Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=67)
-   -   Magpul AFG on Featureless Build? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=254388)

lawaia 12-30-2009 8:37 AM

Magpul AFG on Featureless Build?
 
I am looking for opinions about the legality of running an AFG on a featureless build.

I think I want to give one a try, but my doubts are as follows:

1. It is advertised as a "forward grip" (ie. not a "hand rest" or "hand stop")
2. The "thumbhole" in the design

What do you think?

technique 12-30-2009 8:40 AM

Well, I cant get my thumb in there nor any finger but maybe my pinky.

I can also get a firm grip around the whole triangular part and hold it like a VFG...So I decided not to use it on a pistol build.

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/l...408/AFG4-4.jpg

lawaia 12-30-2009 8:43 AM

I hadn't even considered being able to grip the whole triangular area.

gn3hz3ku1* 12-30-2009 8:47 AM

dude this is CA.. they do call it a FG so who knows how CA can try to screw you

djleisure 12-30-2009 8:48 AM

I believe Magpul is currently looking on clarity from the proper agency (BATF? DOJ?) as to what the AFG is (or isn't?) classified as... until then, I would not mess with it. I like mine on my feature-full rifle though!

bombadillo 12-30-2009 8:52 AM

Well, technique, I went ahead and bought the Magpul AFG on your words so i'll give it a review upon arrival. I couldn't pass up AIMsurplus.com's sale of 32 bucks and a penny shipping. If I don't like it there will be one up in the classifieds soon but i'm putting it on a featureless build so we'll see if it gets me in trouble or not!

technique 12-30-2009 8:57 AM

It really is a great grip...I like it a lot. Seeing a MP is looking for clarification, you may wanna wait until then. Have them spend the money or time and effort having it looked at. Save yours!

shark92651 12-30-2009 9:01 AM

A "pistol grip" is pretty well defined in the CA law, and the law forbids a "forward pistol grip", but there is no extra definition for a "forward" pistol grip. Pistol grips do not have "thumbholes" in them so not sure how that is a factor. Yes, it is advertised as a "grip" but so is the TangoDown Rail Grip, which is just a rail panel that offers a textured and comfortable area to rest your hand on (sound familiar?). Also you can get a "pistol style grasp" around pretty much anything you place on a rail panel - a flashlight mount, a scope ring, a bipod leg. It's clearly not a "pistol grip" in my opinion, however.

I guess the debate will continue, but I think the fact that it is designed to rest only your fingers on it, with your thumb up on the handguard also helps in clarifying it as a NON-pistol grip - same as a MonsterMan grip in my opinion.

dieselpower 12-30-2009 11:20 AM

I am a yo-yo on this issue...

The web of your hand is ABOVE the exposed portion of the trigger....so the definition of a pistol style grasp doesn't fit....and your trigger hand is nowhere near the grip.....but it does "allow" for a pistol-like grip....

killshot44 12-30-2009 11:47 PM

Whoops!

MikeR 12-30-2009 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot44 (Post 3570368)
Call me crazy but...............

Doesn't the photo Techinique used above show it mounted backwards?

Here is DSG Arms' photo:
http://i878.photobucket.com/albums/a..._magpulAFG.jpg

Methinks the "long" end goes toward the mag.


As far as it being considered, shall we say, a Feature ? My thought is yes. Any protrusion below the forward handguard would probably get looked at sideways.

You are crazy. Tech has it mounted right.

I also agree the web of your hand is above the action. I had hope the "right people" might comment because i don't want to be the test case.

ChrisO 12-30-2009 11:57 PM

Tech has it mounted right. The hand stop part faces the business end wich I'm assuming you're calling the "Long" end. He just mounted it a little forward of the carbine rail to basically hold as much gun as he can. Often while using the thumb break technique and using a carbine rail "grabbing as much gun as you can" you will slip you're hand on the gas block/FSB and burn the crap out of you're self. He has it set up to prevent this, The grip is geared more towards people that use this type of grip. I fondled one and it truly is a improvement on the ergo's of gripping the foreguard and I didn't have much trouble with slipping even while pounding out a couple hundred rounds in Full auto on a patrol carbine "M16"

killshot44 12-31-2009 1:04 AM

Yikes!!!! I take it back, I had it reversed...in my head. damn. :41:

Gio 12-31-2009 8:57 AM

Well I guess I will be waiting for the word to come from Magpul about these being okay for use on Featureless Rifles. I would love to use one :D

-Gio

MasterYong 12-31-2009 9:03 AM

There was a pretty extensive thread on this already. Featureless is G2G. This would be like putting a MMG on the front rail- it's just smaller than the MMG.

/still waiting for that calgunner to mod an MMG to be used as a FG. Can't remember his username, but the photoshopped mock-up looked... interesting...

glock_this 12-31-2009 9:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shark92651 (Post 3565954)
A "pistol grip" is pretty well defined in the CA law, and the law forbids a "forward pistol grip", but there is no extra definition for a "forward" pistol grip. Pistol grips do not have "thumbholes" in them so not sure how that is a factor. Yes, it is advertised as a "grip" but so is the TangoDown Rail Grip, which is just a rail panel that offers a textured and comfortable area to rest your hand on (sound familiar?). Also you can get a "pistol style grasp" around pretty much anything you place on a rail panel - a flashlight mount, a scope ring, a bipod leg. It's clearly not a "pistol grip" in my opinion, however.

I guess the debate will continue, but I think the fact that it is designed to rest only your fingers on it, with your thumb up on the handguard also helps in clarifying it as a NON-pistol grip - same as a MonsterMan grip in my opinion.

this is the exact logic I subscribe to and it seems totally clear to me

BUT, before I put it on my AR pistol, I would love to see something more concrete from those with bigger brains or from Magpul

lawaia 12-31-2009 9:04 AM

I doubt that the guys at Magpul even understand what a featureless rifle is.

technique 12-31-2009 9:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawaia (Post 3571245)
I doubt that the guys at Magpul even understand what a featureless rifle is.

No but they know what an AOW is....

bobfried 12-31-2009 9:20 AM

Featureless in CA is good to go in my book. A pistol grip has to allow for a PG style grab with the web of the hand BELOW the action. The AFG does not allow this, even if your hands were HUGE, grasping it ala VFG style would still have the web of your hand above the action.

Of course this is all relating to CA law, which Magpul will most likely not give anyone a firm answer as DOJ would never give them a firm answer.

The only firm answer we might get is from ATF in regards to this being used on a Pistol, in which case it can than be argued that if ATF does not considered a VFg than it is also not a VFG in CA. So right now I'd say it's g2g on CA featureless but not on Pistols.

MasterYong 12-31-2009 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobfried (Post 3571307)
Featureless in CA is good to go in my book. A pistol grip has to allow for a PG style grab with the web of the hand BELOW the action. The AFG does not allow this, even if your hands were HUGE, grasping it ala VFG style would still have the web of your hand above the action.

Of course this is all relating to CA law, which Magpul will most likely not give anyone a firm answer as DOJ would never give them a firm answer.

The only firm answer we might get is from ATF in regards to this being used on a Pistol, in which case it can than be argued that if ATF does not considered a VFg than it is also not a VFG in CA. So right now I'd say it's g2g on CA featureless but not on Pistols.

Except that ATF definitions are often different than CADOJ definitions.

I still agree that it's G2G (featureless), but I wouldn't trust that the CADOJ would follow suit with whatever the ATF decides.

Fate 12-31-2009 7:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shark92651 (Post 3565954)
A "pistol grip" is pretty well defined in the CA law, and the law forbids a "forward pistol grip", but there is no extra definition for a "forward" pistol grip.

Actually forward pistol grip is defined.

Quote:

Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, 5469
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(c) "forward pistol grip" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger.


(d) "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.
And this is where bobfried makes a faulty leap of logic when he said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by bobfried (Post 3571307)
Featureless in CA is good to go in my book. A pistol grip has to allow for a PG style grab with the web of the hand BELOW the action. The AFG does not allow this, even if your hands were HUGE, grasping it ala VFG style would still have the web of your hand above the action.

(c) above defines forward pistol grip as allowing a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger. It says NOTHING that includes the definition of a "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" from part (d).

So there's a disconnect. While it's logical that (c) would include (d), it doesn't. So a forward pistol grip is not bound by the web of the hand below the action definition.

(c) just states if you can get a pistol style grasp on a GRIP mounted in front of the trigger, then it's a forward pistol grip. It specifies "grip", so things like sling mounts, bipods, light mounts are not included.

The AFG is marketed and used as a grip.

I would not use one on a featureless build or a pistol.

Like it or not, this is a pistol style grasp using this grip:

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/l...408/AFG4-4.jpg

dchang0 12-31-2009 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fate (Post 3574179)
Actually forward pistol grip is defined.



And this is where bobfried makes a faulty leap of logic when he said:

(c) above defines forward pistol grip as allowing a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger. It says NOTHING that includes the definition of a "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" from part (d).

So there's a disconnect. While it's logical that (c) would include (d), it doesn't. So a forward pistol grip is not bound by the web of the hand below the action definition.

(c) just states if you can get a pistol style grasp on a GRIP mounted in front of the trigger, then it's a forward pistol grip. It specifies "grip", so things like sling mounts, bipods, light mounts are not included.

The AFG is marketed and used as a grip.

I would not use one on a featureless build or a pistol.

Like it or not, this is a pistol style grasp using this grip:

Nailed it, Fate. Thanks for actually posting up the relevant PC.

Fate 12-31-2009 8:20 PM

Honestly hate being the wet blanket as the AFG looks good and I'm a big proponent of featureless rifles.

Further clarifying the relationship of (c) and (d), since (c) comes before (d) and makes no mention of (d)'s definitions, it's not bound by (d). (sounds like Abbot/Costello "Who's on First?" right? LOL).

And since "grip" is an important element of (c), it greenlights the KAC handstop on a featureless build. Not only is it not used or marketed as any form of grip (nor can you even remotely hold the rifle with it in any form of a pistol style grasp), it's a sling mount too. There's your GTG item on a featureless build, that's very defensible in court.

The AFG...not so much.

bombadillo 01-01-2010 12:32 AM

Blast you!!! Maybe I won't use it on this one, i'll use it on my carbine and use a handstop by KAC on my featureless.

glock_this 01-01-2010 6:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fate (Post 3574281)
Honestly hate being the wet blanket as the AFG looks good and I'm a big proponent of featureless rifles.

Further clarifying the relationship of (c) and (d), since (c) comes before (d) and makes no mention of (d)'s definitions, it's not bound by (d). (sounds like Abbot/Costello "Who's on First?" right? LOL).

And since "grip" is an important element of (c), it greenlights the KAC handstop on a featureless build. Not only is it not used or marketed as any form of grip (nor can you even remotely hold the rifle with it in any form of a pistol style grasp), it's a sling mount too. There's your GTG item on a featureless build, that's very defensible in court.

The AFG...not so much.

and this is why I said I would wait for bigger brains with more specific law and definition knowledge to tackle the black and white wording of the law.

I can so easily see both sides of this argument.

shark92651 01-01-2010 8:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fate (Post 3574179)
Actually forward pistol grip is defined.

And this is where bobfried makes a faulty leap of logic when he said:

(c) above defines forward pistol grip as allowing a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger. It says NOTHING that includes the definition of a "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" from part (d).

So there's a disconnect. While it's logical that (c) would include (d), it doesn't. So a forward pistol grip is not bound by the web of the hand below the action definition.

(c) just states if you can get a pistol style grasp on a GRIP mounted in front of the trigger, then it's a forward pistol grip. It specifies "grip", so things like sling mounts, bipods, light mounts are not included.

The AFG is marketed and used as a grip.

I would not use one on a featureless build or a pistol.

Like it or not, this is a pistol style grasp using this grip:

Thanks for pointing out the separate definition of "forward pistol grip". But for the sake of argument, since the definition of "pistol grip" cannot be applied and all that is written in the law is the following:

"forward pistol grip" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger.

Does this also mean that a finger stop or bipod leg could also be considered a FPG? I'm not sure if the terms used in marketing a product are relevant. If Magpul called it a "comfort rest" or something like that, would that help our arguments? This stuff is maddening, the placement and shape of a simple piece of plastic on our guns is the difference between being law-abiding and being a criminal :eek:

Fate 01-01-2010 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shark92651 (Post 3575528)
Does this also mean that a finger stop or bipod leg could also be considered a FPG? I'm not sure if the terms used in marketing a product are relevant. If Magpul called it a "comfort rest" or something like that, would that help our arguments? This stuff is maddening, the placement and shape of a simple piece of plastic on our guns is the difference between being law-abiding and being a criminal :eek:

No, a non-grip cannot be considered a FPG. This is why grip was specifically added to the language of the bill. Early versions essentially stated "any protruding object that could be held forward of the trigger" would be an illegal feature. In the comments period this was pointed out as incredibly broad and such things as bipods, sling mounts, light mounts, etc were mentioned as then falling into the overbroad definition. Thus the bill was rewritten to state "grip" as the specific thing that's banned.

See pages 17-22 in the following document to see comments/responses and see how we got where we are:
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...regs/fsor.pdf? (link updated 5/14/13)

Full background:
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23indx.php

darkjedi351 01-15-2010 10:56 PM

you know tech's pic is very misleading. the AFG isn't designed to be held that way at all.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...gled-foregrip/

http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/q...8_1-tfb-tm.jpg

darkjedi351 01-15-2010 11:13 PM

yea, i know. we need to vote those a**clowns out of office!
so it's a no go on a featurless but how about with a fixed 10 round mag?

DedEye 01-15-2010 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkjedi351 (Post 3648726)
yea, i know. we need to vote those a**clowns out of office!
so it's a no go on a featurless but how about with a fixed 10 round mag?

Anything (non-NFA) goes on a fixed, ten round magazine rifle.

DanHuuN 01-16-2010 1:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DedEye (Post 3648743)
Anything (non-NFA) goes on a fixed, ten round magazine rifle.

DITTO

ChrisO 01-16-2010 1:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkjedi351 (Post 3648638)
you know tech's pic is very misleading. the AFG isn't designed to be held that way at all.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...gled-foregrip/

http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/q...8_1-tfb-tm.jpg


It doesn't matter if the pic is misleading or if it's not meant to be used that way, IT CAN BE! Nuff said, You would have a very hard time defending that in court.

Jpach 01-16-2010 6:19 PM

Fill the open space in the AFC. That seems to be a fix

technique 01-16-2010 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DedEye (Post 3648664)
And yet that doesn't matter as far as California law is concerned.

Yup. Pretty much.
Its not so much that "its not the way its intended to be held"...its that you can.

ChrisO 01-16-2010 7:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jpach (Post 3652079)
Fill the open space in the AFC. That seems to be a fix

I don't really think the open space is the problem, Did you not see the pic tech posted? He is not holding through the hole and holding it with a pistol grip type grasp.

Jpach 01-17-2010 1:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisO (Post 3652457)
I don't really think the open space is the problem, Did you not see the pic tech posted? He is not holding through the hole and holding it with a pistol grip type grasp.

Damnit. Didnt some people say its cool to use a Kydexgrip/MMG type thing as a foregrip since it doesnt allow for a pg-style grasp? Shouldnt this be the same then?

I see what your saying and I agree with you actually, Im just bringing up something that might aid in the discussion here.

Doesnt a finger stop technically allow a PG style grasp too?

Fate 01-17-2010 8:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jpach (Post 3653607)
Damnit. Didnt some people say its cool to use a Kydex grip/MMG type thing as a foregrip since it doesnt allow for a pg-style grasp? Shouldnt this be the same then?

Kydex/MMG don't allow a pistol style grasp. Thus, GTG. Now if you actually added a Kydex "fin" that extended behind the AFG, like a MMG, it'd be ok on a featureless. Ugly, but legal.

Quote:

Doesnt a finger stop technically allow a PG style grasp too?
See posts 21 and 27. The finger stop is not a grip and thus it's irrelevant whether or not you *might* be able to get the web of the hand behind it. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to actually HOLD and CONTROL a rifle with one hand using only the KAC handstop. It's impossible.

Jpach 01-18-2010 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fate (Post 3654139)
Kydex/MMG don't allow a pistol style grasp. Thus, GTG. Now if you actually added a Kydex "fin" that extended behind the AFG, like a MMG, it'd be ok on a featureless. Ugly, but legal.


See posts 21 and 27. The finger stop is not a grip and thus it's irrelevant whether or not you *might* be able to get the web of the hand behind it. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to actually HOLD and CONTROL a rifle with one hand using only the KAC handstop. It's impossible.

Sorry, I wasnt specific enough. I meant the kydex grip/mmg used as foregrips. Ive seen it done before and it seemed that people gave it the OK on a featureless build IIRC. Perhaps I recalled incorrectly?

Jwood562 01-18-2010 8:30 AM

You will never get a concrete answer. even with the people in the DOJ or ATF or wherever. ALl of the products produced today bring up boundries and push the limits of legal definitions/intensions/literature. You can propose this question to different people at different agencies and get a handful of different answers. You can throw it at different DAs and get different answers.

People even push the envelope when they mount BUIS on the underside of their rail for a hand stop, technically it can be gripped in the same manner that technique has shown above. NOw I know that is not what a BUIS was made for but it is the manner that it is being used and the fact is that it is being used as a FG.

it is just a matter of time before somebody is the sacrifcial lamb and gets slaughtered in court by some over zealous DA or ATF agent.

When in doubt... leave it out

I am in the same boat and would give anything to throw the AFG on my pistol but I fell that its not worth the risk

Fate 01-18-2010 8:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jpach (Post 3658915)
Sorry, I wasnt specific enough. I meant the kydex grip/mmg used as foregrips. Ive seen it done before and it seemed that people gave it the OK on a featureless build IIRC. Perhaps I recalled incorrectly?

Kydex as forward grip is good to go.

MMG *might* be a bad idea as you could potentially get a pistol style grasp on it, like the AFG. Used up front, it doesn't require you to actually be able to reach a trigger like it does in the normal pistol grip spot, so that's something to consider. I don't have a MMG to actually check it out.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.