New From Gear Head Works: Tailhook MOD 3 Pistol Brace

Gear Head Works‘ Tailhook line of pistol braces (reviewed here) has proven extremely popular, showing up on factory pistols from dozens of manufacturers. What’s more, the aftermarket has responded by creating adapters for mounting a Tailhook to all sorts of different firearms. One common option involves connecting a Tailhook MOD 1 to a collapsible wire stock, but this has always involved a custom adapter. The MOD 3 seeks to solve that . . .

In effect, Gear Head Works’ Tailhook MOD 3 is a MOD 1 with a bit more meat on the front. This allows a wire stock to be inserted directly into it and clamped down. No more middleman adapter.

Instead of clamping to the receiver extension (buffer tube), it’s now drilled to slide over the top of the tube. This allows the stock to be collapsed down without concern of the receiver extension getting in the way.

Otherwise, it’s the same Tailhook MOD 1 you know and love.

No official ETA or price yet — still in late prototype phase as seen here, but it’s close.

comments

  1. avatar Ing says:

    That thing looks surprisingly cool. Very well thought out.

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I like it.
    I hope it’s not overly priced.

  3. avatar Brandon says:

    Is that whole PDW buffer assembly made by Gear Head Works? I just dropped way too much on the Maxim Defense/SB Tactical version because I wanted the JP Silent Capture Spring for a really short 300BLK pistol. If this Tailhook is compatible with the Maxim Defense assembly then I may drop even more money to use the Tailhook instead of the SB Tactical brace that came with the Maxim Defense.

  4. avatar Geoff PR says:

    An arm brace on a CZ Scorpion is legal as a pistol, and can be shouldered, but a Glock with a brace requires an SBR stamp?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Don’t try to understand it. There is no understanding; there is only acceptance.

      1. avatar arc says:

        Or non-compliance

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “There is no understanding; there is only acceptance.”

        Pardon my (admittedly vast) ignorance, but what’s the logic with OK on a CZ, but not on a Glock?

        1. avatar ChrisL says:

          Technically a pistol brace on a Glock would be fine too, I suspect. Though that’s just a guess, a pistol is a pistol, regardless if it’s a big heavy AR-15 platform pistol (or CZ), or a “normal” pistol like a Glock. The issue is simply that it can’t have a feature that is designed to be used to shoulder the firearm (brace it against your body). But a brace that is designed to be used to brace it on your forearm is fine, and should be for any pistol unless I’m missing something. However, lots of folks seem to worry that unless your specific brace has been officially reviewed and approved by the ATF, you risk being charged if you use a “wildcat” brace, as it may be construed as a shoulder stock by the ATF.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Given that the “jackbooted thugs” at ATF can “unapproved” things faster than a menopausal woman can change her mind, does it matter what they say today?

    2. avatar Jimbo says:

      You can buy carbine conversion kits for Glock pistols like the RONI that are fitted with a brace that are legal.

  5. avatar samuraichatter says:

    Legit, for a long second I thought that was Jeremy Renner creeping at that AR.

  6. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

    I have been really happy with my S&W M&P 15. (Repeat a dozen times)

    Mark today as the day I said to myself oh boy I think I want to build an AR with a collapsible wire stock.

  7. avatar ironicatbest says:

    That guy looks like Randy Rowdy Piper getting hit in the head with a crutch

  8. avatar Josey says:

    To piggyback onto what Brandon stated above: If that was compatible with the Maxim, to be able to just change the brace part out, I’d pay extra $$$ just for that part.

  9. avatar ozzallos says:

    With their older mods costing $200, I’m not holding out for a reasonable price here. Also not sure why i’m paying $200 or more for a workaround to an SBR. I’m not fond letting the gov in on my business either, but I’m just as ambivalent at getting gouged for a piece of plastic taking advantage of said regulation.

    1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

      I think the point is to keep it a pistol (vs. SBR) so you can legally conceal it (backpack or whatever) and you don’t have to worry over loaded rifle in vehicle laws (where applicable) – that’s my thinking, anyway. If SBRs could legally be considered pistols, it would be worth the stamp – otherwise, I just don’t see the point. Sixteen inches just isn’t very long, and for .300 blackout you could always pin a silencer or get an integrated barrel making it a one-stamp gun if you just had to have a stock on it. I’d rather have a .300bo pistol with a tailhook brace on a buffer tube with a law folding adapter and a removable silencer so the whole package packed is sub-20″ and still legally a pistol and is still ready to fire out of a backpack in a couple of seconds.

    2. avatar Paul R Labrador says:

      The point is not so much the price of the tax stamp. A good brace will easily cost you as much as that. It’s that you get around all of the restrictive NFA rules that come with an SBR. You don’t have to notify the ATF when you travel with it, you can carry and conceal it just like any other pistol, and you can transfer it to someone else without any of the NFA hassles. Not having to deal with NFA rules is easily worth the price of the brace.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email