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)
-   -   FRS-15 - Featureless Rifle Stock, question? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=650978)

AlexDD 11-30-2012 10:04 PM

FRS-15 - Featureless Rifle Stock, question?
 
http://imageshack.us/a/img11/386/riflestock01.jpg

So I saw this in the commercial sales section. If this is legal that is fantastic.

I am confused if the web of the hand can get behind the action how it can be ok even if it is a fixed stock as the manufacturer mentions.

AlexDD 11-30-2012 10:08 PM

Here is the thread

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=650750

Mods please move this to 2A if more applicable or back to the commercial thread. Just want to flesh out the arguments pro and con to the potential risks if any without getting into the marketing of the product..

AlexDD 11-30-2012 10:25 PM

Here it is visually

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/01/yby5yje7.jpg

From G Hoffman's website, doj pistol grip definition.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ...tion-Image.jpg

TheExiled 11-30-2012 10:28 PM

Should be legal but dayum its ugly

stix213 11-30-2012 10:54 PM

hmmm, thumb looks a tad low to me.

Chaos47 12-01-2012 1:29 AM

Thordo is claiming it is a "fixed rifle stock" and not subject to the "pistol grip" definition.

He quotes "fixed rifle stock" like that it is listed in the law and defined.. it's not.

I don't know what to think of it yet.

DasBoost 12-01-2012 2:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheExiled (Post 9826719)
Should be legal but dayum its ugly

Not a looker at all, though the forend has inspired a Storntrooper AR build. :43:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 9826841)
hmmm, thumb looks a tad low to me.

I don't know how to feel on that, it seems lower than the EM but there's no side by side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaos47 (Post 9827277)
Thordo is claiming it is a "fixed rifle stock" and not subject to the "pistol grip" definition.

He quotes "fixed rifle stock" like that it is listed in the law and defined.. it's not.

I don't know what to think of it yet.

My feelings exactly.

Thordo 12-01-2012 4:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexDD (Post 9826698)
Here it is visually

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/01/yby5yje7.jpg

From G Hoffman's website, doj pistol grip definition.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ...tion-Image.jpg

Hi AlexDD,
You've answered your own queston with the pictures. Gene's picture is in reference to a "DOJ-Pistol-Grip-Definition". Mine is not a pistol grip but a fixed position rifle stock with more of a traditional rifle style grasp. Therefore, the placement of the web between trigger finger and thumb does not apply.

The curvature is modeled after my Mauser model 98. The overall design is IMO quite elegant but more importantly, it is VERY comfortable to hold and shoot.

pc_load_letter 12-01-2012 7:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheExiled (Post 9826719)
Should be legal but dayum its ugly

ha ha, I guess beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder!

I think it looks pretty sweet...

It's scratching my featureless itch!

Full Clip 12-01-2012 7:41 AM

Similar but not the same as the no-longer available U-15, which was not terrible looking...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...oys/AR15Rt.jpg

AlexDD 12-01-2012 8:09 AM

@thordo

The difference that I am seeing between your stock and say the U15 or say the exile hammerhead is that it never drops below that line of the action.

Great idea but I am trying to flesh out the fixed stock "exemption"

So I am going to pretend I am arguing with the lawyers at my work, what if you designed it the same way but had it a 90 degree south from the grip then 180 degree east then north 90 degree for the buttpad (I will try to get a pic). That would be ridiculous, but would it qualify as a fixed rifle stock?

That example would blatantly show the web grip due to geometry.

On a design note, it is at A1/A2 length, is there consideration for the ability to cut some LOP off, say near a Sully stock length without hurting its strength or touching the receiver extension.

PS Thanks for innovating.

AlexDD 12-01-2012 8:24 AM

The Thordo high stock grip reminds me of the tubb ar15 video though I have never tried one.


AlexDD 12-01-2012 8:45 AM

Thordo,

Since I am an engineer, visual aids help me. From my example above, here is a picture. Let's say it could absorb the recoil force for illustrative purposes.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/02/jahura8u.jpg

Is this a legal rifle stock configuration?

Here it is another way from the commercial thread

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...1&d=1354491364

spdrcr 12-01-2012 9:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thordo (Post 9827471)
Hi AlexDD,
You've answered your own queston with the pictures. Gene's picture is in reference to a "DOJ-Pistol-Grip-Definition". Mine is not a pistol grip but a fixed position rifle stock with more of a traditional rifle style grasp. Therefore, the placement of the web between trigger finger and thumb does not apply.

The curvature is modeled after my Mauser model 98. The overall design is IMO quite elegant but more importantly, it is VERY comfortable to hold and shoot.


The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(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 exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

By that definition, your "fixed stock" would still be considered a pistol grip. When grasping your "fixed stock" you can still use a pistol style grasp where the web of the trigger hand is below the action - all that white space below the pink line in the image you quoted.

That is why the U15 stock goes straight back from the receiver rather than curving down like yours.

AlexDD 12-01-2012 10:20 AM

I read it the same as Spdrcr.

That is why I posted the Saiga drawing modification since that would be a glaring loophole if legal with the Thordo design taken to the extreme.

Wildhawk66 12-01-2012 10:21 AM

Wasn't there discussion and relative consensus that the Promag Archangel stock has the same problem with low thumb placement and as such would require a fixed mag?

http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/p...k66/612835.jpg

In my opinion it looks to me like the Frs-15 puts the thumb a fraction of an inch too low. Its very close to being compliant in my mind and maybe a minor tweak in design would be able to correct the issue? I'm interested in one of these and hoping this gets resolved so that I am comfortable buying one.

http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/p...flestock01.jpg

hoffmang 12-01-2012 10:23 AM

1. This is not a pistol grip. When attached to the firearm, please show me where the stock is.

2. A pistol style grasp has a meaning and this is a rifle style grasp. There are quite a few M1A stocks that are almost exactly the same.

3. If there is confusion, then it's a comment on the law and not the stock. It's the sense of CGF that we can defend anyone accused of having a "by features AW" when simply using this stock.

-Gene

AlexDD 12-01-2012 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 9828833)
1. This is not a pistol grip. When attached to the firearm, please show me where the stock is.

2. A pistol style grasp has a meaning and this is a rifle style grasp. There are quite a few M1A stocks that are almost exactly the same.

3. If there is confusion, then it's a comment on the law and not the stock. It's the sense of CGF that we can defend anyone accused of having a "by features AW" when simply using this stock.

-Gene

Thank you for your clarifications!

Awesome to have options :)

Wildhawk66 12-01-2012 10:39 AM

pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(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 exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/p...estock01-2.jpg
The issue as I see it

Wildhawk66 12-01-2012 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 9828833)
1. This is not a pistol grip. When attached to the firearm, please show me where the stock is.

2. A pistol style grasp has a meaning and this is a rifle style grasp. There are quite a few M1A stocks that are almost exactly the same.

3. If there is confusion, then it's a comment on the law and not the stock. It's the sense of CGF that we can defend anyone accused of having a "by features AW" when simply using this stock.

-Gene

So the argument is that the part you grip on the Frs-15 is the stock, not the grip so 122761(d) wouldn't apply? Great to hear that CGF is comfortable with this and willing to defend it if an issue arises. Thats good enough for me.

Does that also mean the Promag Archangel should be considered legal as well?

strongpoint 12-01-2012 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 9828833)
1. This is not a pistol grip. When attached to the firearm, please show me where the stock is.

2. A pistol style grasp has a meaning and this is a rifle style grasp. There are quite a few M1A stocks that are almost exactly the same.

3. If there is confusion, then it's a comment on the law and not the stock. It's the sense of CGF that we can defend anyone accused of having a "by features AW" when simply using this stock.

-Gene

i'm not buying this. if a promag archangel stock integrates an SB23 pistol grip (which i think it clearly does), then so does this. is it the sense of CGF that you can defend anyone accused of possessing a by-features AW when using an archangel?

i think a prosecutor could fairly easily convince a jury that the grip can be integral to a larger component -- the stock -- and that such a grip isn't thus relieved of the burden of remaining compliant with the SB23 definition of a "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon."

sorry, thordo -- i love your stuff, and this thing is tremendously creative, but i think it's problematic.

spdrcr 12-01-2012 3:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 9828833)
1. This is not a pistol grip. When attached to the firearm, please show me where the stock is.

2. A pistol style grasp has a meaning and this is a rifle style grasp. There are quite a few M1A stocks that are almost exactly the same.

3. If there is confusion, then it's a comment on the law and not the stock. It's the sense of CGF that we can defend anyone accused of having a "by features AW" when simply using this stock.

-Gene

To comment on the points you made -

1. I don't see anywhere in the law where being able to hold a weapon using a pistol style grasp at some point on the weapon and use as a stock are mutually exclusive. A thumb-hole stock is one example of that - clearly incorporating a grip that can be held with a "pistol style grasp". AlexDD's photoshopped picture would be another extreme case of that where the "thumb-hole" portion has been opened up. Would that configuration be ok too? It seems to me that just because you can shoulder a weapon from a given point doesn't mean it can't be held using a pistol style grasp at another point.

2. This stock still allows a pistol style grasp as defined in the written portion of the law quoted above. Is there a different portion of the law defining a rifle style grasp? Can you provide an image on another rifle which has a "rifle style grasp" where the web of the hand is allowed to protrude below the action of the weapon and a fixed magazine is not required? All of the M1A stocks I've seen that do not require the use of a bullet button keep the web of the hand well above the action of the rifle.

3. I guess that may be good information to know for someone willing to take on this risk. To me, there are too many other options which are not pushing the envelope of the law. Hopefully no one will have to be the test case. Because regardless of being defensible, the process of being charged and having to prove one's innocence can still ruin a life and livelihood.

Thordo 12-01-2012 6:44 PM

[QUOTE=AlexDD;9828157]The Thordo high stock grip reminds me of the tubb ar15 video though I have never tried one.

Hi AlexDD,
Interesting video. We actually experimented with a thumb shelf type design similar to this in our early prototypes. User feedback was not favorable. The grasp was not a problem but manipulating the safety was VERY uncomfortable and an operator could not transition from left to right hand operation.

Thordo

speedrrracer 12-01-2012 7:31 PM

Holy crap. My brain is melting. Gene says it's legit. There is no stronger authority in my mind unless there were a picture of this bloody thing in the PC under the caption "allowed configurations".

Yet it clearly seems to allow a pistol style grip below the action. I can't avoid thinking someone is going to end up a test case on this one.

To be clear, this is a completely epic product and I thank Thordsen Customs for seeking innovative solutions for those of us burdened by insane CA gun laws. I just don't understand how it can be legal, even after reading what Gene wrote (not understand Gene / other lawyers is a common thing for me).

vintagearms 12-01-2012 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildhawk66 (Post 9828932)
pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(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 exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/p...estock01-2.jpg
The issue as I see it

Thats how I saw it as well. Thankfully, CGF will step up to defend just in case.

Fate 12-01-2012 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagearms (Post 9832182)
Thats how I saw it as well. Thankfully, CGF will step up to defend just in case.

Unfortunately, that doesn't magically guarantee a win in a game where a loss means a felony conviction, prison time and lifetime loss of gun rights. I sometimes think people forget this and assume the CGF will save their bacon like some superhero, regardless of the odds.

As to the legality of the stock on a featureless, I'm still uncommitted to either side of the fence at the moment. Gonna sleep on it.

Fate 12-01-2012 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexDD (Post 9826598)

The problem I have in accepting it's a rifle style grip (besides the fact that such is not defined in the PC) is I think a pistol style grasp is attainable, especially when you consider pistols such as this:

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/im...ck/Tower_2.jpg

However the definition of a pistol grip is a "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 exposed portion of the trigger while firing."

So...is it a grip rather than a stock? Of that, I'm not so sure. Interesting for sure.

UserM4 12-01-2012 9:30 PM

How does that stock not require a mag lock when people believe (possibly by mistake) that ProMag Archangle for the M1a requires one.
http://savethegun.files.wordpress.co...-m1a.jpg?w=640

strongpoint 12-01-2012 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagearms (Post 9832182)
CGF will step up to defend just in case.

this is not quite what hoffmang said -- can != will. let's be clear about that.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fate (Post 9832427)
So...is it a grip rather than a stock?

why wouldn't it be both? there are plenty of stocks in the world on which the grip is integrated into the stock, not a separate component. couldn't you point to one section of a JAE stock, for instance, and say, "that's the grip"? could a prosecutor convince a jury (one not made up of discriminating firearm enthusiasts) of this?

let me ask the question from a different perspective: are we to infer that CGF now believes such stocks are not subject to SB23 restrictions on pistol grips?

Fate 12-03-2012 8:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongpoint (Post 9832913)
why wouldn't it be both? there are plenty of stocks in the world on which the grip is integrated into the stock, not a separate component. couldn't you point to one section of a JAE stock, for instance, and say, "that's the grip"? could a prosecutor convince a jury (one not made up of discriminating firearm enthusiasts) of this?

That's what I'm afraid of. What might be "technically legal" is also subject to jury nullification. We're behind enemy lines.

Wildhawk66 12-03-2012 11:31 AM

My thoughts on the legality of the FRS-15 have really been swinging back and forth the more I think about it.

As I understand it, the argument being put forward for the legality of this stock is that the FRS-15 is in fact a stock and specifically not a grip. And since the overall part is in fact a stock, not a grip, it is not subject to Penal code section 12276.1 which specifies when a standard grip should be considered an evil pistol grip. So, even though the FRS-15 may place the web of the hand below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger this section of code is not applicable as the FRS-15 is actually a stock.

I get it. This does make sense and I appreciate the fact that CGF is willing to defend the concept. On a side note, the Promag Archangel Stock for the M1A seems a perfect example of this concept as there is no question that the part is a stock with integral grip.

The more I think about it though, I am having trouble accepting that the FRS-15 is in fact a stock with an integral grip. The reason is that the FRS-15 mounts to the factory AR15 grip mounting point and not to the factory stock mounting point. To me, this makes the FRS-15 a grip with integral stock and not the other way around. As such, it seems to me that penal code 12276.1 would be back in play and an FRS-15 equipped rifle would require the use of a fix magazine as the gripping area places the web of the hand below the exposed top portion of the trigger.

I'm really interested in one of these stocks and I would like to come to a different conclusion, but my inexpert opinion at the moment is that a prosecutor would have a pretty easy time convincing a jury that the FRS-15 is actually a grip with an integral stock based on its mounting point.

Thoughts?

AlexDD 12-03-2012 1:07 PM

It will be an interesting first test case if it does go to court.


Not sure if that test video was taken in California. Probably was.

If the confidence level is high, the manufacturer could post a video of himself taking a AR15 upper without features, then taking a non mag locked non registered AW lower (S&W, BCM, WW etc ...) removing the collapsible stock, remove the pistol grip, then attach his new stock to lower, then attaching the lower to the upper. All this would need to be done in California.

Then, if no charges are filed by the DOJ or DA, the perception of legality would greatly increase.

I kind of wish the guys from Battlecomp would do the same thing with their comp since they claim it is gtg on a featureless yet others have their doubts as it could be a FH.

Not sure if any one wants to be the first to take the challenge.

Fate 12-03-2012 1:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexDD (Post 9842843)
I kind of wish the guys from Battlecomp would do the same thing with their comp since they claim it is gtg on a featureless yet others have their doubts as it could be a FH.

Just to nitpick. They claim it is "CA legal." Which it is (in certain configurations). Not, "legal on a featureless." Big difference. But I digress...

Moonshine 12-03-2012 2:39 PM

I applaud him for being innovative. This design appears to include an integrated sling mount and also places the grip, buffer, and shoulder in an ergonomic fashion. I also believe this design would have tremendous AK potential.

AlexDD 12-03-2012 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonshine (Post 9843495)
I applaud him for being innovative. This design appears to include an integrated sling mount and also places the grip, buffer, and shoulder in an ergonomic fashion. I also believe this design would have tremendous AK potential.

For the AK, they would need to get an aluminum adapter for the AK to AR grip that is made for Saiga shotguns, forgot the manufacturer. Don't think the ACE plastic one would hold up.

Also, the cheek weld issue would need to be addressed. Maybe they could have an attachment for the rear portion of the stock.

AlexDD 12-03-2012 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fate (Post 9843106)
Just to nitpick. They claim it is "CA legal." Which it is (in certain configurations). Not, "legal on a featureless." Big difference. But I digress...

I have read and heard different versions about it Not being a CA defined flash hider.

Nevertheless, if a for profit manufacturer wants to set the record straight, make a video attaching their compliance product in CA.

I don't expect Magpul to do this for the AFG since they are not making claims for CA compliance but if you are, what is the harm? FWIW I think Solar Tactical has videos of him shooting his grip wrapped AKs...

Seeing the owner of BattleComp screw on one of their compensators on a featureless non reg AW in CA would set the record straight for me on how strongly they believe what type of weapon configuration it can be placed on.

Seeing it for this stock would leave no doubt for me of their conviction for their products compliance with CA laws.

IMHO, YMMV.

bohoki 12-03-2012 4:14 PM

it does seem like it protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon just because the stock is attached to the grip part doesnt make that section of the stock not a pistol grip in fact ive seem much advertisement about montecarlo stocks having a pistol grip vs the straight stock

it would be cool if it was deemed legal and have one made for the thompson that way i could use my 40 round drum and 20 round sticks

i want to know how that handguard is attached


http://monstermangrip.com/Legal_Info.html

Cary1911 12-03-2012 4:34 PM

seems like you guys need a picture of this grip in a users hands. i have held this stock, and it felt great. very natural and comfy. i am however watching this debate as i dont want to be a guinea pig for CA featureless legality.

vintagearms 12-03-2012 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexDD (Post 9843920)
Seeing the owner of BattleComp screw on one of their compensators on a featureless non reg AW in CA would set the record straight for me on how strongly they believe what type of weapon configuration it can be placed on.

Seeing it for this stock would leave no doubt for me of their conviction for their products compliance with CA laws.

IMHO, YMMV.


I use one on my 14.5" featureless and have no doubts its legal. The CA DOJ uses info from the ATF in regards to legality based on several criteria. I really dont have the time to dig it up...

AlexDD 12-03-2012 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagearms (Post 9844487)
I use one on my 14.5" featureless and have no doubts its legal. The CA DOJ uses info from the ATF in regards to legality based on several criteria. I really dont have the time to dig it up...

I was convinced until I read Chaos47 treatise on the subject which made me question more.

The only reason I brought it up was not to debate BC that but rather suggest the manufacturer, whether new stock or other device post a video to show confidence in their product's legality.

I love all the ingenuity! Hate the crazy Byzantine laws that are foisted on us that make law abiding citizens fearful and uncertain of a potential felony arrest.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:00 AM.

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