Tailhook Pistol Brace: Adjustable LOP, Folding Hook


Gear Head Works announced a new pistol brace for 2017. The new Tailhook pistol brace sounds like it will really blur the lines between pistol brace and shoulder stock, but the important thing is the company obtained ATF approval for the design.

According to the company, the new Tailhook pistol brace will be available in three styles: Mod 1, Mod 2, and Mod 3.

All three models have a hook-like arm that can fold down under the forearm to provide a counterbalance to the weight of the gun forward of the pistol grip. This is shown in the video embedded below. I am eager to try this out, as it looks to be a much simpler way of shooting one handed than the existing support braces that use straps.

The Mod 1 is a simple fixed design that clamps onto most pistol sized buffer tubes. It will have an approximate MSRP of $100.

The Mod 3 is a PDW style brace made of machined aluminum. Additional details on the Mod 3 have not yet been released. No word on MSRP for this version.

Many shooters will be most interested in the Mod 2 design that is shown in the photo above. It uses a proprietary buffer tube that allows the brace to be adjusted for different lengths. As shown in the video (below) this allows the shooter to adjust the length of the brace to get a good cheek weld. According to the company, this was specifically ok’d by the ATF.

To get the adjustable length function and ensure it does not run afoul of the NFA, the company developed a proprietary buffer tube that is not compatible with commercial or milspec stocks. It allows for five different positions of the brace.

According to Paul Reavis, the CEO of Gear Head Works, the retail pricing on the Mod 2 brace is “…targeted to be under $200.” For that price, the proprietary buffer tube, castle nut and end plate would be included. A buffer and spring would have to be provided by the shooter.

Unlike the Mod 1 and Mod 3, the Mod 2 brace is made of a rigid, injection molded polymer.

According to the company, several firearms manufacturers have expressed an interest in the Tailhook brace and we may see these on factory guns in the near future. The company states these different models “…will cover just about any platform imaginable.”

Gear Head Works makes a variety of accessories and add ons for firearms. For example, the company makes a modular forearm for the IWI Tavor rifle, a folding charging handle for the same gun and a paddle magazine release for the CZ Scorpion.

Richard Johnson

An advocate of gun proliferation zones, Richard is a long time shooter, former cop and internet entrepreneur. Among the many places he calls home is http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/.


  • BattleshipGrey

    I get that there are different forearm lengths, but does it really matter where on the forearm a brace rests or covers?

    ETA: I’m not an expert on optics, but the scope in the pic doesn’t look like a long eye relief scope either.

    • Cymond

      Yeah, weird, right? Almost like people are shouldering the braces when no one is around.

      OTOH, adjusting the length changes the balance, and it matters some if using the brace as a cheek rest.

    • Friend

      That’s a reflex sight, so unlimited eye relief.

      • BattleshipGrey

        I think a switcheroo took place. When I first commented, there was a different pic and the scope attached looked like a 1-4x or 1-6x. I looked back through 2 pages of TFB and this is the only Tailhook post. Weird.

        • QuadGMoto

          That’s because TFB jumped the gun on posting the article. The official release date was January 1st, so they pulled it when Gear Head Works called them. Apparently they simply edited the article and reposted it when it was time.

          • BattleshipGrey

            Ahh. I figured something was amiss.

        • Friend

          Huh. I didn’t see anything else on Tailhook either. My apologies on insulting your intelligence there.

    • Random Disable Person

      Think of it as a lever, fulcrum and weight type calculation. Not to mention some people have missing lower arms and due to disability they and/or genetics they don’t have a lot of “meat “on their lower arm at the wrist. Now add in to that mix that nerve pain in certain areas can make the a sleeve become extreme torture, so the moving the brace farther aware from the area of bad nerve bundles is a big plus. Although someone with a missing arm could and should weigh in with all the factors we can’t think of.

  • Quest

    Braces: the strangest firearms related legality thing ever. Btw, why the F** dont they just add a little spike at the end so that nobody would shoulder it?

    • Ebby123

      Beeecause then no one would buy it?

      Its a bullsh*t loophole to get around a bullsh*t law.
      Kind of our way of telling the ATF: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    • Ark

      It’s meant to be shouldered. Everyone knows it.

    • Frank Grimes

      Dust the rear of it with chalk.

      Arrest anyone with a stained shoulder.

  • john huscio

    Does the brace come with a free weekend at the las vegas Hilton and all the co-eds the buyer can grope?

  • Joe Gamer

    looks interesting, I’m a huge fan of AR pistol platforms. I know that’s an unpopular opinion but you can’t put a price on NOT having to deal with NFA.

    • nova3930

      NFA isn’t that bad. Worst part is having to ask permission to cross state lines. Big hassle having family in the next state over. That’s ultimately why I decided to keep a few weapons in pistol brace format.

      • RSG

        The biggest advantage of the AR pistol format is that it can be carried, loaded, in my car, concealed in a backpack or on my person, with my carry permit. All of that is illegal with a rifle in Minnesota.

        • valorius

          Same is true for my state.

          • Machinegunnertim

            That’s a huge advantage that most people don’t realize.

        • It’s surprising just how small a package a pistol AR makes; one can be easily concealed in a backpack, and deployed as quickly as any concealed carry handgun if arranged properly in a backpack with a side zipper.

        • nova3930

          True. Didn’t consider that. Here a carry permit is good for anything you can find a way to hide. Now if I can just find the right holster for my 75mm howitzer 😉

      • Ranger Rick

        Not to mention the repeated nonsensical submission of fingerprints and photographs for purchases/transfers.

        • Bill

          An intermediate step between what we have now and no paperwork at all could be a “passport” with original photo and prints, then fill it with actual stamps for each weapon or device permitted. One set of prints, photos and a single document recording everything.

          • Ranger Rick

            That might work, but once and it need only be once identity is established then transfers should be as fast as they are to purchase a Ruger 10-22. The fingerprints and photos are not needed for a criminal history check and identity confirmation. That’s what “Real ID” Act was for.

          • nova3930

            That’s been my argument for a while now. There’s no particular reason that it should take 6 months to physically process paperwork for the transfer. Shouldn’t take any longer than a NICs check, pay the tax with a CC and off you go.

        • nova3930

          Haven’t gone down that path yet. All my stuff was pre rule change under a trust.

      • Edeco

        That’s the thing, I mean if it were one hassle, then over, practically it wouldn’t be that bad. CC license for instance, I don’t do it for protection, in principle I resent the need, but it makes life easier.

      • Frank Grimes

        NFA is absolutely terrible.

        What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

        • Bill

          “What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand?”

          That is the most tired, intellectually lazy cliche ever.

          • Frank Grimes

            Is it “tired” because it was envisioned in 1776?

            I’m sure you feel the same way about Freedom of Religion and Freedom of the Press, right?

          • Bill

            And there are limits to how one practices their religion and what the press can do; moreso if The Donald has his way.

          • Frank Grimes

            Russians hacked the Constitution!

          • valorius

            Are you deliberately trolling us?

          • Bill

            Are you?

          • Cal S.

            Often the best arguments are.

            The only ‘limits’ there are currently in the US regarding religion is on criminal activity. Also, please cite your sources when making such outlandish claims about the restriction of the press.

            Lastly, just imagine having to go through a criminal background check before being able to buy a smartphone or file paperwork to get a license allowing you to access the internet, and then another tax and license to be able to publish/speak online. Imagine having to pay a poll tax before you can vote. Constitutional rights, equal to freedom of speech and the right to vote. Why tolerate regulations on one that we would never abide on the others? Not before 1934 was the Second Amendment questioned for its original purpose and meaning.

          • Bill

            “Also, please cite your sources when making such outlandish claims about the restriction of the press.”

            What’s outlandish? The press is subject to the same libel and slander laws as anyone. I have to file paperwork and get a license to operate a radio system; a smartphone is a radio that doesn’t reach the power threshold to require a license, though the companies that offer wireless services, and the services they offer, and the band they may use, are all regulated by the government. Freedom of speech is not absolute; I can’t slander or libel anyone, nor can I cause undue panic or use fighting words without consequence. I don’t have to pay a poll tax, but I had to register with the .gov to vote, and thanks to paranoiacs I had to show ID to vote.

          • Cal S.

            Outlandish claims about Trump having more say over the press. You know, unlike Obama that never had the press attend lectures on how to publish stories. Not at all. Because the mods don’t like URLs around here, just type “Obama Administration controls press-pool reports” into your favorite search engine.

            1) Smartphones can access the internet and cell networks, which far outdistances all radio traffic except that by satellite. I’d have to study it a bit more, but it’s become a non-issue since other forms of communication have surpassed ham radios. The towers may be controlled by the government, but you still don’t have to get a background check done. Or get fingerprinted. Or notify the government that you’re taking it on the road with you.

            2) Libel, slander, shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater are all restrictions on the criminal usage of a right to free speech; akin to brandishing, menacing, and assault with a deadly weapon in firearms laws. There’s no laws that try to stop or restrict you from publishing a blog or using a megaphone because you might, possibly, one day use it to libel or slander someone like there is pertaining to the right to bear arms. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t have to wait 3 days after purchasing my smartphone before I could take it home. I also didn’t have an artificial word-count limit that I had to prove myself responsible with before the government would trust me with more. Also, felons can still own smartphones and computers with open access to the internet…

            3) I did some research, and there’s maybe one or two states with absolute photo ID requirements. The rest had provisions for same-day registration, non-photo IDs, and some that required no ID at all. The states that did require photo IDs offered it free and clear to anyone who couldn’t afford it. There is no state that will buy you an ID in order to help you purchase a gun. A poll tax that costs nothing is no poll tax. Registration for voting just makes sure that you are voting in the right precinct for the right representatives. In CO at least, one doesn’t even need to be registered to receive a Presidential ballot, iirc.

          • Bill

            The Appointed One:

            “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when [journalists] write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”
            Our libel and slander laws already allow that.

            “Voter ID. What’s with that? What’s with voter ID? Why aren’t we having voter ID. In other words, ‘I want to vote, here’s my identification. I want to vote,’” Trump said. “As opposed to somebody coming up and voting 15 times for Hillary. And I will not tell you to vote 15 times. I will not tell you to do that. You won’t vote 15 times, but people will. They’ll vote many times, and how that could have happened is unbelievable.”

          • Cal S.

            That could be a reference to the physical act of opening them up in a figurative law book. I don’t think he means ‘widening’ or ‘expanding’. I’ve already run over the ID laws.

            Neither of those he would have any control over. They would require acts of congress or individual states with the voter ID laws, or in the extreme case amendments. One man’s word does not a law make. The fact still remains that the 2nd Amendment is the most–in my research–heavily regulated constitutional right that we have, coupled with the one with the most laws set up around it designed only to criminalize and minimize citizens’ access to that constitutional right.

          • Bill

            That could be a reference to the physical act of opening them up in a figurative law book. I don’t think he means ‘widening’ or ‘expanding’.

            Really? Seriously? You think that THAT’S what he’s referring to? “Crooked Hillary” might be a reference to poor posture?

            The REALLY terrifying thing is that there is no indication that he actually has any idea of how the government works or what the Constitutional powers and limits on the President are. I guy who refused to take intelligence briefings is clearly not thinking things through.

          • Cal S.

            Regardless of whether he knows or not, he simply will not have the power to impose new restrictions legally.

          • Bill

            I agree completely. However it is horrifying that a President -elect either doesn’t know this, or feels the need to act as if he is ignorant of the basic fundamentals of governance.

          • Bill

            And you are likely way off about the 2nd amendment being most heavily regulated. Far more case law is generated by the 4th, 5th and 14th from a criminal perspective.

          • valorius

            Imagine needing a license to vote.

          • Cal S.

            Please see the above post.

          • valorius

            I’m pretty sure i was agreeing with you.

          • Cal S.

            Whoops, sorry. I misunderstood.

          • valorius

            I don’t think so.

          • Bill

            When you figure that out let us know.

          • valorius

            I’m going to tell everyone but you.

          • Bill

            It’ll be tough, but I’ll try to survive.

          • valorius

            With a wit like yours i’m sure you’ll excel at the endeavor.

      • Cal S.

        Except the $200 I’ll never see again for no good reason. That’s what keeps me from doing anything with the NFA.

      • State lines are a looooong drive away for me; I’m more concerned with the $200 anti-plebian fee tax and the 9-12 month processing time.

      • MrBrassporkchop

        I live next to a state line so this is pretty much why I haven’t bothered with perusing an sbr.

    • valorius

      I agree 100%.

  • YS

    So, where’s the letter from ATF? Does it have the redesign bull?

  • QuadGMoto

    So much for their big reveal planned for January 1st.

    So we are setting the date to send out our reveal video on New Year’s day. In the mean time, we are doing final prepping on SHOT display guns and parts that are going to other companies’ booths. Be watching for the press release!
    — Posted on the Bullpup Forum

  • Luke

    How does this not violate the patents of SB tactical and similar?

    • bull

      you cant patent an intention…
      thy solve the problem in different ways.

  • JT303

    We use something similar in England for handguns. Brings them up to 24″ OAL and thus they’re Section 1 rather than Section 5. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd0c5e80a2f57439bedd76ac0df059047fb4b5f8cb41de61999de4ce28e6b2bb.jpg

    • Would gladly revolve five or six times with this bloke.

    • Paul White

      what the hell barrel length is that, a full meter? Also what caliber?

      • Porty1119


      • JT303

        Centre fire weapons may not be semi-auto, but we can have rimfire semis. Small handguns are all but prohibited, so the handguns available on Section 1 fall under rifle specifications – 12″ barrel and 24″ OAL are the minimum. In metric, 30cm and 60cm respectively. It’s so that you can’t conceal them, which was a knee jerk reaction after Dunblane. The Taurus 66 was available in 357 or 44 mag, but they’re no longer produced in UK spec because it was not profitable. We can get the Ruger mark iii with the long barrel and counterweight, and I think the UK arm of Volquartsen has something to do with that. Another thing that’s supposedly quite popular is the Browning buckmark rifle with the barrel cut down a bit and a moderator.

        • valorius

          It surprises me that no one in the UK has come out with a larger than .22 caliber rimfire cartridge to get around that law.

          • JT303

            Well, the law explicitly states with that no semi auto may be possessed in a calibre greater than .22 rimfire. We do make use of .22WMR though. Our best bet would be lever release, but rifles using that system are quite expensive and rare. On firing, the bolt locks to the rear, and a button on the side of the receiver is pressed to release the bolt and ready the weapon for firing again. We do also make use of straight pull rifles, both conversions and factory spec. Californians, New Yorkers etc. might want to take a leaf out of our book, given all the crazy ‘assault weapon’ laws.

          • peter holmberg

            5.56 is a .22 … so as long case volume or something is defined…

          • JT303

            .22 rim fire is the requirement for semis.

          • Cymond

            OK, you’re limited to 22 rimfire. Would 17 also be acceptable, like the 17 WSM? A 20gr bullet at 3,000 fps is nothing to sneeze at. There’s no 22 caliber equivalent as far as I know, but I suppose one shouldn’t be possible.

          • JT303

            We do have some .17 calibre rimfires, but I don’t think they’re nearly as popular as .22.

          • valorius

            A nice bottlenecked .22 rimfire with a .40S&W sized case that drives a 60gr .22 pill to 2000fps from a pistol would be a nice addition to your collection. 😉

          • JT303

            I like the sound of one of those. Perhaps a visit to some good people would yield a prototype.

          • valorius

            There’s a work around for almost every law. 🙂

          • JT303

            Always is. Legislators don’t ever seem to quite understand the topic on which they are passing laws, so there will always be some workarounds and loopholes.

          • valorius

            Well i just gave you the idea for free, so patent it and make your millions!

        • Andrew

          What about a lever-action or pump-action rifle? That seems like the next best thing to semi-auto to me. Both of those mechanisms can be fired pretty quickly.

          • JT303

            Far as I’m aware, levers are fine on a section 1. I don’t know about pump action centrefire on §1, but there are definitely people out there with things like Henry Big Boys etc.

    • Does it shoot through schools?

  • Cymond

    “The new Tailhook pistol brace sounds like it will really blur the lines between pistol brace and shoulder stock,”

    I don’t think the line can be blurred much more now that ATF is defining guns based on use instead of design. It seems like basically anything that is nominally a brace is accepted, with the caveat not to shoulder it.

  • AHill

    All the name “Tailhook” makes me think of is Naval/Marine aviators sexually assaulting women (AND men!) in Vegas.

  • USMC03Vet

    The least these companies could do while marketing said braces which are supposedly for disabled shooters is use actual disabled shooter in marketing. I mean seriously these braces are turning into a running gag at this point easily apparent to anyone except the atf at this point.

    • Bradley

      I have never seen anything indicating that any of these were intended for disabled customers. Is someone marketing them this way and I just haven’t seen it?

      • Flounder

        The original sig arm brace was. They may have changed the description for the arm brace, but on their website it used to be about helped disabled veterans shoot AR pistols.

        • Anonymoose

          I know a couple one-armed guys who shoot. Neither are veterans, although the one guy is a member of the local VFW.

          • Risky

            but do they use the arm braces?

          • Anonymoose

            No, the VFW guy shoots from a rest and the other guy just shoots lefthanded and wraps his nub around the handguard.

      • Random Disable Person

        Yes, they do make a very bog difference. I have had numerous “educational sessions” with *nudge nudge * wink wink* staff at LGS who didn’t get that they actual are reall help. Not just for someone missing a limb, but all the pother people with medical conditions and/or even age that can’t hold the pistol controlled without one. The visual is the pistol swinging all over the forward area like it was an automatic in experienced person’s hand. while with just the grip on the arm not tightened allow for holding the pistol on a target on the wall.

        I’ll post the links below for some threads, the first has 417 comments discussion the actual use of the brace. There are far more people who use them than will admit they need to help use the firearm more safely. Or with the specific B.S. laws that say you may only hold and position them a certain why without changing them to a heavily taxed item or illegal. There is a lot of use and mocking the dumb laws but , in reality these braces do help and even fully able’ed body people can reap extra benefits for stability.

    • Ark

      I think the ATF knows full well what the real purpose of “braces” is.

      • valorius

        I know nothing- nothing!

    • car54

      I think the point is that companies are showing how stupid the law is by circumventing it. Once everybody, including ATF gets it, the law will eventually be changed. Basically these “braces” desensitizes the negative feelings about SBRs and normalizes them. In other words, one could say “everybody’s doing it and there is no longer any point to the SBR restrictions”. IMO, that is the benefit to pushing the limits.

  • ironked

    Seems like an answer to an unasked question. Interesting idea, but actually, how many people with AR style pistols shoot them one handed (except for those with real one-capable-hand disabilities)? It’s 6 and a frickin half pounds loaded, at arms length vs. under 2 for a loaded Glock. I would rather either cheek it or use a one point sling, using two hands. The one advantage might be a little longer tube length when using it at the cheek. I’ve been thinking about doing that with some PVC pipe from the hardware store.

    • You’ll need to fire six and a half pounds of ammunition out of a Glock to have the same terminal effect as a 20rd magazine of .223 from an AR pistol.

      • ironked

        Not debating the efficiency of one round over another. More the effectiveness of presentation. Again, are you going to one-hand an AR pistol that weighs 6.5 pounds? Can you maintain aim and control through an entire magazine? Maybe if you lift a couple times a week or are elite military. Are you really into dual wielding? For the vast majority, it’s still a weapon that is more effectively used two-handed in a rifle-like fashion.

  • cwp

    Conceptually, this reminds me of the stock on the old SPAS-12, although it looks more like an “L” type of hook than the SPAS’s “U” — which probably makes it easier to get into position, although, I would expect, at the expense of support.

    I’ve never really been convinced that the SPAS arm brace was at all practical, though — on the other hand, it’s probably more likely to be of use with 5.56mm than with a 12-gauge.

    • valorius

      Nothing about the SPAS-12 was practical. I used to own one- biggest piece of novelty junk i’ve ever owned.

      • Did you have one of the “RULE #2 IS STRICTLY ENFORCED” models?

        • valorius

          I had a circa 1988 model. No idea if it was an affected model, but thankfully it never went boom on me when i put the safety on.

  • 360_AD

    “Driving to my l33t tactical range, with my l33t tactical jeep, to my l33t tactical soundtrack… hnng yeah!”

    • Frank Grimes

      At least he doesn’t have a sleeve tattoo or that goofy stencil beard all the mall ninjas adopted.

    • Keith1863

      Does anybody know which mount that is in the picture with the Aimpoint Pro?

    • USMC03Vet

      Military Arm Channel is that you? ?

  • DIR911911 .

    haha , have muscle boy do your ad and NOT ever put it against his shoulder, because that’s how we shoot. atf needs to fix the stupidity and let people buy what they want to buy.

    • QuadGMoto

      Strictly speaking, it is not the ATF that can fix that. Congress passed that stupid law and at this point only Congress can act to repeal it because the Supreme Court failed to uphold the Constitution (some say, via deliberate political game playing).

      • Bill

        The ATF takes a lot of heat over things they had actually had nothing to do with.

        • Hardwood83

          Right, because they’re just “following orders?”

          • Enforcing the law is kindasorta their job, yes. If you don’t like a law, petition your representatives to change it, this is how a republic works.

          • Bill

            No, they are just enforcing the laws passed by the legislative branch that fall under their jurisdiction.

          • int19h

            They’re awfully selective with said enforcing, though.

            Under plain reading of the NFA, a pistol is defined as “weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand”. By the logic of NFA ruling wrt braces, this means that gripping a pistol with two hands amounts to manufacturing an AOW…

            I even wrote a letter to them asking to explain how that is supposed to work, but never got a reply.

      • Michael

        Don’t forget that the 1932 NFA had the MRS blessing and support.

        • QuadGMoto

          I probably should know what MRS stands for, but I can’t think of it. Could you clue me in?

  • Frank Grimes

    How can a pistol accessory “blur the lines between pistol brace and shoulder stock”?

    It’s not a stock, it has nothing to do with a stock.

    Do you think those extended GLOCK beavertails “blur the lines” too?

    Anybody who thinks a pistol brace is even remotely a rifle stock should get their head examined or maybe stop shilling for the ATF.

    • AJ187

      Media just loves to inject something controversial into something that isn’t for ad clicks. Why do you think it was written in the lead in….

      • Frank Grimes

        Fake news.

        Russians hacked TFB.

  • MeaCulpa

    Okay, stupid European incoming! If one buys one of these stock…. ahum “braces” and mount it on ones rif…. eh “pistol”, is it then illegal to shoulder the “pistol”? What’s the punishment for using one’s “pistol” as a rifle by shouldering it? I presume that if you shoulder the “brace” you’re basically deemed to be in possession of an unregistered SBR, is that a correct presumption?

    • Bill

      Presumably, though I haven’t found a violation specific to shouldering a pistol brace in the US Code. You are correct that in that there would be a possession charge, but if the AR used was originally built as a pistol you have an automatic defense. Then they’d amend the charge to attempted possession, which is a contradiction, so …..

    • LoopHolierThanThouArt

      From their opinion letters, technically. But it says nothing about mounting a firearm against my chest/sternum for support…by their own definition of a stock is for firing support against one’s shoulder.

      If it’s between the nipples it’s kosher. You [s]can[/s] should quote me on that.

    • Richard

      You can put it against your cheek too, although it looks like it’s against your shoulder.

    • ATF officially says arm braces are perfectly legal accessories if used as advertised, and it’s the act of shouldering that would be illegal. In practical reality, it is almost 100% certain that nobody is ever going to actually be prosecuted for shouldering an arm brace except as a stacked charge added onto other charges; it’s like stacking Tax Evasion and Failure To Report on top if someone gets busted for manufacturing/selling controlled substances or illegal machine guns, for example.

    • int19h

      When you shoulder it, the ATF considers it as “manufacture” of a short-barreled rifle. If you don’t have a tax stamp for that, it is a crime (not merely a civil infraction), and the penalty is “… be fined not more than $10,000, or be imprisoned not more than ten years, or both”.

      • QuadGMoto

        That’s right. The law draws a line between a non-NFA rifle which is fired from the shoulder, short barreled NFA rifles, and pistols. That the ATF has to make the ridiculous assertion that shouldering a SBR is “manufacturing” highlights how ludicrous the laws. By extension, it also shows how it’s an infringement of the Second Amendment.

  • me ohmy

    this whole not touching the shoulder bs needs to go the f*** away…. remove this BATF “rule” already. SBR’s and Silencers for all, no papers

  • valorius

    Mod 2 is similar to the system on the SPAS-12 shotgun.


    Things like this are going to ruin the pistol brace

  • Vitor Roma

    This whole thing of “not touching my shoulder when the cameras are on” is hilarious.

  • Bill

    I may be the only one in the world, but I found the “brace” to be essentially unusable when using any type of handgun stance, short of standing as if in a duel and holding it straight out to my side. Weaver, Isosceles, modified either, nothing…

  • Bradley

    I’m not sure what all that had to do with my question, but thanks for the info. If it helps people in that way then great. I just hadn’t seen it marketed in that fashion.

  • noob

    The franchi spas12 could be fitted with a stock with a hook for one handed shooting. Made sense when combined with a riot shield in the other hand https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d24f1eeba57604a975f7abb49502861d7e2a51773a33928c19dec559a3abeed.jpg

    • Vitsaus

      Everything old is new again.

  • Andrew

    Any word on a release date? I’m in the middle of a pistol build, and I’d definitely rather have this than the KAK shockwave I was going to use, but I don’t want to wait forever.