Magpul Updates Its BSL, BTR and BDA Pistol Braces

25 thoughts on “Magpul Updates Its BSL, BTR and BDA Pistol Braces”

1. And again, the Industry shows us that they can work around abetrary, unconstitutional beuacracy to spit in the eye of the BATF and provide tools consumers can still use. I hope more manufacturers do this until we get a court ruling that strikes down the new regulations.

   • IMO…It’s patchwork just like welding a brake on a 14.5″ barrel to appease big brother.

     Instead of the usual running off to court why not define Gun Control by its long history of rot for politically inept history illiterate America? Anything less has done absolutely nothing but provide standing for Gun Control.

     • Well of course it’s patchwork. But how else would you rectify things outside the courts, short of either a revolution or some 40-50% of the population suddenly waking up and agreeing with the other 50% to vote out constitutionally challenged politicians?

   • I’m all for keeping up appearances, but they could have included another QD or two.

     • In a less inconvenient place no less.

       • I think that’s there to pass the whole “discourages shouldering” test. it’s all stop gaps, but until the courts rule, or the balance of power in Washington changes drastically by one manner or another, it’s the best we can hope for.

       • “In a less inconvenient place no less.”

         Exactly! I’m sure the inconvenient placement was intended to comply with the ATF worksheet, where “Device incorporates features to prevent use as a shouldering device” earns the best score – but nothing on the worksheet would penalize additional swivels in any way.

2. That’s a smart little doohickey they’ve got there… I dig it.

   One could even attach a storage “pad” to the rear QD cup to help balance the pistol upright on the arm brace when safely storing it inside your gun safe. Nice

3. I predict that the ATFs “rule” regarding pistol braces will likely fall, as will many other rules, post Bruen. All concerned will just have to wait until the correct case winds itself through the legal system.

   The legal test that allowed judges to rule in favor, the (we like it and it feels good) test is in the toilet. I doubt there’s any historical precedent that would justify such a rule and therefor law under Bruen.

   • It’s all well and good to expect that this rule will fall to a rational court — none of the SBR/SBS restrictions should pass Bruen unless SCOTUS decides that 1934 is far enough back to be “historical” — but the best we can hope for on that front is at least three to five years away because we still have several District and some Circuit courts that are not going to pay any more attention to Bruen than the NY and NJ state legislatures are. Note that the ridiculous bump stock = machine gun rule was upheld in TWO different Circuit Courts and SCOTUS chose not to grant cert (hopefully waiting for the ruling in the 5th Circuit, which is still a coin toss).

     If the “Red Wave” really does occur next month, that might slightly slow down some of the nonsense (I’m not holding my breath waiting for any Red Wave, considering that the same SCOTUS that gave us Bruen also gave the Dems a good start on a Blue Wave of their own with Dobbs). Remember that the vast majority of voters have a shorter attention span than the proverbial goldfish and gas prices have dropped enough for fools to think the worst is over and everything is going to be fine.

   • agency rulemaking authority is a different issue than bruen. To attack pistol braces etc under bruen you’d basically be attacking the NFA as a whole based on lack of historical precedent. Which, sure, I’m all for it- but I am not at all sure that Thomas has 4 more justices with him on that more significant step at the moment.

     As for rulemaking, SCOTUS has taken some steps but seems hesitant to really bring the hammer down on the ATF. We can hope…

4. I think the QD socket in the back of the arm brace is designed specifically to get around the new ATF regulations. It discourages shouldering it by its very location.

   • The comment I posted two hours ago (which for some reason is still awaiting moderation) alludes indicatively to that specific QD cup location.

5. A pistol brace. Never mind the 2A. This thing is plain stupid. So is a bump stock. Didn’t say it should be illegal. They’re just stupid. You have a pistol brace? Have you ever used it as anything other than a shoulder stock? At least that had real, effective, down range performance? I’ll tell you what I like best about those AR/AK pistols. Nothing. The muzzle blast! It is not cool having that stun grenade go off in my face. I mean, that volleyball size muzzle blast at 0200 hrs in bright daylight? If it’s a rifle, NFA aside, 16″ is about right. Maybe, 18″ if it’s a rifle caliber. As opposed to carbine. 5.56/.223 and 7.62X39 are carbine calibers. They are. Not useless, I have several. Remember, only a real rifle is a rifle.

   • 5.56/.223 is a rifle round, 7.62×39 is a carbine round, 300 BLK is an SBR round.

     • Peter, I’ll allow that a .22 caliber round traveling at high velocity is a rifle round. Of a sort. However, it is not a rifle round. 5.56/2.23 is a very light caliber. In the hunting community it is considered a light varmint round. Most carbines chambered for the caliber are considered to be, well, carbines. It’s what they are. Real rifles are larger, heavier, shoot farther effectively and hit harder. It’s called a rifle.

       • For me, the term “rifle” is designated by a firearm’s barrel length, and by how that length relates to the preferred ballistics of the cartridge for which the firearm is chambered.

         Based on those parameters: a 5.56/.223 should have a 20″ plus barrel- a rifle, 7.62×39 a 16.3″ barrel- a carbine, and 300 BLK (nominally) a 9″ barrel- an SBR.

         While all three of the above are officially “rifle” calibers, each one was designed to perform around a preferred barrel length. And when considering a firearm’s physical size- a rifle has “long” barrel, a carbine has a “medium” length barrel, and an SBR’s has a “short” barrel.

         5.56/.223 prefers a longer barrel, and suffers substantial losses at shorter lengths. 7.62×39 suffers less with barrel loss, and 300 BLK excels at SBR length- and just gets better as the barrel increases up to carbine and rifle lengths.

         Hence- 5.56/.223 is a “rifle” round, 7.62×39 is a “carbine” round, and 300 BLK is an “SBR” round… while they’re all officially rifle rounds.

   • I began my legal Form 1 SBR bullpup build (7″bbl .300BLK XCR) with a proof-of-concept test: I unbolted the brace and fired numerous rounds with the back of the receiver held to my shoulder. Your “stun grenade” was nowhere in evidence. I don’t mean “I’m a super-macho operator who toughed my way through the awful muzzle blast”; I mean that with supersonic ammo, cheap single earmuffs, and prescription glasses (not high-end wraparound eye pro) the muzzle blast wasn’t bad at all. That was despite the fact that I was mocking up a bullpup and had the muzzle even closer to my face and ears than a braced AR pistol’s would be.

     The military, especially SOF, seems to agree, with SBRs their first choice for a variety of missions. I see nothing stupid about a workaround enabling civilians to have the next-best thing – other than the fact that a nonsensical guilt-by-association law makes the workaround necessary in the first place.

   • @Gadsden Flag
     There are practical reasons you overlook. I have a .300 AAC suppressed Pistol with the SB Tactical Arm Brace. It’s a pistol and because it’s a pistol I can carry it in my vehicle LOADED (Not Chambered) which I do when I travel. Having it with me provides an extremely effective self-defense weapon besides my daily carry which is my P229. I most recently took it with me on my little road trip to the coast and then again recently on a day trip to an Idaho mountain lake. If I didn’t have the brace, it would have to have NOTHING or a stock which would render it a SBR and thus I wouldn’t be able to have a magazine inserted which renders it virtually worthless should I be forced into a situation where I needed it. I’m 65, I need all the eye saving optics and braces and such I can have.

     I do agree with you about bump stocks. They’re stupid.

   • I have a 10.5” 5.56. It’s not like a stun grenade going off in your face. It’s not bad and easily controllable. I have a pretty good muzzle brake on it.

   • Apparently every AR pistol you have ever seen has the stupid A2 birdcage on it, and I’d guess that they have all been 7.5″ or less. Yes, that combination is absolutely nothing but an annoying range toy.

     Try an AR pistol with a 10.5″ barrel and a linear compensator on it. It’s actually more pleasant to shoot than the common AR “rifle” with its 16″ barrel and that stupid A2 birdcage.

   • Gadsden, you are old and wrong.
     Kinda old and mostly wrong.

   • @Gadsden Flag
     As others have mentioned try a different device for the muzzle. There are some that are just plain obnoxious and others that are great.
     Also Hornady makes a short barrel ammo for the 223 and SIG for the 300BK. It reduces in the 7” range or eliminates the flash around 9-10”.
     A few small tweaks and you’ll enjoy it rather than dread it.
     The ATF will lose this case, it’s political support soon, as well as compliance from The People and they are here to stay.

6. Rider/Shooter. Add this to your count. Not that it really matters. Aren’t you in Canada? Or, somewhere that you don’t actually matter?

7. If you are late to the show – one of the few places left still selling the ‘traditional’ braces is AR-15 Discounts selling the Faxon, halloweeen sale, $99.99 > https://ar15discounts.com/search-results/?q=sb%20tactical

Comments are closed.