PDA

View Full Version : AR Raddlock compared to the Prince 50


pfl101
02-04-2009, 7:59 PM
I have never seen a Prince 50 magazine lock, so bear with me.

My understanding of the latter is that you can tighten the device to require the tool for releasing the magazine. Alternatively, you can loosen it to allow for the "normal" mechanism of magazine release (i.e. without a tool).

The Raddlock seems to have the same overall functions. How is it any safer than the Prince 50? Isn't one exposed to the same risks of the device somehow loosening during use/transport, or, more sinisterly, if it is adjusted by a person attempting to make a case for it being an AW-determining feature?

Dr Rockso
02-04-2009, 8:10 PM
Prince 50: Locks the magazine in place, magazine can NOT be removed (legally) while rifle is assembled. Loading is accomplished by removing the rear receiver pin and top-loading the magazine. If you were to leave the state, however, you can simply remove the set-screw and use it as a normal magazine release.

Bullet Button: Magazine can be removed via the use of a tool (bullet tip). The only way to return the rifle to "free state" status is to replace the bullet button with the stock mag release.

Raddlock: Exactly like the bullet button, except that loosening a screw will allow the magazine to be released without the use of a tool (again, for going out of state).

pfl101
02-04-2009, 8:16 PM
So the problem with the Prince 50 is that once you've done what's needed to allow for magazine removal, it has to be actively reversed to cause the magazine, upon reinsertion, to be fixed and require a tool to remove again?

Got it. Thanks!

Dr Rockso
02-04-2009, 8:59 PM
So the problem with the Prince 50 is that once you've done what's needed to allow for magazine removal, it has to be actively reversed to cause the magazine, upon reinsertion, to be fixed and require a tool to remove again?

Got it. Thanks!

The original Prince 50 maglock isn't too common anymore, it was a way to create a fixed magazine build similar to the sealed-magwell Bushmasters. Under normal operation the magazine would remain in the rifle at all times. With the Bullet Button and Raddlock, the magazine is usually removed to be loaded, then re-attached to the rifle.

ohsmily
02-04-2009, 9:10 PM
So the problem with the Prince 50 is that once you've done what's needed to allow for magazine removal, it has to be actively reversed to cause the magazine, upon reinsertion, to be fixed and require a tool to remove again?

Got it. Thanks!

Yes and no. Once you loosen that screw to remove the magazine, the magazine release functions the same as a standard magazine release.

The confusion is that the bullet button is also made by user "Prince 50." It is the Prince 50 bullet button.

pfl101
02-04-2009, 9:23 PM
"Once you loosen that screw to remove the magazine, the magazine release functions the same as a standard magazine release."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I fail to see how this functionally differs from the AR Raddlock.

In either case, it appears that loosening the device allows it to work as a regular magazine lock. Therefore, both should be equally treacherous with respect to CA AW laws.

Is my thinking flawed on this issue?

cryptkeeper
02-04-2009, 9:36 PM
I don't think your reasoning is flawed but out of respect to user Radd we should not try to spread FUD until we know for certain the opinion on the Raddlock.

DedEye
02-04-2009, 9:40 PM
"Once you loosen that screw to remove the magazine, the magazine release functions the same as a standard magazine release."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I fail to see how this functionally differs from the AR Raddlock.

In either case, it appears that loosening the device allows it to work as a regular magazine lock. Therefore, both should be equally treacherous with respect to CA AW laws.

Is my thinking flawed on this issue?

If you use it as its meant to be used within California, the AR Raddlock is a bullet button. If you unscrew it, it will function as a standard magazine release.

As with all magazine locks, DON'T UNLOCK IT AND REMOVE CALIFORNIA COMPLIANCE WHILE IN THE DAMN STATE!

pfl101
02-04-2009, 9:48 PM
"out of respect to user Radd we should not try to spread FUD until we know for certain the opinion on the Raddlock."

That's definitely not what I am trying to do here. Frankly, I think the line between someone pointing out strong similarities between something deemed to be risky and a new product is a fine one, but that I am walking it with respect to Radd.

I am frankly bewildered by the whole issue of magazine locks.

When I first checked the idea out, Ade was telling people that dropping mags with a BB was deadly. He preached that you need to top load with the BB.

Now we're hearing that the BB is the way to go, and that anything that can be loosened for use as a regular mag lock might be deemed illegal at some point. Hence, the concern regarding the Raddlock for ARs.

Again, if someone can show me a substantive difference between the AR Raddlock and the Prince 50, I'd love to hear about it.

Reiterating, I am not asking this to instill any FUD in peoples' minds. The situation is evolving and I think it's a valid question, although one that might not be able to be answered at this juncture.

Dr Rockso
02-04-2009, 10:46 PM
"Once you loosen that screw to remove the magazine, the magazine release functions the same as a standard magazine release."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I fail to see how this functionally differs from the AR Raddlock.

In either case, it appears that loosening the device allows it to work as a regular magazine lock. Therefore, both should be equally treacherous with respect to CA AW laws.

Is my thinking flawed on this issue?

Well, yes and no....

If you have a Prince50 or a Raddlock on a centerfire rifle with pistol grip, and you are currently in the state of California, you had BETTER keep that screw tightened down so that you can't remove the magazine (at all in the case of the Prince50, or without using a bullet tip as a tool in the case of the Raddlock). You're right in that either one could potentially become an AW if that screw gets loosened at the wrong time.

alleyehave
02-04-2009, 10:49 PM
Raddlock > BB > P50
Tool Required for 10rd Mag Release != Jail

What more needs to be said?

pfl101
02-04-2009, 10:55 PM
Not to quibble unnecessarily, but I am not sure about the order in which you list the three devices.

It would seem that the Raddlock would be at best equivalent to a BB, based upon rationale discussed elsewhere.

However, the ability to loosen it for more convenient use in "free states" introduces a possibility for complications.

I look forward to hearing what the DOJ letter tells us, but I would not be surprised if they don't specifically address the AR Raddlock, leaving us to speculate a bit more.

DedEye
02-04-2009, 10:56 PM
Not to quibble unnecessarily, but I am not sure about the order in which you list the three devices.

It would seem that the Raddlock would be at best equivalent to a BB, based upon rationale discussed elsewhere.

However, the ability to loosen it for more convenient use in "free states" introduces a possibility for complications.

I look forward to hearing what the DOJ letter tells us, but I would not be surprised if they don't specifically address the AR Raddlock, leaving us to speculate a bit more.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a DOJ letter.

DDT
02-04-2009, 10:58 PM
So the problem with the Prince 50 is that once you've done what's needed to allow for magazine removal, it has to be actively reversed to cause the magazine, upon reinsertion, to be fixed and require a tool to remove again?

Got it. Thanks!

Actually; with a P50, if you do what is needed to allow for magazine removal is instantly an assault weapon. In order to legally remove a magazine from a weapon with a P50 you must remove all other "evil features" first.

pfl101
02-04-2009, 10:59 PM
"I wouldn't hold your breath for a DOJ letter."

I certainly won't.

But Gene's conversations with Chuck are particularly revealing, and barring any official statements to the contrary, I'll probably adopt their suggestion.

pfl101
02-04-2009, 11:05 PM
Let's not assume DedEye's calling Gene a liar. He's probably just suspicious of the DOJ's willingness to shed light on an issue they'd rather have remain frighteningly murky.

There'd be no reason for Gene to bull**** us.

DedEye
02-04-2009, 11:09 PM
Let's not assume DedEye's calling Gene a liar. He's probably just suspicious of the DOJ's willingness to shed light on an issue they'd rather have remain frighteningly murky.

There'd be no reason for Gene to bull**** us.

I know Gene isn't bull****ting or lying, nor do I think my post came anywhere close to saying that Gene wasn't telling the truth. Gene and Chuck have plenty of documentation I'm sure, I don't know anything about it, but I'm skeptical that any of it is of the conclusive "this is considered legal, this is considered illegal" variety.

I'd be happy to find out it is, of course :).

DDT
02-04-2009, 11:21 PM
I'm skeptical that any of it is of the conclusive "this is considered legal, this is considered illegal" variety.

I'd be happy to find out it is, of course :).

Why are you skeptical? Has Gene not come through in the past on things he has told you regarding documenting the legality of an item in the eyes of the law?

Granted the letter(s) he says are coming will be from a DA rather than DOJ but since the DAs actually file charges the impact will be the same to you and me.


2. Will there be Paper?
Yes. As I said in my original post, we are going to have a letter from a DA that says that Bullet Buttons are legal. Read that again.

DedEye
02-04-2009, 11:29 PM
Why are you skeptical? Has Gene not come through in the past on things he has told you regarding documenting the legality of an item in the eyes of the law?

Granted the letter(s) he says are coming will be from a DA rather than DOJ but since the DAs actually file charges the impact will be the same to you and me.

DA != DOJ. That's where the confusion is coming from. I know there's paper from DAs, but I return to my original point: Don't hold your breath for a DOJ letter.

DDT
02-04-2009, 11:38 PM
I will assume that pfl101 simply misread Gene's post and now realizes that the letter will be coming from a DA and not DOJ. After all DOJ's silence is a major reason we need a letter from a DA.

pfl101
02-05-2009, 8:17 AM
I inadvertently refered to the forthcoming "DA" letter as a "DOJ" letter.

They're not interchangable terms, I agree.

My bad, but let's keep the focus on the topic I broached: Raddlock legalities.

I am curious to see if the DA's paper will address the topic directly, or if we will have to make inferences on the issue.

XDshooter
02-05-2009, 8:27 AM
Let's put the BS aside.

The simple fact is that if a DA puts on paper that BB's are legal, then that only works with BB's, NOT the AR Raddlock and the Prince50.


The Prince50 is a straight mag lock.

The AR Raddlock is a mag lock/BB.


Don't get irrational or emotional here. The raddlock would be in the same boat as the prince50. They simply allow the user to become a criminal much easier than just a straight BB. Don't get me wrong though, using the Prince50 or the Raddlock does not constitute breaking the law. Only mis-using it would.

I think Gene raised quite a bit of FUD with that other thread.