PDA

View Full Version : New grip design


MonsterMan
05-14-2006, 11:17 PM
What do you guys think of this idea for a alternative grip idea. There is no "pistol type grip" because the thumb stays on the right side of the rifle. The grip is there to give some tension into your shoulder and give your palm a place to rest. You can not use this like a pistol grip due to the fact if you tried you would not even come close to reaching the trigger. I know your lower fingers can wrap around it but I don't think that is illegal. It looks as even that the web between your thumb and index finger are above the line. The only problem is you can't easily access your safety.


Let me know if anyone would be interested in buying them.

Thanks for lookin.
MonsterMan

50 Freak
05-14-2006, 11:40 PM
There is no "pistol type grip" because the thumb stays on the right side of the rifle.

But can you put your thumb over to the other side? Looks like you can. If so, it's a pistol grip.

If you can get DOJ approval saying it's not a PG, I think you may have a winner.

Joe
05-14-2006, 11:56 PM
^^ i agree. i think the only way these things will sell is with DOJ approval. and DOJ will probably never approve of anything even if they "should"

vonsmith
05-15-2006, 12:08 AM
Very clever. Could you add a small ledge running parallel to the thumb to rest the thumb on? This would definitely keep the web of the hand above the line when in a firing position.

I have posted elsewhere on this topic. I don't think the pistol grip and web of hand thing is being properly interpreted. See here...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=293181#post293181

If the DOJ buys into the design then you have a winner.


=vonsmith=

MonsterMan
05-15-2006, 12:10 AM
You could certainly add a shelf to that area.

MonsterMan

Jicko
05-15-2006, 12:19 AM
Without a shelf, and with no-way that someone can wrap the thumb to the rear wall of this grip... then I think it is GOOD TO GO!!!

WRT to the safety selector, all we need to do is to install an ambi-safety selector, then the thumb can flip the safe and fire on the right side of the receiver (for right hand shooter...)

Crazed_SS
05-15-2006, 1:11 AM
What do you guys think of this idea for a alternative grip idea. There is no "pistol type grip" because the thumb stays on the right side of the rifle. The grip is there to give some tension into your shoulder and give your palm a place to rest. You can not use this like a pistol grip due to the fact if you tried you would not even come close to reaching the trigger. I know your lower fingers can wrap around it but I don't think that is illegal. It looks as even that the web between your thumb and index finger are above the line. The only problem is you can't easily access your safety.

http://www.waynestudios.com/uploads/new%20grip%20desing%202.pdf

Let me know if anyone would be interested in buying them.

Thanks for lookin.
MonsterMan

No sir, I dont like it.

klmmicro
05-15-2006, 4:56 AM
But can you put your thumb over to the other side? Looks like you can. If so, it's a pistol grip.

If you can get DOJ approval saying it's not a PG, I think you may have a winner.

Loking at it, you might be able to wrap your thumb behind it, but your fingers would be too far away to reach the trigger (unless you are an alien). That design looks like a good design.

Also, the comments about a shelf seem like good additions too. It would be nice to have that ledge just at a reference point for your grip. It would help offer greater consistency for the competition shooter.

kick Z tail out
05-15-2006, 5:14 AM
^^ i agree. i think the only way these things will sell is with DOJ approval. and DOJ will probably never approve of anything even if they "should"
Yeah, the DOJ would crap their pants.

"Sh**. Someone did it. Quick, deny them authorization".


They just keep adding stupid language to their BS little regulation because they're trying to make it impossible to do.

That design SHOULD work and I really like it. :cool: But of course, the DOJ would never allow it because of the fact that it would work. lol

klmmicro
05-15-2006, 5:53 AM
But of course, the DOJ would never allow it because of the fact that it would work. lol

It would work if they opened the registration outlined in their original memo for our current rifles and closed the door on new ones coming in.

They do not want to do that as it would show the general public that they did not do their jobs.

paradox
05-15-2006, 7:09 AM
I agree that attacking the "pistol style grasp" is the best way to go. I call the resulting thumbless grasp a monkey hold. Here are two of my ideas. The first is a wooden stock/grip combo. The second is a replacement backstrap for a Magpul MAID grip.

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1176&d=1147457099

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1177&d=1147470169

Chaingun
05-15-2006, 8:52 AM
Great idea, but we need that damn DOJ blessing which may take forever and a day.

paradox
05-15-2006, 9:20 AM
Great idea, but we need that damn DOJ blessing which may take forever and a day.

Only if you're planning on selling them. Make your own damn grip that complies with current laws and regulations and stand up to the DOJ like we've been doing with the whole OLL situation.

Chaingun
05-15-2006, 9:34 AM
Only if you're planning on selling them. Make your own damn grip that complies with current laws and regulations and stand up to the DOJ like we've been doing with the whole OLL situation.

I would but court costs are expensive and DAs have deep pockets.

DOJ acts as an expert witness in court. Their damn approval means a lot for those of us who don't want to spend our kids college fund defending ourselves in court.

MonsterMan
05-15-2006, 10:18 AM
Thanks everyone for your thoughts. It seems nobody has anything to say against it's legality (as we understand it). I have sent it to the DOJ to see what they say. I will let you all know what I hear.

MonsterMan

shopkeep
05-15-2006, 1:37 PM
Has anyone tried fooling around with pushing the envelope on the "Thumbhole Stock" definition yet?

thmpr
05-15-2006, 2:50 PM
Why is there a huge difference in definition between the ATF and the DOJ? For example: The Fab 10 non PG is stated by the ATF as a non PG.

shopkeep
05-15-2006, 5:01 PM
Folks, there is NO WAY IN HELL you will ever be recieving a letter back from the DOJ when it comes to pistol grip replacements. This is the same deal as the fixed mag kits... they are lawful and the DOJ will NOT admit this unless forced into a corner. You'll have to use the law for guidance because the DOJ obviously isn't going to offer us any.

Chaingun
05-16-2006, 7:41 AM
Folks, there is NO WAY IN HELL you will ever be recieving a letter back from the DOJ when it comes to pistol grip replacements. This is the same deal as the fixed mag kits... they are lawful and the DOJ will NOT admit this unless forced into a corner. You'll have to use the law for guidance because the DOJ obviously isn't going to offer us any.

Well there goes our "damn" expert witness:D

sac7000
05-16-2006, 8:03 AM
Well there goes our "damn" expert witness:D

Maybe we can call Alison to the stand, she's very informed about pistol grips and their amazing ability to spray from the hip without stopping to reload. If anybody can convince the judge, she can.

vonsmith
05-16-2006, 8:54 AM
The forum has been discussing trying to get the DOJ to approve grip designs. Is it a better route to submit designs to the ATF for approval? If the ATF says a design is a non-PG, then it follows that the DOJ would have a difficult time disagreeing with ATF.

Ideas/comments?


=vonsmith=

MonsterMan
05-16-2006, 6:15 PM
Well I talked to the DOJ and they said they could not give me a yes or no on the grip I designed. They said that whoever had a grip like this on their rifle was at the will of the DA. Which makes me think it wasn't a "No". It was up to how the DA interprets the law. So while I feel this grip is in full compliance of being a "Non Pistol Type" grip I won't sell them for a while. I will try one on my rifle for a little while and see how I like it.

Thanks for the input.

MonsterMan:)

Fate
05-16-2006, 6:18 PM
http://i4.tinypic.com/zwccbc.jpg

B.J.F.
05-17-2006, 8:40 PM
It would work if they opened the registration outlined in their original memo for our current rifles and closed the door on new ones coming in.

They do not want to do that as it would show the general public that they did not do their jobs.


but that has allready happend 2 other times with " AW's ", the only reason i think they are not gonna act on making another reg' period is its an election year for some officials, they wont chance loosing their position doing so

PLINK
05-17-2006, 10:59 PM
If they say you can wrap you thumb around the other side, make the "handle" go back toward the butt of the stock more. As stated above, a shelf for the thumb would be nice also.

shopkeep
05-17-2006, 11:08 PM
As we've learned from the fixed mags (which they have just now admitted are lawful), stripped lowers, and other wonderful moments of this epsiode:

When the DOJ says "we have no opinion, it's up to the DA to decide" this is the closest you'll ever get to them saying it's lawful.

Ironwood Designs
05-18-2006, 6:07 PM
Hey guys, Matt from Ironwood Designs here.

I am a stock manufacturer here in San Jose, CA. I posted a while back on one of the "alternative grip" threads. I was contacted by one of the guys on on the forum about a stock design he had.

I took a look at his design, and we decided to build a prototype. All of the criteria were met regarding the grip restrictions. it did not protrude below the receiver, the web uf the thumb and forefinger were well above the exposed top of the trigger, and it was not a thumbhole, or so we thought.

The stock was mounted on a bracket, that mounted where the pistol grip normally goes. The bracket protruded rearward, parallel with the buffer tube. The stock mounted to the bracket. The stock was cutaway below the collapsible stock buffer tube, which was exposed, and was meant to be the cheak piece.

The stock then trailed up, behind, but not connected or touching the buffer tube. Technically not a thumbhole. It looked pretty good for a prototype stock, and with a few mods, would have been a really nice design.

We submitted it to DOJ, and if you haven't guessed, Iggy turned it down because it was declared a thunbhole stock. It only yook a week and a half to get the bad news.

The reason I am posting again is due to the constant discussion on the grip issue. I think the only type that will fly will be the "Tumor" type plastic bolt on.

At the time I originally posted, I had suggested that I might make a new grip, not unlike the "tumor" grip, but with nice lines, ergonomic, and with left hand capabilities. These units would be made from wood, and probably sprayed with black, apoxy type, lightly textured paint. If it was approved, I could set up manufacturinf immediately. Plastic injection molding is too expensive and takes too long to prototype and get it to market.

After seeing all of the individual designs, some of which were pretty good, I think that any design at all that allows the had to wrap around, regardless of the web of the hand location, or lack of vertical protrusion, will not fly with DOJ.

I have waited to build a prototype as DOJ keeps changing the rules. If they do not allow any detach mags then it is waste of time to develop and produce. But, if there is enough interest, I may go ahead and work up a prototype, and submit it to DOJ.

We have been manufacturing stocks for over 15 years now, and I believe I can make a grip, if aproved, that would look and feel great.
I was also tossing the idea around of making an AK version as well, as we have been the only producer of AK stocks in the US for many years.

Let me know what you think. Take a quick look at my site and you will see
that we are fully capable of putting out a quality product.

Thanks for your time, look forward to getting some feedback.
Matt,
IWD

Please send me an e-mail at: matt@Ironwooddesigns.com

www.Ironwooddesigns.com

~DEVO~
05-18-2006, 6:17 PM
Hey guys, Matt from Ironwood Designs here.

... I was contacted by one of the guys on on the forum about a stock design he had.

I took a look at his design, and we decided to build a prototype...

www.Ironwooddesigns.com

Was that me??? The FAL stock/grip combo???

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 6:24 PM
There is definitely significant interest. Even a return of the Tumor stock would be a welcome development.

Due to the "wrap around of the thumb" is it unlawful to hold the rifle by the buttstock when firing it with an SRB?

Ironwood Designs
05-18-2006, 6:30 PM
DEVO,
No, it was a guy from Sacramento, and as mentioned, the stock was for the AR.

Shopkeep, thanks for the response. I think I am just going to go ahead and work up a quick design, and get a prototyp cut this comign week. I'll post it up after I get a working model.

Thanks,
Matt
IWD

vonsmith
05-19-2006, 9:07 AM
Hey guys, Matt from Ironwood Designs here.

After seeing all of the individual designs, some of which were pretty good, I think that any design at all that allows the had to wrap around, regardless of the web of the hand location, or lack of vertical protrusion, will not fly with DOJ.

www.Ironwooddesigns.com

By the DOJ's own descriptive language to be illegal a grip has to allow a pistol style grasp AND the web of the hand has to be below the imaginary line. That is the normal human's correct English interpretation of the language. (my learned opinion.)

I would assert that any design that doesn't allow one or more fingers to wrap around and intersect or nearly intercept with the thumb's location (whether a finger can actually touch the thumb or not) is legal by DOJ's descriptive language.

I would also assert that a "squeeze" style grasp between the thumb and one or more fingers where no fingers intersect (cross) or nearly intercept with the thumb's location would be legal.

I would assert that a grip design where the thumb is on the same side as the base of the fingers cannot allow a pistol style grasp (there is no opposing digit in this case to establish a pistol style grasp) and is therefore legal.

I would assert that any design that allows a pistol style grasp, but the web of the hand is above the imaginary line when in a shooting mode is legal.

I would assert that a pistol grip located on the side of the receiver sticking out sideways where the web of the hand is above the imaginary line would be legal. (BTW, I'm not suggesting such a configuration is practical.)

The stock of almost any rifle where it narrows down at the receiver allows a pistol style grasp. The shooter can grasp around the stock, one or more fingers intersecting with the thumb's location, but does not allow the web of the hand to be below the imaginary line when in a shooting mode. Standard stock designs like this are 100% legal.

The JAE-100 stock allows what is essentially a pistol style grasp, but the web of the hand is above the imaginary line when in a shooting mode. The DOJ signed off on that design.

Just because the DOJ decides one day to call a banana a "pistol style grip" doesn't make it so. Left to their own whims the DOJ may never "authorize" a design no matter how compliant it is to their descriptive language. Is there some way to challenge the DOJ's interpretations of their own language with an independent entity, be it a court or?


=vonsmith=

Chaingun
05-19-2006, 9:57 AM
The top design shown should be legal, and is no different than a mini14/m1a stock.
http://usera.imagecave.com/PonyFiveO/ARRifleStock3.jpg

vonsmith
05-19-2006, 10:35 AM
The top design shown should be legal, and is no different than a mini14/m1a stock.
http://usera.imagecave.com/PonyFiveO/ARRifleStock3.jpg


I think these three designs are a little questionable legally. They allow for a pistol style grasp AND the web of the hand is on, and perhaps below, the imaginary line.

Refer to the JAE-100 design which the DOJ has supposedly blessed. It is similar to your designs, but the web of the hand is held higher on the JAE-100 stock.


=vonsmith=

Ironwood Designs
05-19-2006, 12:04 PM
Chaingun,
It will not fly with DOJ. The stock I submitted was similar in it's layout, with the buffer tube not connected to the stock. It was still declared a thumbhole.

As mentioned in the other post, anything that allows the grasp action will probably not be considered OK.

Thanks,
Matt
IWD

vonsmith
05-19-2006, 1:23 PM
Chaingun,
It will not fly with DOJ. The stock I submitted was similar in it's layout, with the buffer tube not connected to the stock. It was still declared a thumbhole.

As mentioned in the other post, anything that allows the grasp action will probably not be considered OK.

Thanks,
Matt
IWD

Just curious. :rolleyes: If something isn't a hole, how does it get declared as a thumbhole? At what point of curvature or angle does a slot become a thumbhole? Is "thumbhole" just a name that has its own set of characteristics unrelated to the words "thumb" and "hole"? Why isn't a JAE-100 a thumbhole type stock? Why isn't a regular stock a thumbhole type stock? What is the distinguishing factor(s)? :confused:

This must be why the lawyers get paid the big bucks.


=vonsmith=

AxonGap
05-19-2006, 1:33 PM
Hey guy's. Like a virus I'm spreading from one thread "Submit your design..." to this one. My ideas are pretty similar w/ some variation. Any thoughts?

vonsmith (Ironwood Designs) do you work w/ plastic or polymer molds?

Chaingun
05-19-2006, 1:56 PM
Chaingun,
It will not fly with DOJ. The stock I submitted was similar in it's layout, with the buffer tube not connected to the stock. It was still declared a thumbhole.

As mentioned in the other post, anything that allows the grasp action will probably not be considered OK.

Thanks,
Matt
IWD

Just wondering, who did you speak with for approval? A field agent will knock down the design without knowing what's legal.

A formal submittal similar to the Barrett thumb grip paperwork is required. It should discuss legal issues/laws, with a conclusion that it meets all requirements for a legal stock/grip.

vonsmith
05-19-2006, 2:43 PM
Just wondering, who did you speak with for approval? A field agent will knock down the design without knowing what's legal.

A formal submittal similar to the Barrett thumb grip paperwork is required. It should discuss legal issues/laws, with a conclusion that it meets all requirements for a legal stock/grip.

Chaingun,
Do you know where one might get a copy of an example of a proper submittal? I think an example would help those of us here that are legally challenged.


=vonsmith=

blacklisted
05-19-2006, 2:48 PM
I think our best bet would be the mysterious barrett thumb grip.

shopkeep
05-19-2006, 2:52 PM
Chaingun,
It will not fly with DOJ. The stock I submitted was similar in it's layout, with the buffer tube not connected to the stock. It was still declared a thumbhole.

As mentioned in the other post, anything that allows the grasp action will probably not be considered OK.

Thanks,
Matt
IWD

Have you ever considered a design that would work with gas pistol uppers which require NO BUFFER TUBE :)?

The design may be considered a "thumbhole stock" when a buffer tube is present, but lets see one on a gas pistol rifle with no buffer :)!

vonsmith
05-19-2006, 3:16 PM
Hey guy's. Like a virus I'm spreading from one thread "Submit your design..." to this one. My ideas are pretty similar w/ some variation. Any thoughts?

vonsmith (Ironwood Designs) do you work w/ plastic or polymer molds?

Being in aerospace we draw everything in 3D parametric CAD, automatically fab a plastic mock up, send the 3D drawing to a tooling house where they generate molds from the CAD model and then have parts molded by a supplier.

Since I'm an electronic guy I'll have to ask our mechanical guys what would be minimally required.


=vonsmith=

AxonGap
05-19-2006, 3:31 PM
Being in aerospace we draw everything in 3D parametric CAD, automatically fab a plastic mock up, send the 3D drawing to a tooling house where they generate molds from the CAD model and then have parts molded by a supplier.

Since I'm an electronic guy I'll have to ask our mechanical guys what would be minimally be required.


=vonsmith=
That would be awesome. Myself, I'm a graphic designer more on the conceptual side of things (Photoshop/Illustrator, 3DSM, CAD, Shade, etc. I have done a lot of work w/ ergonomics/anthropomorphic design in the past so this type of conceptual work is pretty familiar. Hopefully this weekend I'll try and sculpt a "mock-up" of my design for all to see.

Ironwood Designs
05-19-2006, 4:53 PM
Vonsmith,
Addressing your thumbhole question. It's kind of answered in the quote of my post in your post. The stock I submitted to DOJ had a gap between the buffer tube and the actual stock, just like the break between the grip and tube in the image from Axon, v4b. DOJ still declared it a thumbhole. I think their twisted logic is that any gap that allows the thumb to pass through it is in their eyes, a thumbhole.

Axon,
I work with wood. We have been manufacturing gun stocks for military rifles for the past 14 years. I am well versed in CAD design, programming, fixturing etc... We have done some plastic machining, but only for custom requests, and piece parts for some of our other products.

I realize that many might want plastic, but it can be problematic due to the time required to make molds and set up for large unit runs. It still costs a bit per unit unless you are running thousands of units at a pop.

With wood, I can work up a prototype in a day, which includes design work, g-code creation, and test cutting. Usually it takes 3 test cuts to get the final part cleaned up. After that, it's plug and play. I can run 20 units or 500 units, righty away.

With an epoxy black textured paint, the wood would look like the AR plastic furniture. Using wood, it's less expoensive to set up and run parts. Changes can be made as feedback comes in. You are not tied to one design/mold.

Matt
IWD

Ironwood Designs
05-19-2006, 4:57 PM
Chaingun,
Sorry, forgot to answer question.

The stock was submitted directly to Iggy Chin, wih documentation pointing out all of the evil grip features that were not present in our design.

1 1/2 weeks after submittal, parts returned with letter declaring thumbhole status.

Matt
IWD

AxonGap
05-19-2006, 5:12 PM
Vonsmith,
Addressing your thumbhole question. It's kind of answered in the quote of my post in your post. The stock I submitted to DOJ had a gap between the buffer tube and the actual stock, just like the break between the grip and tube in the image from Axon, v4b. DOJ still declared it a thumbhole. I think their twisted logic is that any gap that allows the thumb to pass through it is in their eyes, a thumbhole.

Axon,
I work with wood. We have been manufacturing gun stocks for military rifles for the past 14 years. I am well versed in CAD design, programming, fixturing etc... We have done some plastic machining, but only for custom requests, and piece parts for some of our other products.

I realize that many might want plastic, but it can be problematic due to the time required to make molds and set up for large unit runs. It still costs a bit per unit unless you are running thousands of units at a pop.

With wood, I can work up a prototype in a day, which includes design work, g-code creation, and test cutting. Usually it takes 3 test cuts to get the final part cleaned up. After that, it's plug and play. I can run 20 units or 500 units, righty away.

With an epoxy black textured paint, the wood would look like the AR plastic furniture. Using wood, it's less expoensive to set up and run parts. Changes can be made as feedback comes in. You are not tied to one design/mold.

Matt
IWD
Thanks for the feedback! This weekend I hope to create a model of my design/s and take pictures. I am assuming the wood you use is a laminate/polymer impregnated type?

Chaingun
05-19-2006, 5:45 PM
Chaingun,
Sorry, forgot to answer question.

The stock was submitted directly to Iggy Chin, wih documentation pointing out all of the evil grip features that were not present in our design.

1 1/2 weeks after submittal, parts returned with letter declaring thumbhole status.

Matt
IWD

Like the lowers, we have to go to the legal authorities for the better stocks.

Did you submit a stock like what Axiom has drawn up?

Ironwood Designs
05-19-2006, 6:57 PM
Axon,
We can use whatever wood you want. A simple piece of hardwood Walnut will work fine. Laminate is far more expensive, but, would look nice if a black on grey blank was used. Either way will be fine, as there will not be much stress on a grip of this type, as it will follow the butt stock profile, and won't be hanging below the receiver.

Chaingun,
have not submitted my new design as of yet. I have been buried with my current A2 wood set production run, for the the free states. I may put something together this coming week. If I do get one cut, I will post asap for everyone to complain about.....I mean to review.

Thanks,
Matt
IWD

dezertrat
05-26-2006, 3:54 PM
how bout a new version of the "tumor?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/tkoproductions/tumor.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/tkoproductions/tumor2.jpg

i know its henious, but i think it will fly

tygerpaw
05-26-2006, 4:24 PM
I had envisioned something like this also. Did you make it yourself? How can we get one? Its ugly (please dont take offense, anything but the real thing is ugly), but it looks a lot more ergonomic than no grip or SRB.

AxonGap
05-26-2006, 4:40 PM
I like it! We need as many alternatives as we can get. Whats your grip made of? Is this a preliminary design?

dezertrat
05-26-2006, 4:42 PM
i found it by searching "ar15 tumor grip" on google. if anyone knows where we can get one, or who makes/made them please do tell.

Unknownassailant
05-26-2006, 4:44 PM
how bout a new version of the "tumor?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/tkoproductions/tumor.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/tkoproductions/tumor2.jpg

i know its henious, but i think it will fly

"It's nawt ah tumah!"

the_quark
05-26-2006, 11:20 PM
When the DOJ says "we have no opinion, it's up to the DA to decide" this is the closest you'll ever get to them saying it's lawful.

Maybe I'm getting overly indiginant, here, but isn't this pretty much the definition of unconstitutionally vague? When you write the DOJ and say "Is this against the law?" and they say, "Doesn't much look like it to us, but you could be prosecuted at any time?"

The standard for this stuff comes from Grayned v. City of Rockford, which says, among other things, "A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application." Hmm, that how does that jibe with "Any of California's 58 District Attorneys could decide to charge you at any time...?"

Every time the DOJ changes their definition of what the law actually means they make it more and more obvious that a person of average intelligence cannot just read the text of the law and figure out what's prohibited and what isn't. When a citizen can write the DOJ and say, "Is this legal?" and the DOJ says, "Heck if we know!" it seems pretty clear we're dealing with an unconstitutionally vague law. None of us has any idea what's legal or not at this point, and it all comes down to "well, we'll just have to see what we get prosecuted for, and if we win." Which I'd call "delegat[ing] basic policy matters to policemen, judges and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis."