Blade-AR-v1.3-01DEC14

After the success of the SB-15 stabilizing brace, there has been something of an arms race (if you’ll pardon the pun) to see how far the ATF ruling can be pushed. Since the SB-15 is designed to be used as an arm brace and not a stock, adding one to your AR pistol doesn’t legally make the gun a “short barreled rifle” — and saves you $200 in tax stamps. A newer design is the “Shockwave Blade,” which is basically a single vertical rubber fin that hangs from the buffer tube of your AR pistol and claims to improve stability by limiting side-to-side motion while firing. The astute among you will notice that this device looks strikingly similar to a stock. So Shockwave Technologies asked the ATF to rule on whether it is indeed a stock. The reply was a bit surprising . . .

IMG_1057

When the ATF issued their letter to SB-15 inventor Alex Bosco indicating that the SB-15 was good to go, they didn’t put any restrictions on that approval. He was free to use the device however he wanted. The intended purpose of the device was clear, and even if buyers used it raised it to their shoulders and used it as a stock, that was okay. The ATF has apparently realized the error of its ways and was a little less broad in its approval of the Shockwave Blade.

Based on our evaluation, the FTISB finds that the forearm brace, when attached to a pistol is a “firearm” subject to the GCA provisions; however, it is not a “firearm” as defined by the NFA provided the Blade AR Pistol Stabilizer is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock.

Yes, they really did underline that section in the letter.

It looks like the ATF is keenly aware of how wide they threw the doors open when they approved the SB-15, and they are anxious to keep that from happening again. If I read this letter correctly, what the ATF is saying is that the Shockwave Blade is A-OK to install on an AR pistol, but if it’s used as a stock against the shooter’s shoulder, the gun becomes an unregistered NFA firearm. Basically, the item is OK, but the way the shooter uses it could turn a fun day at the range into a smorgasbord of felony charges.

This seems to signal that the ATF realizes it screwed up and wants to crack down on any copycats to Alex’s SB-15 design. They can’t rescind their original letter so they are stuck with that specific one, but for others trying to push the envelope, they will probably find a less than receptive tech branch at the ATF.

110 Responses to ATF Rules on “Shockwave Blade” AR Pistol Brace…But Adds a Warning

  1. Can’t really say I blame them, this one is pretty damn obvious. The SB-15 literally can be used as an arm brace, that is how it is designed. This is pretty much a stock, and they tried to find a way to market it as something else.

    • The fact is the company should not be held responsible for the misuse of it since it would be sold as a stabilizing device not a stock but if they intend to charge someone it had better be the person misusing the stabilizing device as a stock and not the company that sold it in good faith.

      • Intent matters, the ATF has said this. I feel like this is clearly intended to be abused.

        That’s just my take, though.

        • Intent = Thought Police and Pre Crime
          Wait, what’s the Constitution about, again?
          Oh yes, limiting government, not citizens.

        • Well I don’t disagree that the whole ATF should pretty much go bye-bye. It’s just that until they do, how do you EXPECT them to rule? This is exactly what I’d expect. Heck it may even be what I’d do in their shoes. Hammer: nail and all that.

      • Per open source info, including F&F details, they are regarded with contempt as out of control cowboys, incompetent and untrustworthy, by federal LEOs, too.

        From what I’ve read, the street level agents would prefer to work under a different logo too.

        Its turned into a place where management does whatever a corrupt or stoopid AG says, ever since WACO, it looks like, jusg reading the news and what has been released, on various scandals.

        A good candidate for elimination under limited government principles, to trim the fat, starting with the most rancid, first. Seems to me the states can monitor FFLs like they do in other small businesses, too.

        Why we taxpayers pay for the $130,000 salary and benefits of a sworn officer, plus gun training, etc, to do what any beginning book-keeper can do, copy logs and push buttons on a laptop, is beyond me.

      • The term well regulated mean the government should aid us in being proficient and sound with our firearms.

        So the ATF should be teaching us to shoot lol that should be their purpose to hold everyone to a standard and level of proficiency.

    • Shorter ATF: the law we’re enforcing is stupid, and cannot possibly be construed to provide any public good.

      Seriously: whatever firearm this thing is attached to is A-OK if fired as a pistol, but as soon as it’s raised to the shoulder, it’s a threat to the public? How about we just go back to …shall not be infringed, eh?

        • $200, some paper work AND at current 9 to 12 months of waiting for them to do the paper work. To be honest, I could deal with the $200, it’s the 9 to 12 months that BITES and BITES HARD. I have 4 suppressors and 3 SBR’s that are at a gun shop, and I have not seen them in 8 1/2 months and really have no idea how much longer it will be. If they could handle the paper work it would be one thing but this it TOTALLY ridiculous.

  2. So how does that work?
    Owning one isn’t “constructive posetion, so what are my limits as an owner and how do they get reviewed/enforced?
    I’m really not comfortable with this level of vaguery.

    • pretty simple really. Fire it one handed (or with the support hand on the pistol grip or fore end stock and you are ok. Pull it into your shoulder like a stock and you are using an unlicensed NFA item.

      Basically, it will come down to the decision of the local LEO to enforce. If the wrong cop sees you shouldering this, you are in a world of hurt. Otherwise no one cares.

      Bottom line – people will pass this stock by in favor of the Sig one, which lacks the same ambiguity.

      • Does anyone in the ATF maybe own some Sig stock? Would we be surprised? This level of vaguery (someone else’s) is ready made for corruption. Likewise, this level of power to affect purchasing decisions which are not vested in Congress.

        • My guess is that Sig has money to fight them in Court. (Sig specifically said they would defend the brace in Court.) Shockwave, not so much.

    • “I’m really not comfortable with this level of vaguery”

      EXACTLY!

      I am not a huge fan of SBR AR’s. Yes they do have a niche purpose (Slight CQB advantage over a 16-20 inch, and maneuvering in and out of a vehicle quickly) but they have so many disadvantages…..VERY loud, VERY big, blinding blast, the 5.56 round has very limited range because it drops below 2700 FPS and thus become a fast 22, because it can’t tumble and fragment and do the magic that little round needs to do. Anything below 14 inches has maybe 25 yards of range (if that) where it will tumble/frag properly.

      This pistol craze is just asking for trouble. Someone at the ATF is going to wake up and figure out that people are just trying to get around the SBR laws. Then all these people with so called “pistols” are going to have to pay the tax anyway or lose the SBR’s.

      Best of luck to the AR “pistol” owners….as I don’t see a positive outcome over this issue.

      • You think ATF really cares about a device that allows people with limited mobility to shoot? SlideFire has been around for damn near close to 5 years. If ATF were to make any back peddling it would be with a device that simulates full auto fire (and it does so very well), not a device that simulates a stock (not so well).

      • You can’t be serious? If they said “turn ’em all in RIGHT NOW” you would actually comply? And you call yourself an American? I’ll tell them to go pound sand RIGHT NOW for ANY ruling or legislation they make on that which “shall not be infringed”, period.

      • Um, everybody knows the SBR laws are outdated and basically pointless in the context of modern firearm technology and economics (the $200 tax stamp was supposed to make it cost prohibitive for the average gangster to buy a thompson machine gun by doubling the cost. $200 was two months gross wages for the average american back then, now people will drop $200 on a pair of sneakers). The ATF included, so they go through the motions of bureaucracy till such time as the 2nd amendment gets repealed and guns are banned altogether or the 1934 GCA gets repealed or amended to stop the insanity.

      • Larry, here is a reason for a brace vs. an SBR that you may not have thought of. As a concealed carry holder I cannot carry a weapon with real stopping power such as a .556 legally loaded in my vehicle. As a CCW holder I CAN carry a Sig 556 pistol with a brace legally loaded in my car and have the advantage of a rifle caliber over an under powered pistol caliber regardless of size! Rifle vs. Pistol…. Rifle wins, 30 rounds wins, advanced sighting with longer relief or optic wins so perhaps it is time to think outside of the box.

        • I agree Chuck, and Larry comment about a pistol only being good at 25 yards is ridiculous. Mines sighted at 100 and does very well. I like the feeling of packing a loaded AR under the seat in case the SHTF. legally that is.

    • And who in Congress do you suppose will take it upon themselves to vote in favor of this? Anti-gun people may not have the votes to move the needle much, but pro-gun folks don’t have the votes to do it either. The only way the NFA is likely to change or go away will be through a court decision and that avenue does not look too promising at the present time.

      • Sadly, you are most likely right. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Stay on the offensive. Keep moving the needle.

    • So this means that the sig brace can still be shouldered but new ones cannot, is this correct??

      if that is true does anyone else think that a deal may have been worked out?

      • I dont think any deal was made…I simply think that this product didn’t pass their “Sniff Test”….a little bit like the Brace attached to a Firearm that’s actually a short barrel shotgun….I mean a firearm. You want to use it like a brace…fine…but in these specific cases, you use it incorrectly, then yes…we as big brother…sorry…I mean ATF will tell you how to use it.

    • The comment that they can’t resend the letter now is utterly ridiculous. If he does’t think they can change their minds and make this illegal, he does’t follow the BATF. They have a long and rich tradition of taking things that were legal one day and making them a FELONY to use or even own the next. So he or we should NEVER say they can’t resend a letter or decision.

  3. Oh well. And this is part of the reason why I want to abolish the tax stamp and similar ATF rules contained in the NFA and elsewhere. I should be allowed, with proper license, to conceal carry a Glock 18, shoulder stock or not.

  4. The English language is a miraculous toolbox for verbal expression, but it wholly fails to supply words that are up to the task of explaining the abject idiocy that is the National Firearms Act. There just are no words.

  5. I understand were they’re coming from but it’d be nice if they made a stabilized “stump” at the end of an AR pistol instead which will keep it from being classified as an AR stock and will keep it from being a n SBR.

    • You already have that in a bare damper tube. Putting something else on it is looking for trouble. Repealing the law would be a good answer. So would overturning.

  6. These guys have dealt with the ATF before and without problems, I think I remember their birdshead grip and the Moss 500 combo being under length a bit but they had their crap together.

  7. Oh come on, people. An arm brace is one thing, but a clearly exploitative device is another entirely…

    Seriously. If you try and play the ATF you should expect them to respond this way.

  8. When you get the answer you want, like we did with the SB-15, why would you keep asking questions until you get an answer you *don’t* want?

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

        • NFA = infringement on the right to keep and bear arms = unconstitutional

          But do, please: try to argue why a firearm with a particular doohickey on the back and shot from a pistol stance is an exercise of a constitutionally protected right, while that same firearm with that same doohickey on the back and shot from a long-gun stance is not an exercise of a constitutionally protected right? Please include in your answer how the differentiation between the two does not constitute infringement of the natural and constitutionally protected right to keep and to bear arms.

        • Chip, it’s cute to see you regurgitate something that someone else said when you have no idea what you are saying. It’s like watching that chicken at the fair that plays tic-tac-toe for quarters.

        • Chip, my support is that the courts which reviewed the NFA found it constitutional and I tend to believe their view on constitutionality more than some guy on the internet. In what precise way is the NFA unconstitutional? Please supply case law and constitutional law theory, and sxhilarship for support. You won’t, of course, because you can’t.

        • The consensus among those of us who object to the NFA and the ATF is that it relies on the “commerce claws” for its muscle. Besides the moral objection I have to the federal government regulating firearm ownership in the first place, the power to make and enforce such regulations comes down to three words “the common good.” Those three words have been used to back Federal control of “interstate commerce” even when the definition of “interstate” has been in doubt. Reading that clause in such a permissive way seems to conflict with both the drafters’ intent and the prevailing fear of federal over-reach at the time.
          I can’t speak for Chip. For my own part, the constitutionality of the NFA comes down to “shall not be infringed.” I’ve read several opinions on the matter and it seems clear to me that the second amendment wasn’t intended to stop states from regulating firearm ownership, but was very clearly intended to keep the Federal government from doing so; thereby ensuring that states could raise militias at need from the citizenry—militias that supplied their own arms. Selective incorporation of the 14th amendment is just another case of the federal government picking and choosing what liberty is relevant on a case by case basis, usually for its own benefit.
          With respect, I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate. When I say “unconstitutional” I’m not talking about the body of current case law and judicial opinion. I’m talking about how I believe, based on a view of the drafters’ comments and the historical record, the constitution and the bill of rights were intended to operate. From my perspective the courts have often ruled in such a way as to allow the government to do whatever it wants. Let’s be clear, judges are far from infallible. Many of the Supreme Court’s rulings have come down to 5/4 votes. Judges are appointed by politicians who hope they will skew the law toward their political beliefs. I can agree with you over what the current case law is without agreeing to the premise that law supports. Hope that answers your question.

  9. How can the ATF enforce their statement?…. assign an agent to every indoor and outdoor gun range in the country looking for improper shouldering of pistol “stabilizers”?? Uh huh

    • Not only how do they enforce it, how do they maintain any consistency?
      We have a lot of LEOs that don’t even know or understand constitutional rights let alone enforcing “laws” that change every time some moron decides to write multiple decisions on each item.
      Do they start every day with a briefing about their newest opinion? Do they have flash cards or crib notes so they can keep up?

  10. This is so unenforceable its not funny. I just don’t see people being arrested at firing ranges for shouldering an AR-pistol with one of these on. I could see the charges being added later for a criminal busted shouldering one during a crime but not otherwise.

    • And I don’t see people being arrested and convicted of stray purchasing for someone who can legally own a gun. BUT, it has happened and can happen again. And those 9 wise overlords in black cloaks confirmed that buying a gun for someone, regardless that they can legally own it, is a crime that is punishable by up to TEN YEARS IN PRISON.

      • Not quite. Abramski’s crime wasn’t buying the gun for someone else, it was lying on the 4473 form.

        But your point stands – just because it’s unlikely that an idiotic, vague rule will be enforced, doesn’t mean it never will be. As soon as the ATF decides they want to shut down the glaring hole the SIG brace opened, they’ll find a test case for a product like this one or a similar “brace” being used as a stock, and prosecute some poor schlub for shouldering it. Then sales of these “poor man’s SBRs” will fall off a cliff. They don’t have to rescind the original SIG approval, they can just use the vagueness of these rulings to make people too nervous to buy them.

        • Who payed the FFL? That would be the buyer. If the buyer then sells the gun to someone else, who is legally able to own a gun, why does anyone care? Why does the government need to get involved? Time, treasure, and tears were wasted, one man’s life was ruined, and a family torn apart. And for what? Where was the crime? Where was the damage? Who was harmed? Answers: Nothing, Nowhere, Nowhere, & No one.

    • Does this mean I can stick a pistol upper on my collapsible lower, and so long as I fire it like a pistol, I’m fine? Extend the lower, or even shoulder the lower, and I am a felon? Boy, that makes a bunch of sense.

  11. Why can’t we just get the stupid sbr restriction removed? If i have an AK or AR pistol it is perfectly legal, if i have an AR or AK rifle it is perfectly legal. If i take the stock off the rifle and put it on the pistol it is a $250,000 fine and 10 years in a federal prison. Same with suppressors. I am required to have a muffler on my car to mitigate noise and not disturb the public but if i put one on my gun to lower the noise level and not disturb others at a public or private shooting range (they do not “silence” like in the movies) then i am required to pay a $200 tax, wait 10 months for the government to tell me it is ok and pay inflated prices for the suppressor or it is again a $250,000 fine and 10 years.

  12. “They can’t rescind their original letter so they are stuck with that specific one”

    It’s cute that you believe this. The BATF will do whatever the fvck the BATF wants to do. Just like the rest of the federal government.

  13. >> They can’t rescind their original letter

    And where is that written?

    An ATF letter is just the official explanation of their current interpretation of the law. Said interpretation does not have to be immutable.

  14. Nick, you’ll note that Alex Bosco received his Tech Branch “approval” letter for a soft foam “buffer tube forearm brace.” You’ll also note that SIG has NEVER received any Tech Branch letters for either their hard rubber SB-15 or their hard rubber SBX. SIG includes a copy of Alex Bosco’s approval letter with their products. For what reason, I do not know. It doesn’t protect anyone from anything. Yes, I know that SIG paid Alex Bosco monies for his invention.

    Being a vet myself with limited use of my right arm, that’s what started me on this quest to design a better mousetrap–the Shockwave Blade pistol stabilizer.

    • Marty,

      I’ve seen and held the original exemplar that Alex Bosco sent to the ATF. It is made out of the exact same material that every other brace has been made with since. It just was a slightly different color.

      SIG SAUER doesn’t need a letter because SIG SAUER doesn’t manufacture any of the braces. Alex Bosco’s company SB Tactical manufacturers the braces with SIG’s logo and sells them to SIG for distribution. So while SIG SAUER is the distributor, Alex Bosco is the manufacturer. Therefore it makes perfect sense to provide Alex’s letter with every brace.

      Just clearing up a few misconceptions.

      -Nick

    • Why would anyone ever need protection from anything if the ATF has approved it? And what does the hardness have anything to do with it? Your product is made of plastic according to the ATF…whats the difference between your product and any other stock on the market…and as the owner of Shockwave it’s not very professional to be talking down another product. The Sig Brace has been approved..and although as you say Sig may have never gotten a tech branch letter for them specifically, the ATF certainly called out the Sig Brace in their response letter to that Colorado Police Officer who asked if he could use the brace inappropriately.

      • Please read my post again. I didn’t talk down SIG’s product. I simply wanted to clarify that SIG doesn’t have a letter. I didn’t realize that Alex Bosco was the manufacturer. My mistake. But I still believe I was more than professional in my response. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

      • No, no sour grapes at all. We couldn’t be happier. We asked Tech Branch to classify the Blade pistol stabilizer. And they classified it as a pistol stabilizer. We’re moving forward with production, as we have a significant backorder to fill already.

  15. If the ATF spent as much time keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, as they are in keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, the agency would actually have to do real work. The law abiding are always easier targets to find, and fine, whereas criminals…not so much. Essentially, everyone is a small process crime away from an all expense paid trip to Club Fed.

    • But that is difficult and dangerous, and what makes you think that criminals already breaking the law would pay taxes to keep the agency lucrative?

  16. Sig is busy throwing a party, as the likelihood is very high that no one can make anything like the SB and get away with it anymore. The ATF just granted a monopoly on the Sig SB.

  17. The best thing that issues like this do is to force ATF to reveal just how absurd its enforcement efforts are. Watching it contort itself trying to define the difference between a brace and a stock, a rifle and a pistol is like going down the rabbit hole with Alice.

  18. I can see it now…

    ATF Agent: We need to take you in for using an unregistered SBR.
    Shooters: This is a Sig SB-15.
    ATF Agent: Have a nice day.

    • Nope, it’ll go like this:

      ATF Agent: We need to take you in for using an unregistered SBR.
      Shooters: This is a Sig SB-15.
      ATF Agent: …
      ATF Agent: We need to “test” this gun to make sure it only fires one round with every trigger pull.
      ATF Agent: And we need to “test” every single other gun in your collection to make sure they all only fire one round with every trigger pull. And we’re going to measure every other gun in your collection to see if they’re a compliant length. And seize all of your computers, mobile phones and tablets in case you’re conspiring to construct NFA weapons without a license. And we’re going to seize every other gun part and piece of hardware on your property to see if we can put any of them together in a way that makes an NFA item so we can ring you up on “constructive intent” charges. Have a nice day.

      • WOW John M, I can tell by your message that you are one of the VERY few people on this feed that have actually had any dealings with the BATF at all. Most people don’t know that the BATF now has people assigned to look through YouTube Videos for use of improperly modified or illegal firearms. The quickest way to Club Fed now will be to have one of your buddies shoot a 30 second video of you shooting your “AR Pistol” with this blade thing up to your shoulder, which in my opinion would almost be hard NOT to do and post it. Shortly there after after it could look like Waco or Ruby Ridge at your home. I don’t know if any of you heard about the Professional Russian guy from YouTube that was “visited” by them. So it’s a lesson some may have to learn the hard way. The BATF does NOT mess around. I didn’t spend $200 for a tax stamp, $75 for the paperwork and 9 months of waiting to put together my 13.5″ barrel AR for nothing. That is how afraid I am of these guys after a single visit.

  19. If they were to extrapolate this ‘how you hold it’ logic could anybody who holds his pistol sideways – ‘gangsta style’ – be found in violation of the NFA?

  20. The sig brace will be good until some medicated psycho kid shoots up his school. Then you can bet your biscuits that they will go away. It is a good way for people in non-sbr states to have a sbr. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a sbr. Sig go very lucky with their ruling. Sadly it is only a matter of time before that changes. I can already hear the communist News Network headlines about a “nfa loophole” that let’s anyone have an evil high capacity short barreled rifle.

  21. I think I would try to solve it with branding. Suggested brand names/trademarks for pistol braces:

    1) “Not A Stock”
    2) “Handicapped Accessible Buffer Tube Assembly”
    3) “Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge, Say No More”
    4) “Not A Shoulder Thingy That Goes Up”

    😉

  22. Remember that we’re arguing over BS, about a BS law that is governed by a BS bureacracy. Repeal the NFA and stop making felons out of innocents who haven’t kept up with the myriad of technical descriptions regarding a firearm. Next we’ll be warned against holding a pistol with two hands as it is “intended to fired with one hand.”

  23. I am pushing the limits even farther. I have a folding design specifically for AK pistols that actually looks like it belongs on an AK, and sticks out no farther than the charging handle when folded. I have a patent lawyer working on it, making sure I am not infringing upon any other standing patents and getting mine ready, and I am a few hours of work away from submitting the proof of concept design to the ATF.

    This may flip the market upside down, considering how cheap it can be manufactured, how sturdy it is, and how absolutely badass it looks. God, I wish I could give more info or post pictures. Hell, I shouldn’t even be posting this, but I am just too excited about it.

    I’ve invented other AK parts/accessories that are ATF approved(ONLY for AK/Garand-type FCGs), but aren’t worth the cost in patenting at this stage(pull and release fire trigger group, yeah it been dun befoh, but not like this from what I’ve seen).

    If I can find a way to make it a third position switch, or some other way to switch the function on and off without disassembly, and without modifying the receiver, that’s a TOTALLY different story, but I’m stuck. If anyone has some engineering experience, or even just a technically apt individual that knows the AKM platform inside and out and wants to partner up and put out a product, reply to this comment and we will get in contact. I am absolutely serious about this.

    • My advice to you, as I would assume would also be that of your attorneys both IP and General Counsel would be post like this would be disadvantageous to your cause. Just my 2 cents.

  24. Let’s cut to the chase, everything that comes from the ATF is “do or die”.

    How can you misconstrue anything .gov says as anything other than, do what we say or you’re dead? The crux is that the ATF has no constitutionally defined authority to make laws, much less enforce it’s rulings force majeure.

    So if you hold a gun a certian way, it constitutes a danger to the public. Yet raiding the house of that hardworking family, and like often killing at least one person in the house with the very weapons we are told are a danger is somehow a boon to public safety.

    Rule by fiat, Mao was right about political power.

  25. Thanks.
    My question was directed more at the issue of constructive posession. Something like, if I own a threaded .22 barrel and one of those adapters that lets me attach an oil filter as a suppressor, my understanding is that the ATF considers me in posession of a suppressor, even if I never use it as such (I don’t own either for the record.) Is this a new standard where I’m in trouble at the point of use or are we in a world where some items are regulated at the point of possible use rather than actual use?
    I don’t expect the ATF to make sense or be consistent, just curious if this opens the door for a new standard.

    • If you own one of those threaded adapters you have a silencer period. Matters not if you have a compatible firearm or another firearm period it is a silencer requiring paperwork and tax.

    • Thank you Matt. Yes, we are now shipping production units. You can use them against your forearm or your cheek. But please don’t use them against your shoulder.

      Thank you again to all the faithful who continue to believe in our small business,
      Marty and Leelee

  26. SB Tactical filed a lawsuit against Shockwave Technologies. I’m sure the ATF letters have cut into their profits and now nobody wants the crappy strap on braces, they want the harder to recognize and better looking Shockwave Blade. Screw SB Tactical. Good luck grasping at straws.

  27. Pretty obvious “Jason” above is a shill. What skin do you have in this, Jason?

    That said, the gay blade is crap compared to the Sig Brace, and you can keep it. Pretty tasteless to come on this site and plug your own product in the comments section!

    Gay blade…”plug,” they’re not useless, afterall, “Jason,” I mean, Marty…

  28. You are missing perhaps the biggest advantage of a “Sig brace” vs. SBR. As a CCW carrier I cannot legally carry a SBR loaded in my vehicle, however I can carry a .556 pistol with a Sig Brace. This gives me the advantages of 30 rounds of rifle caliber stopping power, better sight radius or optics options and basically a SBR in name only which I’ll gladly take over any underpowered handgun caliber any day of the week.

  29. I just saw that Wilson Combat is advertising this Shockwave Blade on their AR9 “pistols” and I was wondering how on earth this could have been passed by the ATF.

    This is a bit surprising to me that Wilson or this SB company would sell a product that most people will realize will be shouldered vs used “as designed”.

    Hell, if they are that cool with potentially exposing themselves to this kind of liability, I’m surprised they haven’t flaunted the law further by getting an ATF letter on a “solvent trap adapter” and then shipping those out with all of their threaded barrel firearms as as part of the cleaning kit

  30. I have had and used both the SB and the Blade.I like the Blade MUCH better.
    It’s only illegal if you get caught
    Not about what you know,it’s about what you can prove.
    LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *