for magpul

  • big daddy

    This is another reason I buy Magpul, they really do care about firearms and the community. They are not just about making money. That move was expensive and they got a lot of grief from it because they did not do it fast enough for some. They do make some great products and find a way to hold down the cost, they can have my money any time. I was told by someone online to be quiet about the whole arm brace thing. He was right and I tried to be at that time. But the cat is out of the bag and the government knows it. I think this was a give from them. I also agree that if we elect a Rep president there will be some positive changes to the firearms laws. If we elect a Dem I just might give the NRA some more of my money as long as they cut ties with Sarah Palin and those types. This whole SIG brace things proves the SBR and short barrel thing is out of date. It was an issue in the 1930s, it is not now. I will vote for a candidate who will loosen gun restrictions as long as they do not cut my SS benefits. I need the money to survive some medical issues and buy more ammo…..

  • big daddy

    I will also say along with the whole SBR thing suppressors being illegal is another stupid outdated issue. Too many morons in the government who think it’s like the movies. That a bunch of Ninja Assassins will use the silencers to kill people without making any noise like in the movies. They are totally ignorant about how they work and how loud they really are. It seems like the government does not understand the simple fact that if criminals want it they will make it/steal it/get it some way. Criminals do not follow the law, they are criminals. If they want a SBR they will make one and not worry about the laws. There is no reason for them to have a SBR, they just will get an AK with a folding stock, they don’t aim anyway, that seems to be the #1 long gun of gangbangers. They will make or buy a FA weapon, they used to modify those cheap pistols like a Tek 9 or a MAC type pistol to full auto years ago, the laws did not stop them. We see that most of the illegal guns we see here, so many are FA or cut down rifles. If the criminals really want it they will get it. Also the expense and knowledge needed to use and keep working these weapons is beyond most criminals mentality. A folding stock AK47 would still be the choice of the gangs over a AR SBR which requires maintenance to keep working, unlike most AKs.

  • treyak

    I agree with the magpul approach. All of this crap on the market now just sets us up for future restrictions; arm braces, rifle caliber pistols, 80% receivers. The ATF hates this shit, and people and certain industry participants want to keep pushing the limit. I am hard core 2nd amendment, but this crap just draws unneeded attention. The ATF and or the legislature will eventually open the books and make a new determination on this stuff, and when they do, they will drag some of the “normal” items we enjoy and have a collecting or practical use for, and it will be taken again. It is just better to stay under the radar.

  • Tyler John Richards

    Try Canada… Silly barrel length regulations 18.5 inches is non-restricted while 18.4 inches has to be shot only at a range with transport papers and permission from a bureaucratic imbecile

  • echelon

    Who cares if it causes a reversal? That’s the point. Their opinion created the market in the first place. Crank it wide open.

    In my view, not getting into the market actually lends credence to the NFA. If you cow to them then they know you’re scared and then they rule by fear. And that’s exactly what this is. Ooooh we have a little bit of a good thing here. The masters have deigned to let us have this one little thing, we mustn’t mess it up!

    Bull. Blow the market wide open. Get millions of people with “pistols” with “arm braces” and then when they try to reverse the ruling take them to court and massively sue their pants off! You get Sig, Century, all of the owners, a few 2A orgs in there and make it a huge deal. That’s how you get through to these people.

    But no, instead we’ll just continue to whimper and snivel like mewling quims…

    • KestrelBike

      Completely, 100% agree. I think Magpul are crying into the security blanket with this one.

      • kingghidorah

        Not to mention all of the $ they could be making on a cooler looking brace. It would probably cot $2 to make and people(like me) would like up to by them @ $200.

    • Fox

      +1

    • Fred Johnson

      Invest in Magpul and bankroll that puppy.

      • echelon

        If I knew that they would actually do anything I would. And actually, I have “invested” quite a bit of cash with them as I own…a few…of their products.

        Problem is it’ll never happen. And this is proof.

  • Ratcraft

    To each their own, I see no need to make them. Just looks dumb and out of place, like side mirrors on a funny car.

  • Nimrod

    Even though people think the SBR thing is silly (I do) it is nice to have options in the mean time.

  • Nimrod

    And of course the other side of Magpul’s argument is that the more people who buy and use arm braces the more silly the SBR/NFA rules become which might hasten their recension.

  • Mystick

    The ATF will never regard anything that generates revenue through applications(note, not necessarily approvals) as “silly” and thus eliminate the classification and requirements.

    Never underestimate the parasitic hunger of a government agency.

    • 1911a145acp

      A. Summary of Budget Request
      The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requests $1,153,345,000 for
      FY 2013, including 4,937 positions and 4,861 full time equivalents (FTE). This request includes
      $28,239,000 in adjustments-to-base, and program offsets of $26,894,000. The FY 2013 request
      also proposes a rescission of $12,400,000 in expired balances and $1,028,000 in unobligated
      Violent Crime Reduction Program balances. The FY 2013 request supports ATF and
      Department of Justice (DOJ) priorities for reducing violent crime, detecting and preventing
      terrorism, and enforcing Federal firearms, arson, explosives, and contraband tobacco laws.
      These resources will allow ATF to maintain a focused operational capacity

      ALL of the $200 transfer taxes combined would constitute a fractional percentage of the ATF budget- it AIN”T about the money. It’s about creating and controlling a delinquent society. One set of rules for them- a different set for us.You understand that alcohol served in the White House at state parties is EXEMPT from taxes ….right?

    • Cymond

      ATF does NOT get to keep the $200 application fees for NFA items. They’re burdened with the work of processing the applications, but not rewarded with the payments. Hence, they have very little incentive to hire more workers to reduce the backlog. At one time, the entire NFA was administered by 9 workers, but that is slowly improving.

  • USMC03Vet

    This is pretty sad that we have companies in the United States not producing products the market wants because everyone is walking on pins and needles regarding the legality of a guaranteed civil right. All because the governing agency is a federal monstrosity with arbitrary regulations and can basically turn constitutional law abiding citizens into criminals overnight voiding ownership of mundane products like plastics.

    It’s disgusting.

    • kingghidorah

      Disgusting, but where is it better than here? Canada? England? Europe? Australia? Japan? Where?

      • Fox

        It is better here- though it is not the way it ought to be, you know it, and I know it. All we have to do is vote these a**hats out. Ready to settle for current legislation? Because the crowd that demonizes your pointy objects will never settle my friend.

        • Peter Balzer

          is it? the permits required for buying a full-auto SBR with a silencer cost me CHF 100, that is apx USD 110. that is, unless I want to buy three full-auto SBRs with silencers, because I can put three guns on those permits… and you get full-auto guns that start at CHF 650 (chinese AK). and before anybody asks, NO, we cannot export 🙂

          • Craig

            Where all can they be used in Switzerland?

        • Lobo

          Vote the ones OUT that do not fall in line with you(my) way of thinking,honesty, sincerity in doing what the voyers want.NOT party lines!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • supergun

      Indeed, it is disgusting to have all these infringements on the 2nd Amendment. The Courts will not do their job that they are sworn to do.

  • dan citizen

    Once again, bullpups are the answer. Same barrel length, better stock, classed as a pistol.

    http://www.cbrps.com/Draco_w_drum_left.JPG

    • 1911a145acp

      Bullpup pistols ARE an easier answer. The execution can be better than the cbrps kit. I was APPALLED when I received the first and last one I got.

      • dan citizen

        I couldn’t find the pic of the one I wanted to post.

    • Can you fire that from your left shoulder without getting hit in the face with hot shell-casings?

      • dan citizen

        With a case deflector, maybe. I am right handed.

        Any decent bullpup should deflect casings sufficiently for ambidextrous use, sadly of course, some don’t.

        When I have was trained on left handed Drills we tilted the gun. I have seen a very nice bullpup where the gun was arranged at an angle so the casings went downwards.

  • cloudhidden

    The title should read “a while” not “awhile.”

  • jamezb

    I could easily see the BATF arm brace decision being a premeditated gun-grab plot.working something like this:

    1) Allow arm braces.
    2) Wait for thousands of braces to be sold and attached to legal pistols.
    3) Suddenly reverse decision, seize company mailing records.
    4) Confiscate not only the arm braces, but the pistols, now considered illegal unregistered SBR’s.
    5) Confiscate all of the rest of these “criminal” gun owner’s collections while they are at it.
    6) Brag about “taking illegal concealable assault rifles out of the hands of dangerous gun owners”, and seizing their “arsenals’.
    7) Ask for a court decision on “can we charge all these awful criminal gun owners?
    8) Declare victory, be lauded in the media, Receive budget increase,
    9) Move on toward entrapping the slide-fire crowd next…

    Scary stuff if you think about it…especially because they need a feel-good media victory after the fast and furious debacle…

    • KestrelBike

      My thinking is that if they want a legal fight, they can have one. It’d be just another “crackdown” that (R) can bolster the base with, and also finally get the NRA into the fight. Actually, a smart move on Magpul’s part would be to think about entering the market if/when (R) keeps the house and takes over the senate. Then they [theoretically] have the legislative on their side.

    • Evil13RT

      If that was the theory, the question is what happens when their decision reversal is taken to court. The whole SBR definition exists on very shaky logical ground.
      Its function evaporated with the failed attempts at banning pistols.
      They’d only succeed at getting the NFA ripped apart by dozens of judges.

      I more think its that they didn’t really understand the original question of what an arm brace was. Now they’re caught between the law and their own ignorance.

    • kingghidorah

      Sounds like the USAS 12.

  • Car54

    I remember in the 1960s when black people were routinely discriminated against. It took a few brave ones to stand up and challenge the status quo. They were routinely criticized by their peers for “rocking the boat” “making it worse for the rest of us” “don’t antagonize the man” etc. etc. Even after being beaten, having fire hoses and police dogs set upon them they continued the fight for their rights until enough of the joined in and changed society. It seems to me that the problem with gun rights these days is that the gun industry has no collective voice (or balls for that matter). If they and us stuck together we could change the paradigm. Instead you have a company like Magpul and their supporter flashing their vaginas.

  • TSN

    “Scary stuff if you think about it…especially because they need a feel-good media victory after the fast and furious debacle…”

    …and incredibly stupid for the ATF to try in an increasingly polarized climate we live in.
    What is the approval rating for Congress right now ? 7% last time I checked. Many of
    my shooting friends consider the government their number one concern. These
    “arm braces” need to be made in the MILLIONS if gun rights folks had any common
    sense. This is called “facts on the ground”. You wanna see the political fallout when the
    ATF “f troop” tries confiscate millions of pistols. ATF lurkers…we know you are lurking
    around here…pay attention…call it off….WALK AWAY….

  • ColaBox

    Your saying the ATF is capable of coming to a logical realization? You sir are pulling my leg. But man, I hope they do, I want to SBR my rifle very badly.

  • If anything gets removed from the NFA in our lifetimes it’ll be SBRs. Silencers are too spooky thanks to Hollywoodberg, full autos are scawwy, and SBSs have a criminal image thanks to…actual criminals. But as the POTD demonstrated SBRs are friendly to the stature-challenged. They aren’t demonized by the enemy media and aren’t used in crimes.

  • 1911a145acp

    If MagPul’s position is that “Let’s don’t do anything that may cause the ATF to act irrationally, reverse an edict that they have already ruled on, or do something really stupid that makes no sense AND contradicts the U.S. Constitution” I say Hell’s Bell’s and let’s pile on and overwhelm them. How would anyone know the difference from the ATF? How are they going to shut the door on arm braces NOW!?

  • herb

    It’s complex, but I think it’s cool of them to stay out of it. You could say it makes them seem scared and defeated, but that’s not what I make of it. I mean, it’s horrible companies have an onus to think ahead to possible crackdowns like this. In and of itself, just taking the head-on approach and making anything they can as long as they can would be cool and reasonable. Also, unfortunately I think it’s helpful for companies to do that in order to limit the usefulness of the (crappy, but popular) argument that a certain firearm or firearm product is outside of the norm thus can be banned.

    But, being Magpul is a high-profile lightning-rod of a supplier, and the arm brace situation being really silly, and there beign other suppliers of the arm braces to push the issue and provide the braces at some rate, I think it’s cool of Magpul not to make them. If they did, being who they are, it would make the industry as a whole seem like it’s scrounging for loopholes, like a bunch of fly-by-night dollar-chasing hucksters, who can and should be regulated. Rather, by staying out, they’re avoiding making themselves vulnerable for committed capitol or the indignity of being cracked down upon. And it’s clever of them to take the opportunity to point out that the arm braces are a symptom of the silly laws, not of the industry being scofflaws.

  • Johnobody

    With the effectiveness of a single point sling, the pistol-grip and the non-dominant hand on the front of the mag-well, I never considered a brace. The buffer tube partially defeats the purpose of “pistol” status. With Kel-Tek’s 5.56mm pistol and its recoil spring that is positioned in line with the gas tube, the pistol stays quite short and can be kept concealed in a jacket. (Notice that I am not addressing rifle calibers, with slow burning powders in relation to their short barrels; The effect of this combination is to rob them of much velocity while making a lot of noise and muzzle flash)

  • Benny the Jew

    Forget the arm brace, I just want their folding SMG!

  • Andrew S

    Someone please correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the VFG on the pistol in the picture above this article a no-no? That used to be considered to be an AOW by the ATF.

  • Andrew Walkowiak

    Fine by me as well, because Magpul has plenty of other amazing things that they’ve teased us with, like the AFG/FPG, and the PDR, items people have been begging to buy that will never see the light of day. From them directly, or licensed out to anyone else.

  • Jenkem Jones

    It’s just a scam to get around the NFA of 1934. Everyone that has one of these sawed off ARs should pay their tax and be registered.