Hot off the press: Galil Ace coming to the USA in 2015!

[adipose]

Looks like a micro receiver on the front end. Awesome

Jan, are you in LV now; if so, let me know. We can go to the shot show in January and go to the IWI booth.

 

[adipose]

This right here doesn't make sense.
The 7.62 NATO ACE uses the 7.62 Galil waffle-mags and the 5.56 uses standard Galil mags.
Perhaps they will be changing it for the civilian market. It's a bit disappointing they won't be making new 7.62 waffle mags or importing them and that we will be stuck with AR mags in the 5.56.

Stooper Zero had it listed correctly. The NATO versions are the non-Galil mag models. Makes sense in going with a more common magazine. The 5.56 on a AR magazine platform is more suitable for the US.

I like how they are going with the .308 before the 5.56 model.

I think I'll just buy all of the models so I don't put too much wear on one rifle

 

[RSR]

Im going with a 16" 762x39 model.
Note:
7.62x39mm uses standard AK type magazines
7.62 NATO uses standard SR25 type magazines
5.56 NATO uses standard AR-16/M16/STANAG magazines

:eek

This is nuts IMO.

All calibers for the same weapon system should use the same ergos regardless of "mag availability." There's no reason, they can't/shouldn't have gone with standard Galil 5.56 mags and if they're worried about .308 used FAL, M14, or similar rock lock .308 mags...

Specifically with the 5.56, the STANAG mag design is flawed from the start due the AR15 receiver originally being designed for straight 20 round mags. Finally, there are some continuous curve polymer that help to fix (Pmag, L5, and Thermold) but none of them have the durability of the steel Galil mags IMO). 30 round Galil mags were/are continuous curve from the start and though heavier will outlast me (with a mag repair tool, any dents are not a problem, and springs can be replaced with standard AR). And decent Tapco Galil mags are available if wanting a lightweight polymer option as well -- there is no significant difference in long term reliability of pretty much all AR polymer mags (possibly excepting Steel reinforced Lancer L5s, only one with durability close to steel reinforced AK waffle mags) when comparing them to the steel Galil...

So if what you're selling is a premium, penultimate weapons system, why set them to run with known inferior mags. It just doesn't make sense...

 

[TOOL_MAN]

Jan, are you in LV now; if so, let me know. We can go to the shot show in January and go to the IWI booth.

I get there January 15th.

 

[RM308]

Im going with a 16" 762x39 model.


Posted on IWI's facebook page:

Here are the Galil ACE Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP) for the coming year, along with anticipated shipping dates:

February 2015, GALIL ACE Pistol (8.3" barrel) in 7.62x39mm - $1,749.00
March 2015, GALIL ACE Pistol (8.3" barrel) in 7.62x39mm, with side folding stabilizer brace - $1,849.00
April 2015, GALIL ACE Rifle (16" barrel) in 7.62x39mm with side folding adjustable buttstock - $1,899.00

August 2015, GALIL ACE Pistol (11.8" barrel) in 7.62 NATO - $1,949.00
September 2015, GALIL ACE Pistol (11.8" barrel) in 7.62 NATO - $2,049.00
October 2015, GALIL ACE Rifle (16" or 20" barrel) in 7.62 NATO - $2,099.00

Look for 5.56 NATO by the end of 2015, early 2016.

Note:
7.62x39mm uses standard AK type magazines
7.62 NATO uses standard SR25 type magazines
5.56 NATO uses standard AR-16/M16/STANAG magazines

Using all standard mags is a great idea.

 

[TruBrew]

Now that we have an estimated release date and MSRP, any FFL setting up a group buy? I missed out on the Bullpup forum Tavor group buy and would hate to miss out on one for the ACE.

 

[RSR]

Using all standard mags is a great idea.

Mag standardization is great, and I agree with it when possible. But it just doesn't fit in this instance for what the Galil is being marketed as.

The Galil isn't an AR, it's supposedly much, much better (as I'm sure it's marketing will state). Mags are a critical component with any weapon system, so why they'd set it up to run mags inferior to the factory original is beyond me. Most serious professionals complaints with modern 5.56 battle rifles like the SCAR etc, is that they aren't compatible with the superior pmags etc -- and while pmags are better from a reliability perspective and better from durability than aluminum, they still don't beat the early 20 round colt steel mags. The 35 round Galil are superior to the Colt and all currently available options...

For LE/Gov't contracts, I get having that option when they simply won't replace mags. But for the rest of us, I'd think they'd choose the best option... Heck, I'd be disappointed but wouldn't complain about a Galil ACE that ran 5.56 AK mags as there are a lot more good options.
(Well, I'd also argue with as many ancient and defective mags still in US, and likely other foreign gov't, military service, adopting a new weapons system that required replacing mags in entirety wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, and relatively inexpensive compared to other military hardware...)

And that's before I get into the issues with fully inserting drop free mags on closed bolts, drop free mags needing to tap and tug to ensure they're fully seated, mags not dropping free when they should, that rock and lock mags are structurally stronger, needing to center drop free mags in the magwell, etc.

Ultimately, since it's poly lower and being produced anyways, I don't why they just don't offer both.

My rifle mag standardization right now is Galil 5.56, VZ58 7.62x39, RPK/AK 7.62x39, and FAL. So the Stanag mags don't help me at all... And if I want a stanag mag rifle, piston ARs are much cheaper options...

 

[TOOL_MAN]

Ok, let me understand. When you guys say, "uses standard magazines". You don't literally mean we got to go out and get magazines designed for other rifles. Thats just stupid. Hopefully you mean, IMI will use the dimensions of those magazines and produce new stock for us to use.

 

[TOOL_MAN]

Jan, are you in LV now; if so, let me know. We can go to the shot show in January and go to the IWI booth.

Yup, I looked it up, its on the 20-23. Ill give u a call

 

[RSR]

The only "standard" mags are stanag mags, but even that supposed regulation never exists b/c it wasn't adopted...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/12/11/stanag-4179-does-not-exist/

I received an interesting email from Roberto, a NATO employee, who explained that despite the term being commonly used, the specification does not exist. Apparently the draft STANAG 4179 was never ratified by member states and therefor it was discarded by default. If you call up the NATO Standardisation Agency (Bruxelles) and ask them for the STANAG 4179 document they will tell you that it does not exist.

Generally speaking, if you're like me and buy a dozen plus mags for each weapon, it gets expensive if every weapon has a different mag.

So basically what this means is that Galil ACE has adopted the most common magazines in use by military and law enforcement for each caliber it's offering, putting mag availability over optimal mag function -- considering mag malfunctions are one of the most common issues w/ ARs, it makes no sense to me why you'd handicap your weapon system in this manner...
(Not sure on exact stats of the SR25/.308 mags, but I'd also imagine the FALs, and HK91s mags probably outnumber the .308 AR mags among civilians, and though HKs are drop free mags, the military G3 actually used a paddle/lever release similar to the FAL or AK, back to my drop free vs rock and lock discussion as well...)

 

[Ruddiger]

Ace Brace

IWI side folding stabilizer brace more pics…

 

[StooperZero]

:eyespop:eyespop

 

[RSR]

Looks good, but I look forward to seeing the non-CGI versions...

Best pistol real life option I've seen so far is the thorden saddle kit. And if the Galil pistol came w/ the AR tube connector instead of proprietary, you could easily install an ACE AR folder on that further adding to length of pull, which is usually a net plus with these sort pistol length AR tubes.

Image source and good read: http://www.recoilweb.com/friday-night-gun-porn-compliant-ar-option-and-an-ar-pistol-43401.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHyIoxD8Y1A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE-JYbgigVw

Stock tube cover -- $26.99 to $36.99 (more expensive having quick detach sling connects)
Saddle adapter kit -- $18.99
Saddle -- $26.49

Should ~$80-$100 delivered. That is cheaper than the Sig Brace...

http://www.thordsencustoms.com/shop/AR-PISTOL.htm

 

[RSR]

Well, the ATF is apparently now issuing conflicting guidance on the sig brace as of this article yesterday: http://www.shootingsportsretailer.com/2014/11/19/could-this-mean-the-end-of-the-sig-brace/

In a letter reportedly written to a small home defense shotgun maker, the nation’s top gun control regulator says shouldering a Sig Sauer-made SB15 pistol stabilizing brace could change a firearm’s classification rendering it subject to bureaucratic and expensive National Firearms Act rules.

The Nov. 14 letter was written in response to Black Aces Tactical owner Eric Lemoine’s submission of a short-barreled shotgun design that incorporated the SB15 brace. The brace is intended to allow a shooter to fire an AR-style pistol with one hand using a Velcro strap to attach it to the arm.

The ATF letter has many AR pistol owners concerned as it could be seen as a blanket determination on illegal use of a Sig Brace, subjecting violators to years in prison and a permanent ban on firearms ownership.

“The submitted weapon, as described and depicted above … is not a ‘firearm’ as defined by the NFA provided the SicTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and not used as a shoulder stock,” wrote Acting Chief of the BATF’s Firearms Technology Branch Max Kingery. “However, should an individual utilize the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace on the submitted sample as a shoulder stock to fire the weapon from the shoulder, this firearm would then be classified as a ‘short-barreled shotgun.’ ”

Black Ace Tactical owner Lemoine told Shooting Sports Retailer the ATF letter applies solely to the shotgun design submitted to the Firearms Technology Branch and doesn’t apply to uses with AR pistols.
[...]
In March, the agency made what was arguably a groundbreaking ruling on the use of the brace, saying shouldering an AR pistol with an SB15 would not change it to a short-barreled rifle that requires separate registration and a tax stamp.

“Accessories such as the Sig Stability Brace have not been classified by [ATF] as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change,” ATF wrote. “We do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses the weapon.”

Since that March letter, the market for AR pistols has exploded, with manufacturers, retailers and shooters seeing a new opportunity to engage with shorter barreled AR-style pistols fitted with a Sig Brace without having to deal with the headache of SBR registration.

Still the ATF’s latest letter to Black Aces Tactical may be a shot across the bow at pistol makers and shooters who use the brace as a makeshift stock.

“The BATFE is in the process of reversing its position on shouldering arm braces due to a change in leadership. It might not be this moment, but it’ll be soon,” a worried shooter said on an Internet forum post about the ATF letter. “Investing a ton of money in weapons that are only usable with ‘arm braces’ may not be a wise plan for the future.”

Click link above for rest of article.

 

[StooperZero]

“The BATFE is in the process of reversing its position on shouldering arm braces due to a change in leadership. It might not be this moment, but it’ll be soon,” a worried shooter said on an Internet forum post

that right there is enough for me to pull the bullshit plug.





some moron tried using the brace to gain OAL on a shotgun that had a barrel under 18" , they said no.

End of story.

 

[RSR]

that right there is enough for me to pull the bullshit plug.

some moron tried using the brace to gain OAL on a shotgun that had a barrel under 18" , they said no.

End of story.

While the short-barreled shotgun does matter, you're missing the part in the ATF letter that's the potential gamechanger:

However, should an individual utilize the SigTac SB15 pistol staabilizing brace on the submitted sample as a shoulder stock to fire the weapon from the shoulder, this firearm would be classified as a "short-barreled shotgun" as defined in the NFA, 26 U.S.C. SS 5845(a)(1) because the brace has then been made or remade, designed or redesigned form its originally intended purpose.

The letter is now stating that using the Sig Brace as a stock is now in fact for all intents converting the firearm into an NFA firearm per the ATF's view. Whether it's a shotgun or a pistol AR really shouldn't matter in how the ATF interprets the use of this accessory...

Previously, shotguns could have barrels of less than 18" in length if they never had a buttstock attached -- b/c only if a shotgun is sold with a buttstock attached does the ATF define it as a "shotgun." Like how you register AR receivers as a pistol but once converted to or registered as a rifle you can't convert back to a pistol w/o filing paperwork with the ATF...
Here's more on the previous shotgun rulings: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88

So putting the sig brace on a less than 18" barrel shotgun with no buttstock but an overall length of at least 26" -- generally defined as a "firearm" per ATF -- is okay. But mount that Sig brace quipped firearm to you shoulder then it becomes a "shotgun."

And Black Aces is doing a lot of innovative shotgun stuff and likely interfaces with the ATF quite frequently on those mods: http://www.blackacestactical.com/

What it looks like in this case was that the guy had a legal Any Other Weapon, "AOW." He then asked guidance on adding the Sig Brace. The shotgun would remain an AOW with the Sig Brace installed and used as designed. But use the sig brace as a "stock" (mounting to the shoulder) on the AOW and the AOW in question would then become a Short Barrel Shotgun, "SBS", and you would be in violation of the NFA unless you had in fact registered as a SBS rather than an AOW. So again, just mounting the brace to the shoulder is in effect "converting" your weapon.
Now to what degree the $5 AOW stamp vs the $200 SBS NFA tax stamps affected is unknown... But what is known is that just the act of a mounting a weapon equipped to one's shoulder with a stabilizing brace now at least converts it to a different weapon classification in this particular case per the ATF's most recent ruling. And if previous rulings hold -- if you've ever mounted the Sig Brace to your shoulder, the weapon will forever need to maintain an SBS registration, even if you remove the Sig Brace... Not doing so, or not having a SBS registration prior to mounting to your shoulder, means your committing a felony that the ATF could document, prosecute, and result in you forever losing your ability to order firearms. (Or if you document those actions for them through phone pics or videos, or anything touched by the NSA, all they'd have to do is prosecute.)

 

[Ruddiger]

 

[RSR]

That's awesome. I'll be geeking out on this for awhile. Lots of questions have been answered here.

Thank you!

EDIT:
First impressions, I didn't expect the receiver to have a connected steel lower like that. It connects w/ just a below the trunnion and grip screw though!?

Secondly, part #27 (top cover) and part #25 (top cover stabilizer that connects to the recoil rod) both look like they might be swappable. Solves the how to add a rail to the top cover portion... And I don't hate the rear flip AR night sights, though I don't care for the front one which you wouldn't have to run if retrofitting...

The bolt, bolt carrier, and recoil rod all look the same as well (a positive for fresh parts sources like spring loaded firing pins).

Safety might be swappable as well if you wanted to retrofit.

 

[RSR]

What it looks like in this case was that the guy had a legal Any Other Weapon, "AOW." He then asked guidance on adding the Sig Brace. The shotgun would remain an AOW with the Sig Brace installed and used as designed. But use the sig brace as a "stock" (mounting to the shoulder) on the AOW and the AOW in question would then become a Short Barrel Shotgun, "SBS", and you would be in violation of the NFA unless you had in fact registered as a SBS rather than an AOW. So again, just mounting the brace to the shoulder is in effect "converting" your weapon.
Now to what degree the $5 AOW stamp vs the $200 SBS NFA tax stamps affected is unknown... But what is known is that just the act of a mounting a weapon equipped to one's shoulder with a stabilizing brace now at least converts it to a different weapon classification in this particular case per the ATF's most recent ruling. And if previous rulings hold -- if you've ever mounted the Sig Brace to your shoulder, the weapon will forever need to maintain an SBS registration, even if you remove the Sig Brace... Not doing so, or not having a SBS registration prior to mounting to your shoulder, means your committing a felony that the ATF could document, prosecute, and result in you forever losing your ability to order firearms. (Or if you document those actions for them through phone pics or videos, or anything touched by the NSA, all they'd have to do is prosecute.)

Forgot to mention that the whole "intent to manufacture" prosecution history of the ATF causes a whole other set of headaches that could conceptually mean just owning a AOW and a "pistol" brace could place you in trouble without a SBS registration. And how the mission/interpretation creep occurs will be interesting too.

 

[Dee]

That's weird, I wonder why IWI put the polymer on the bottom of the receiver. It doesn't save weight... The receiver looks like a micro without the trigger guard and the magwell is oversized. Maybe different polymer lowers are used for different caliber/mag personalization like 223 and 7.62x39 variants