IC13 Releases Pistol Brace Protector, NFA compliant?

A small company by the name of IC13 has released a “Pistol Brace Protector” for the Shockwave Blade series of pistol brace stabilizers. Essentially it has a circular like interface that “plugs” into the circular rear space of the Shockwave Blade, while two slots “guide” it into place against the bottom portion, and then a sort of solid backing to provide a way to protect debris from entering the Shockwave Blade, and to let the pistol sit gently on the ground. The entire contraption is made from 6061 aluminum, and appears to be coated in different colors and finishes.

The product is a brilliant design. So brilliant that I thought of the very same thing several months ago. Except I didn’t go through with actually manufacturing anything, because such a device mounted to the Shockwave Blade, probably isn’t NFA compliant. This product is seriously treading that very fine line between pistol and rifle at this point and I don’t think it is a matter of what the ATF response is, but when it comes. It is currently going for $45 on the company’s website, and will be shipping November 30th.

This is what the company states on the product page-

WARNING: The enclosed Pistol Brace Protector is designed to prevent debris and foreign materials from entering the rear opening/void of the Shockwave Blade, as well as to provide additional protection in the event of droppage. Use of this product, as designed, does not change the firearm’s classification. However, mis-use of this product, including, but not limited to, shouldering it, per the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive’s prior determination, results in re-design of the firearm to which the Pistol Brace Protector is attached and may result in violations of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5801, et seq., in the absence of registration. For further information seek out competent legal advice and see ATF’s prior determination


The company has just informed TFB of this latest change-

Yesterday we reached out to all who pre-ordered the SBP, telling them that we were refunding their money, and delaying the product launch until formal ATF approval.

Honestly, I think this is really pushing it. Yes, gun owners are in a sort of new era of possible political certainty when it comes to laws governing our passion, but products like this seem to be riding on that wave, and trying to take advantage of the momentum, without regard to the actual consequences for the rest of the community.

The below video is from their Facebook page

Screen Shot 2016-11-23 at 8.33.52 AM

static1.squarespace-1 static1.squarespace-2 static1.squarespace


Infantry Marine, based in the Midwest. Specifically interested in small arms history, development, and usage within the MENA region and Central Asia. To that end, I run Silah Report, a website dedicated to analyzing small arms history and news out of MENA and Central Asia.

Please feel free to get in touch with me about something I can add to a post, an error I’ve made, or if you just want to talk guns. I can be reached at miles@tfb.tv


  • cons2p8ted

    SBP: Shockwave Brace Protector sounds better than “Stock Butt Plug”!

    • noob

      Makes sense, since every time i hear “pistol brace” it sounds like an SBR is trying to claim it is a “technical virgin”.

      • int19h

        This particular not-a-stock is not even a “pistol brace”. It’s a “pistol blade stabilizer”!

    • DanGoodShot


  • William Nelson

    Just get rid of the whole SBR nonsense and let us have nifty, short rifles without the hassle! Is that so much to ask?

    • KestrelBike

      Yes. Love, tyrants.
      I love this poking of the bear, however.

      • Dr. A. B. Plato

        By “tyrants” I expect you mean Barry Soetoro and his goon-squads and not William Nelson.

    • DanGoodShot

      I couldn’t agree more my friend

  • JoshCalle

    Yeah no thanks, I love my dog too much to buy this.

    • xebat

      Dog ?

      • Rick O’Shay

        The joke is that every time the LEOs show up, they shoot your dog.

        • phuzz

          Well, most dogs do have black skin.

  • Budogunner

    Nope. Not touching that with a 10 foot pole.

    • It only counts if the pole touches your shoulder

      • Budogunner

        Well played, good Sir, well played.

  • Ambassador Vader

    Pushing it? I think the NFA is pushing my freedom. I say thank you to companies that give the ATF a royal headache, rather than complain about rebels might endanger my freedoms that have already been taken away.

    • Edeco

      This. It’s a poor tactic trying to appease, that’s just taken as a sign of weakness and guilt, and it undermines the philosophical stance, and it would leave the ATF bored, looking for new scope of activities. I’m glad companies are being active, probing the limits.

  • iksnilol


  • westford86

    They’re not for sale on their site, as far as I can tell.

    I really should start putting all the stupid ideas I have into production, thought of this last year…

    • Chrono777

      They took the page down. Wonder if they got some push back.

  • Bradley

    I can’t say I agree with you. They’ve already set a pretty good precedent(not that they have to follow it but still) by allowing these braces in the first place. This is essentially just a flat cover. While it probably would be more comfortable I don’t see that it significantly adds to the products ease or likelihood of being used as a shoulder stock. Don’t get me wrong, nothing would surprise me from the atf, but I just don’t see it as the obvious red flag you make it out to be.

  • MrApple


  • Christopher Wallace

    Just inviting the man into your life.. no thanks

  • Kalash

    This won’t end well.

  • Sianmink

    Push it. IDGAF.

    pistol braces make it obvious just how stupid the NFA really is, making the only difference between a legal pistol and illegal AOW or SBR is whether or not part of it touches your shoulder or if it has a vertical grip or not.
    It’s time to clean this mess up.

    • JSmath

      I’m all for companies pushing the limits and people buying products that do.

      I am strongly against all the Gomer Piles that jump on Youtube a year after the fact and start shouting, “Hey, look at this here short barrel rifle – I’mma shoulder it an shoot it and even though it’s an S. B. R. I can do this because lookitdis letter. I also sented the ATF my own letterjus to be shuuure.”

      • Dr. A. B. Plato

        Pleeeease. Pushing limits, when dealing with the ATF, if you look at the case law, means that some poor slob will be spending 20 years in the federal pen for mere possession–not a good idea.

    • 35Whelan

      Apparently the NRA is working with Trump on legislation to remove suppressors from the purview of the NFA. Would only be a few extra words to add SBR to that removal.

    • Dr. A. B. Plato

      Not “stupid” just bureaucratic, i.e., people trying to make decisions based on, or in line with, previously adopted anti-Second Amendment prejudices.

  • BlueMarlin Blues

    Do you want your dog to die? Cause this is how you get your dog to die

  • DGR

    10 out of 10, would not touch.
    Agreed, the NFA is ridiculous, but this is not the way to get that changed.

  • Hoplopfheil

    Solution: repeal the NFA

    • Dr. A. B. Plato

      If you look at the ultimate intention of ALL anti-gun laws/regulations since the 1930’s, they are, by definition, anti-Second Amendment regulations enacted and/or illegally adopted by ATF, Customs, IRS, et al, and they all have three interesting characteristics:
      1. All are applied only to citizens outside the old soviet union.
      2. All the US measures are specifically prohibited under the Second Amendment –which has always been intended to be “the law of the land.”
      3. All were applied AFTER Joseph Stalin came into power in the late 1920’s and continue to be staunchly supported by extreme liberal/socialist types like Hillery and her assassin(s).

      Nevertheless, I find it interesting as to just how many people, American Citizens presumably, have never read our Constitution and appear to be so subservient to laws and adopted regulations contrary to their own Civil Rights as Citizens–Very odd indeed.

  • tom

    Can someone just end all of this and send the ATF the Magpul CTR and label it “Fully adjustable, padded, pistol arm brace that works with existing carbine buffer tubes”.

    Or maybe come out with a product that attaches to the CTR and allows you to use it a pistol brace. Thus re-classifying the the stock into a brace that can’t be shouldered, or built with the intention of shouldering. Actually, when you buy the CTR you just need to have it transferred to you as an Other and not a stock. There we go, we are almost there.

  • Jeff Smith

    They’re marketing this all wrong – they should sell it as a protective shoulder cushion for use with the brace as a Thordsen Device. If you’re shooting an AR pistol chambered in anything other than .223/5.56, there is a decent chance that firing the pistol with the brace close to your shoulder (but not on it, for legal reasons) could result in the brace impacting your shoulder and causing a decent amount of discomfort. As someone who has made this mistake as a child (I was 12 and using a 20 gauge with 3″ magnum shells [thanks, dad!]), I can verify how uncomfortable it is (my shoulder was bruised for over a week).

    The intent of the device is not to dampen recoil while firing. Rather, the device is intended to prevent the recoiling firearm from impacting and injuring the shoulder AFTER the weapon is fired.

    There’s your new marketing strategy. You can make the check payable to Jeff Smith.

    • JSmath

      Also sounds like you’re describing a shoulder stock recoil pad, which the ATF would say is effectively the same thing as redesigning the brace as a shoulder stock.

      • Jeff Smith

        Haha, Nah, man – it’s a stabilizer brace recoil pad. TOTALLY different.

        Seriously though – I’m waiting on that check, IC13.

  • IC13

    IC13 has delayed the launch of this product until ATF approval. We are very much aware of the potential consequences, and have decided that no amount of sales is worth the potential issues that this could create for a customer.

    • int19h

      Is there some kind of mailing list to subscribe to, to hear back from you when you guys get a response from ATF?

  • nova3930

    If it was a big rubber pad I’d be worried. Since the thing is still probably hard as a rock and doesn’t actually change how the brace functions I bet it gets approval.

  • Edeco

    Way to remember not to shoulder it: Don’t hug the plug!

  • L. Roger Rich


  • DanGoodShot

    I completely get what your saying here Mr.V. But why help the ATF in pointing things like this out. I have no doubt they are already awear of this thing (or would have been) without your article. But, why help enpower them with the argument of “Look, even fellow gun enthusiast know this runs afoul of this most moronic of laws.”? After all, we do all agree these “laws” are draconian and moronic at best. So… if this company wants to “poke the bear” let em’. If you think it pushes it… join the ATF.
    Just this one A holes opinion… 🙂

    • So I agree with you in the theory of why poke the bear by bringing attention to this. However, I’m thinking past that. Say for example, this product becomes a huge thorn in the ATF’s side, and they then decide to ban all pistol braces entirely. Who does the joke fall on now? It falls on us. If we can “police our own” so to speak, and maybe have better avenues to advance ways to take down NFA laws, I’m all for it. But this could lead to more of a potential larger problem in the future.

      • DanGoodShot

        I kinda understand where you’re coming from but don’t fully agree with you. I do fully agree with the “police your own” thing to a point. However in this instance, I just don’t see this as being that instance. Progress is made by pushing boundaries. I for one support anyone who’s willing to push the boundaries of these terribly ridiculous laws. When the ATF goes after stuff like this it can still help us by bringing the nonsense nature of this “law” into the light and cause a discussion. Take the attempted ban on the m855. The silliness was brought into the light and shot dead. Yeah, yeah that pun was intended. 😉 Thanks for having an adult conversation and not being insulted because I happen to have a different opinion on the matter. Hope you have a good day Mr. V.

        • AlDeLarge

          Boundary-pushing won’t do any good if nobody, including the ATF, knows the boundaries are being pushed.

  • MadMonkey

    Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God. -Benjamin Franklin

  • Raoul O’Shaugnessy

    And this is why we cant have nice things.

  • David Harmon

    Ordering one shortly. I like that brace, but the whole knife edginess is a bit too much.

  • Jeff Smith

    Haha, he didn’t see how I was holding the gun, but he definitely said something to the degree of “well, I guess you won’t do that again!”

    I didn’t do it again.

  • me ohmy

    so shoot away from tattle tales and who knows if you SHHhhhh shouldered ANYTHING..
    all this NFA and BATF Troop enabling bullsh*t needs to go away

  • Tom_EE

    I’ll repeat a question I’ve asked many times before.

    By what authority does the Federal government have to control what firearms we can and can’t purchase? There is NO enumerated power in our Constitution granting it such powers!

  • Jason Bourne

    Just Shut Up!!!! Quit asking the ATF every time there is a “question.” Gun pessimists alert the ATF to so much… The ATF is probably an unconstitutional entity any way so why validate them.

  • Doom

    Where in the second amendment was shouldering a rifl -cough- “pistol” with a stoc -cough- “arm brace” mentioned and said to be illegal? Oh right the constitution means nothing anymore, I forgot.

  • Dr. A. B. Plato

    On the “probably not ATF compliant,” NOT true, in that:
    Actual comms
    with ATF they stated ‘as long as the brace is only put to cheek, NOT your shoulder, you are in compliance,’ however, with or without the SBP, if the brace is never put to the shoulder there should be no legal difference. One example would be: You own (or manufacture) a normal pistol stock (one normally associated with SBR definition) but never use
    or otherwise attach the stock to the weapon, you don’t have a compliance problem.
    Why this works? ATF has, thus far, never applied functional possession to stocks in the same manner as suppressor enforcement goes, i.e., mere possession is not enough when applied, yet anyway, to a pistol brace.
    An even more ridiculous example: No one gets prosecuted, even when a complaint is actually filed, for the accidental use of a pillow or other inadvertent mechanism as a firearms suppressor since, practically speaking, no court could handle the case load of an infinite variety of accidental (or UN-intended) suppressor scenarios–a glock under water for example.