PDA

View Full Version : So, Does this quailify as a Pistol Grip or Thumbhole Stock? (warning: Ugly)


Dump1567
05-15-2006, 7:49 PM
This is what you create when your bored. Try not to throw-up. Under DOJ definitions, is this a Pistol Grip or Thumbhole Stock? You would need to run a tube above the stock (like Ace Ltd.'s pistol tube). This would still give you your cheekwield. You could also run a carbine stock tube. This would allow you to take off the lower stock, add a pistol grip & add the collapsable stock when out of state. I figured someone with some skill could make something similar to this (but pretty). Here's what I got:eek: :







http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/Dump1567/UGLY.jpg

Ace pistol stock:

http://www.riflestocks.com/images05/AR/ARP-AR.jpg
http://www.riflestocks.com/images05/AR/ARPkit2.jpg

MonsterMan
05-15-2006, 7:59 PM
This I believe would be a thumbhole stock/pistol grip. As long as you can wrap that thumb around the grip and it is on or below the top of the exposed trigger line, you are never going to get a go ahead from doj.

MonsterMan

Dump1567
05-15-2006, 8:15 PM
Or if someone has some plastic manufacturing skills;) :

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/Dump1567/UGLY2.jpg

OR Club Foot:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/Dump1567/UGLY3.jpg

shopkeep
05-15-2006, 8:18 PM
So long as the buffer tube DOES NOT touch or connect with the stock this would not be a thumbhole stock in my opinion. This stock is basically a lowered version of gripping an A2 build by the stock with an SRB installed.

The DOJ will tell you EVERYTHING is a pistol grip, probably even the SRB and a piece of tape over the spring. However, as we discovered with fixed magazine kits the state law is what counts, not hollow threats from an oppressive government agency.

Just focus on conforming with state law. That's what this is really all about in the end, showing them what the law is and making sure they follow it.

Dump1567
05-15-2006, 8:32 PM
Well, I think if someone started to manufacture a stock like the one below, I think even the DOJ would be hard pressed to claim it has a pistol grip. I think this would even pass inspection by you local street cop.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/Dump1567/UGLY3.jpg

PonyFiveO
05-15-2006, 9:49 PM
That reminds me of a few I created in Photoshop a couple of months back :D
http://usera.imagecave.com/PonyFiveO/ARRifleStock3.jpg
http://usera.imagecave.com/PonyFiveO/ARthe1.jpg

...and one with a ZM Weapons upper...
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e208/ponyfiveo/ZMcopy.jpg

Dump1567
05-15-2006, 9:52 PM
That reminds me of one I created a couple of months back :D

ttp://usera.imagecave.com/PonyFiveO/ARthe1.jpg

...and one with a ZM Weapons upper...

ttp://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e208/ponyfiveo/ZMcopy.jpg

So, when do you start production:) . I think this is a good alternative for those that want to run detachable mags.

PonyFiveO
05-15-2006, 10:09 PM
If they decide to NEVER list, I will seriously consider creating a prototype! :)

thmpr
05-15-2006, 10:44 PM
I will be using the FAB10 type pistol grip since it is considered by the ATF as a NON-PG. And dont need the DOJ's opinion on that.

kfitchne
05-15-2006, 11:18 PM
Does any one else agree these excessive grips are getting out of hand? Either they list or they don't.

artherd
05-15-2006, 11:20 PM
Probally a thumbhole stock under the very borad DOJ definition. Possibly not, but so close to such an ambigious definition as to be open to their interpretation.

chris
05-16-2006, 12:01 AM
what is great about the ideas of these stock here? it is the inginuity of Americans do get around bad laws. i would hope stuff like this would help others enjoy their evil weapons. great job on it. i hope it can work legally

CowtownBallin
05-16-2006, 12:09 AM
Why not just take a thumbhole stock, plug the thumbhole, and create a shelf for the thumb on the palm side? :D

adamsreeftank
05-16-2006, 1:58 AM
I'll throw another design into the mix just for fun. Basically the same idea. Thanks to the previous poster for the image.

I'm positive the DOJ would not approve. Too pistol grip looking, even if you could not grasp it like a pistol.

1202

shopkeep
05-16-2006, 2:16 AM
I will be using the FAB10 type pistol grip since it is considered by the ATF as a NON-PG. And dont need the DOJ's opinion on that.

BE CAREFUL, although the DOJ automatically rejects pistol grip replacements just like they do fixed mags, we are still bound by state law. A quick read of applicable state law regarding pistol grips tells us that the FAB-10 grip replacement may not be a "Pistol grip" by federal standards but it is 99.99% likely it is a pistol grip by CA standards. AVOID THIS GRIP.

Chaingun
05-16-2006, 7:37 AM
This is what you create when your bored. Try not to throw-up. Under DOJ definitions, is this a Pistol Grip or Thumbhole Stock? You would need to run a tube above the stock (like Ace Ltd.'s pistol tube). This would still give you your cheekwield. You could also run a carbine stock tube. This would allow you to take off the lower stock, add a pistol grip & add the collapsable stock when out of state. I figured someone with some skill could make something similar to this (but pretty). Here's what I got:eek: :





Your fugly design should be legal. It's no different than a mini14 stock; the web of the hand is above "that" line. The tube is nothing more than a cheek rest. No different than adding a cheek rest to the stock.

vonsmith
05-16-2006, 8:40 AM
I will be using the FAB10 type pistol grip since it is considered by the ATF as a NON-PG. And dont need the DOJ's opinion on that.

thmpr just caused me to have an epiphany! :rolleyes: 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=

AxonGap
05-16-2006, 9:58 AM
I posted this design a few day's ago on another thread. My other design has the hand rest integrated into the stock. I still think that the DOJ will blow these design's off just to spite the OLL craze.

bwiese
05-16-2006, 10:28 AM
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.


Not true. They could very easily disagree with ATF. DOJ has its own regulatory ability to define technical terms used by relevant statutory law. If they started calling bolt actions semiautos or something extreme like that, you could attack those definitions as exceeding regulatory authority, but otherwise BATF vs DOJ differences are par for the course.

Hell, look at the differences between the (former) Federal definition of semiautomatic assault weapon and California's. Both share some concepts but are clearly distinct.

vonsmith
05-16-2006, 10:38 AM
Not true. They could very easily disagree with ATF. DOJ has its own regulatory ability to define technical terms used by relevant statutory law. If they started calling bolt actions semiautos or something extreme like that, you could attack those definitions as exceeding regulatory authority, but otherwise BATF vs DOJ differences are par for the course.

Hell, look at the differences between the (former) Federal definition of semiautomatic assault weapon and California's. Both share some concepts but are clearly distinct.

Despite their differences, state's rights and all that, is there some value in pursuing this? If the ATF buys into a non-PG design or definition does that buy us any leverage with the DOJ? There's nothing I would enjoy more than making the DOJ squirm trying to explain specifically why one of their definitions wasn't compatible with the ATF for the same exact thing. Or is this already SOP (Standard Operating Procedure)?


=vonsmith=

dbol
05-16-2006, 11:59 AM
BE CAREFUL, although the DOJ automatically rejects pistol grip replacements just like they do fixed mags, we are still bound by state law. A quick read of applicable state law regarding pistol grips tells us that the FAB-10 grip replacement may not be a "Pistol grip" by federal standards but it is 99.99% likely it is a pistol grip by CA standards. AVOID THIS GRIP.

Where in your quick read of CA law do you get to your 99.99% conclusion that the FAB10 grip is a "pistol grip"?

Here's the CA by features ban:
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall
also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

Here's the language from the expired Federal by features ban:
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

Which part makes the CA difference so readily apparent to you?

I know that the DOJ isn't bound by the ATF's opinion, but having an ATF opinion issued under identical language would carry quite a bit of weight with a judge.

In any event, it's against our interests to dismiss the FAB10 grip out of hand as a pistol grip and I'm puzzled as to why only a few of us opine that the FAB10 grip is not a pistol grip. At the very least, why can't we just all agree that no one knows for sure and that a risk exists with respect to whether or not law enforcement would arrest and a DA would prosecute (on a by features AW violation) for possession of a detachable-mag FAB10 gripped rifle?

blacklisted
05-16-2006, 1:06 PM
978.20 (e) Pistol Grip that Protrudes Conspicuously Beneath the Action of the Weapon

This term was originally defined as "any component that allows for the grasp, control, and fire of the firearm where the portion grasped is located beneath an imaginary line drawn parallel to the barrel that runs through the top of the exposed trigger" and noticed during the initial comment period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000). This definition was subject to broad interpretation primarily due to the wording "any component." The definition was accordingly initially revised by replacing "any component" with "a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp." The Department believes that the concept of a "pistol style grasp" is generally understood by persons affected by the regulations. This revision: "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp below the top of the exposed trigger" was noticed to the public during the first 15-day notice period (May 10 through May 30, 2000). Subsequent comments resulted in additional modifications. To further clarify the criteria that establishes a "pistol style grasp" and its relationship to a grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, the condition "in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" was added to the definition. The revision also reflects a change from "top of the exposed trigger" to "top of the exposed portion of the trigger" because as one contributor pointed out, the former would mean the upper portion of a trigger, a part of which is exposed, with the balance hidden from view in the receiver of the firearm. The final revised definition: "Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" was noticed during the second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). Although additional comments were received, no comments were received during the second 15-day comment period that warranted additional revisions to the definition.



_______



The federal law said the same thing 'pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon', but I do not know if there was any regulatory law that defined pistol grip federallly.

dbol
05-16-2006, 5:47 PM
The federal law said the same thing 'pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon', but I do not know if there was any regulatory law that defined pistol grip federallly.

I too am not aware of any regulations promulgated under the Federal statute.

In any event, even adding in the regs (and even the "fingers wrapping" concept from the Barrett letter) I don't see how shopkeep is getting to 99.99% certainty that the FAB10 grip is a "pistol grip." I'd just like to hear why he's so sure.

I don't wish to take the discussion of this grip idea further off course, but if people are interested, there is a recent discussion of the FAB10 grip here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=33845

shopkeep
05-16-2006, 5:49 PM
Where in your quick read of CA law do you get to your 99.99% conclusion that the FAB10 grip is a "pistol grip"?


Not only did it look like a PG to me because it allowed for the hand to rest below the "imaginary line" but Bill Weise said it was a Pistol Grip as well. I don't question to words of the Weise one. He knows what he's talking about.

dbol
05-16-2006, 6:07 PM
Not only did it look like a PG to me because it allowed for the hand to rest below the "imaginary line" but Bill Weise said it was a Pistol Grip as well. I don't question to words of the Weise one. He knows what he's talking about.

Unfortunately, neither of those reasons are rooted in CA law.

First, the definition of "pistol grip" from the CA regs requires both:
(i) a pistol style grasp and
(ii) the ability that the web of the hand be placed above the top of the exposed portion of the trigger (your "imaginary line" concept)
I'll give on the hand web placement, but the FAB10 grip just isn't a "pistol style grasp" - the grip angle and firmness of grip available are wrong.

Second, bweise has earned a lot of respect here and I think he's doing the right thing generally by telling people not to use these. I do, however, think he's wrong we he conclusively states that the FAB10 grip is no different than a standard PG under the law. I know my opinion doesn't carry as much weight, but I'd hope my credibility isn't judged on my post count alone... I've been here since v1.0.

shopkeep
05-16-2006, 6:11 PM
Unfortunately, neither of those reasons are rooted in CA law.

First, the definition of "pistol grip" from the CA regs requires both:
(i) a pistol style grasp and
(ii) the ability that the web of the hand be placed above the top of the exposed portion of the trigger (your "imaginary line" concept)
I'll give on the hand web placement, but the FAB10 grip just isn't a "pistol style grasp" - the grip angle and firmness of grip available are wrong.

Second, bweise has earned a lot of respect here and I think he's doing the right thing generally by telling people not to use these. I do, however, think he's wrong we he conclusively states that the FAB10 grip is no different than a standard PG under the law. I know my opinion doesn't carry as much weight, but I'd hope my credibility isn't judged on my post count alone... I've been here since v1.0.

I do want to say that the only time Law Enforcement did encounter one of these grips, a Sheriff's commander decided it was NOT a pistol grip. However, this was in Kern County so it wasn't in enemy territory. Personally the reason I say I'm 99.99% sure is because there is a small chance I could be wrong. However when you look at a photo of a horizontal line passing through the grip it looks too close for comfort.

xenophobe
05-16-2006, 6:38 PM
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1956/grip1fi1wd.jpg

Evil Gun
05-16-2006, 6:42 PM
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1956/grip1fi1wd.jpg
This clearly shows the web of the hand above the imaginary line. I'd stay away from this one. JMHO

dbol
05-16-2006, 6:47 PM
I do want to say that the only time Law Enforcement did encounter one of these grips, a Sheriff's commander decided it was NOT a pistol grip. However, this was in Kern County so it wasn't in enemy territory. Personally the reason I say I'm 99.99% sure is because there is a small chance I could be wrong. However when you look at a photo of a horizontal line passing through the grip it looks too close for comfort.

It's good to know you're so sure that you're right.

Unfortunately, since you've only addressed one aspect of the pistol grip definition and told me that bweise's word is scripture, I remain unconvinced. I think I made it clear in my post above that area in which I believe the FAB10 grip fails to be a "pistol grip" is the "pistol style grasp" requirement, but you chose to ignore that.

I'll tell you what, you show me any pistol that requires a grasp similar to that required by the FAB10 grip (angle and hand position) and I'll shut up.

dbol
05-16-2006, 6:53 PM
This clearly shows the web of the hand above the imaginary line. I'd stay away from this one. JMHO

You might want to go read the applicable regulation again (below). (Also - there are two requirements in the DOJ's definition.)

Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

shopkeep
05-16-2006, 7:28 PM
You might want to go read the applicable regulation again (below). (Also - there are two requirements in the DOJ's definition.)

It really stinks that it's up to us to conform to state law and that state agencies such as the DOJ are just offering their own renegade interpretations rather than assisting us.

Now... going back to the two requirements: is there mention in the regulations that BOTH requirements must be met... or is something a pistol grip if only ONE of those requirements are met :confused: ?

dbol
05-16-2006, 7:42 PM
Now... going back to the two requirements: is there mention in the regulations that BOTH requirements must be met... or is something a pistol grip if only ONE of those requirements are met :confused: ?
The way it's written requires that both requirements be met.

978.20(e) reads, in relevant part, "[a pistol grip] means (1) a grip that allows for a pistol style [sic] grasp (2) in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" (numbering added).

bear
05-18-2006, 6:41 PM
So is the web of the thumb allowed above the line, or below the line?

Now I'm confused...

vonsmith
05-19-2006, 9:31 AM
So is the web of the thumb allowed above the line, or below the line?

Now I'm confused...

You are supposed to be confused, that is what lawyers do when they write this stuff.

The English language interpretation seems clear to me. A legal design is one that either forces the web of the hand to be above the imaginary line during shooting OR does not allow a pistol style grasp. The grip design also cannot protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

A design that allows a pistol style grasp AND allows the web of the hand to be below the imaginary line (the top most exposed part of the trigger) during shooting is illegal.

IMHO.


=vonsmith=

Chaingun
05-19-2006, 9:53 AM
That reminds me of a few I created in Photoshop a couple of months back :D
http://usera.imagecave.com/PonyFiveO/ARRifleStock3.jpg
http://usera.imagecave.com/PonyFiveO/ARthe1.jpg


These look legal and are something I would like.

vonsmith
05-19-2006, 10:30 AM
These look legal and are something I would like.

I think the first 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.

The bottom (fourth) design seems legal to me. It allows a pistol style grasp, BUT the web of the hand is clearly above the imaginary line.


=vonsmith=