Originally Posted by hoffmang
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.
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.