Is the Magpul PRS stock a "collapsible stock"

[Paratus et Vigilans]

FWIW, I run a BB on my PRS-stocked build. Since I always shoot it from a bi-pod, either prone or from the bench, running a BB on it is a total non-issue for me in terms of convenience or the lack thereof. The PRS stock is so heavy, I can't really see using it for offhand shooting. Does anyone out there regularly shoot a PRS-stocked build offhand?

[Paratus et Vigilans]

Well, you had better get rid of your Cal. legal 10rd mags. Large/High capacity mags are defined as "any feeding device with the
capacity to accept more than ten rounds, and I guarantee I can fit more than 10 rounds of .22 into your .223 mag (ah ha, nowhere in th PC does it say that it be limited to 10rds of the caliber for which it was designed, or that it must actually feed them )

You probably aren't being serious about this, but in case you are, you should know that the rules for how a judge must interpret statutes would require an interpretation of the words "feeding device" to mean something in line with their ordinary usage, i.e., a device that actually functions to feed the rounds inserted into it. Jam a bunch of .22LR rounds in there, and all you've got is a "storage device."

[Josh3239]

The trouble is, the word in the statute (it's not part of the regs) is "telescoping" and there is no definition in the statute or the regs for what comprises the "stock." So whether or not it's retractable or collapsible or gets longer or shorter really isn't the legal issue - it's whether or not any part of it telescopes, and I have to say that one could reasonably interpret the way the PRS stock functions as telescoping.

This is true. I suppose people can interpret said statute how they wish. Personally I think it is ridiculous to believe a PRS is "telescoping" but to each his own.

However, when I hear the words "telescoping or folding stock" I think of an actual stock piece that folds or collapses. Another one of problems I see is first we question about the buttpad being "retractable" then what about the buttpads that fit on the back, screwed in, or even adjustable combs. Personally I too see this right up there of the debate between detaching magazines with a Prince 50 vs BB.

To the OP, get a BB and call it a day

[wooger]

Isn't it a shoulder thing that goes up? haha

[JagerTroop]

You probably aren't being serious about this, but in case you are, you should know that the rules for how a judge must interpret statutes would require an interpretation of the words "feeding device" to mean something in line with their ordinary usage, i.e., a device that actually functions to feed the rounds inserted into it. Jam a bunch of .22LR rounds in there, and all you've got is a "storage device."

Of course I'm not. I was simply trying to make a point of how non-specific Ca. laws are in general. By your own admission, the term "telescoping stock" would have to be interpreted. It specificaly states "telescoping stock", not "telescoping buttpad". The body of the stock is fixed, unless of course, the buttplate screw becomes loose, causing the stock to slide fore and aft 1/8"... then, all bets are off.