Pistol stabilizing braces.

[Kfireblade]

What would the games effects be of using a stabilizing brace (Like its ment to be used, not shouldering it like a stock) with a pistol or firing an SMG one handed? I would assume it would count as being braced (duh) but would you get any other benefits? If you fold down a stock on an SMG it increases the strength requirement, decreases accuracy, and increases rcl, would using the brace help with any of that?

[Phoenix_Dragon]

If I were to model it, I would make its stats to be similar to but poorer to a pistol stock, as literally every person I've known who has gotten one (An admittedly small number) prefers to use it as a pistol stock as a way to get around certain gun laws (Basically, to make a rifle that gets legally classified as a pistol instead of a rifle).

So I would say it gives the same ST reduction as a pistol stock, but lacks the Acc increase and gives at least -2 to bulk due to fixing the pistol to your arm. I would absolutely not let it count as automatic bracing or reducing recoil, as this would make it outperform a pistol stock in these regards.

[Kfireblade]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

If I were to model it, I would make its stats to be similar to but poorer to a pistol stock, as literally every person I've known who has gotten one (An admittedly small number) prefers to use it as a pistol stock as a way to get around laws prohibiting pistol stocks.

So I would say it gives the same ST reduction as a pistol stock, but lacks the Acc increase and gives at least -2 to bulk due to fixing the pistol to your arm. I would absolutely not let it count as automatic bracing or reducing recoil, as this would make it outperform a pistol stock in these regards.

The bulk increase makes a lot of sense, pretty restrictive having it attached to your arm. I don't think it should do much to improve accuracy either, that being said Physics wise it still seems like it would be a significantly more stable way to fire the gun, so I'm not sure it shouldn't reduce the rcl. That being said looking at how its used when strapped to your arm it seems rifle or SMG sights would be more difficult to use, as it dose appear positioning the weapon properly to use those sights as they are designed to be used would be difficult.

[LokRobster]

Originally Posted by Kfireblade

The bulk increase makes a lot of sense, pretty restrictive having it attached to your arm. I don't think it should do much to improve accuracy either, that being said Physics wise it still seems like it would be a significantly more stable way to fire the gun, so I'm not sure it shouldn't reduce the rcl. That being said looking at how its used when strapped to your arm it seems rifle or SMG sights would be more difficult to use, as it dose appear positioning the weapon properly to use those sights as they are designed to be used would be difficult.

I’ve tried using a brace “as designed” and it is terrible (for me at least). It locks your pistol-holding hand, wrist and arm into a bizzare unergonomic shape and I couldn’t actually aim down the sights very well. I figured I must be trying to use it wrong, but I don’t think it is possible to use it in a way that is useful (other than shouldering it as a sub-standard uncomfortable stock). It had come with an AR pistol I had purchased, and took off the brace and sold it the next day.

I think the brace is only useful as-designed for what it’s stated purpose is: a one armed person is able to shoot.

I should note that I didn’t do more research than my own direct experience, so I could have missed something. If someone else has differing opinion or experience I would be interested to hear it.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Kfireblade

that being said Physics wise it still seems like it would be a significantly more stable way to fire the gun, so I'm not sure it shouldn't reduce the rcl.

The point of recoil for a weapon strapped to your arm is much further out from your center of mass and less stable than one you have braced against your shoulder. It involves an awkward position just to get the sights into place, placing the weapon much further out from the body (Arm straight). Speaking basic physics, it's a much less stable position, with the force of the recoil being placed much further out from the mass of the body (All recoil force being controlled by the elbow instead of directed into the shoulder), resulting in a much larger rotational force, and thus a much larger change in momentum for the gun. Strapping the weapon to the forearm may make it "stable" in relation to the arm, but the arm is still much less stable than the shoulder. Just compare how stable you can hold your hand against an impact when you have it held out at full extension versus holding your hand right against your shoulder or chest.

In fact, looking around at the other options listed in High Tech, I'd go even harsher for "AR pistols" that are the reason pistol braces are currently a thing, by going off the folding stock. I'd say that, if used for what would normally be a longarm, you still get the hit to accuracy and recoil that you would with a folded stock, but instead of removing -1 in bulk penalty you increase bulk by at least -1. The absolute most generous I might be is to say that it eliminates the extra strength requirement to fire a longarm one-handed without it becoming unready each time.

The main reason they've become popular lately has nothing to do with their performance, but rather due to intricacies of gun laws; some "pistol braces" seemingly abandon any pretense of being a device to strap a weapon to your arm in order to improve its ability to function as a traditional stock.

[Kale]

There was an attempt by Colt at the end of the 1960's to build a personal defense weapon (PDW) that was essentially a pistol designed to be braced against the forearm. The project was abandoned because, surprise, folding stocks were found to be much more effective.

https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Colt_IMP