AR MAGLOCK/KINGPIN vs FEATURELESS!!!! (NOT WHAT YOU THINK)

[BayBayFish]

AR Maglock does not work for some of the upper receivers that has the dust door like one shown below. The Maglock will block the hinge of the ejection door. I wish the Maglock has a longer design. See photo below.

[Barang]

^^^ can you cut off the excess with dremel to make it work?

[Wins1]

[AbeVigoda]

AR Maglock does not work for some of the upper receivers that has the dust door like one shown below. The Maglock will block the hinge of the ejection door. I wish the Maglock has a longer design. See photo below.

[BayBayFish]

^^^ can you cut off the excess with dremel to make it work?

Thanks. I just did. Now the "Gen 5" Maglock below works in my case...

[Barang]

Thanks. I just did. Now the "Gen 5" Maglock below works in my case...

alright! glad you got it remedied.

[Nate]

Well since you don't seem to be either of those, I am here to run the test for you.



Automobile makers crash test cars to be sure the airbags work.



Been busy.
Don't worry.
Now that you confirmed it is 0.035" and not 0.030", I'll go cut down an old ARmaglock Gen1 I have in the scrap bin to 0.035" thick and do the test with the rear takedown pin removed to demonstrate what I was talking about.

It's the test that you say is unsafe and should only be done by a manufacturer or other qualified entity.

There are also independent companies that test the safety of cars also.

My thought is purchase the ARMaglock yourself and prove your point. I think that will put this discussion to rest. If not, your are just putting talking points with no real demonstration. If you are correct, then damn I have one on mine, now what!

[ar15barrels]

My thought is purchase the ARMaglock yourself and prove your point.
I think that will put this discussion to rest.
If not, your are just putting talking points with no real demonstration.

It's not that important to me.
I only have AW's and featureless.
I bench tested an ARmaglock I had in my scrap bin after cutting it down to the specified 0.035" tab thickness and I can get it to cycle on the bench in "disassembled" mode (receivers 0.035" apart at the Maglock tab).
I just have not been to the range to try live fire.
It works to make a rifle legal with some receiver and bolt carrier combinations but not with others so there will never be a definitive answer because it's not definitively compliant or non-compliant.

[Super Chicken]

It's not that important to me.
I only have AW's and featureless.
I bench tested an ARmaglock I had in my scrap bin after cutting it down to the specified 0.035" tab thickness and I can get it to cycle on the bench in "disassembled" mode (receivers 0.035" apart at the Maglock tab).
I just have not been to the range to try live fire.
It works to make a rifle legal with some receiver and bolt carrier combinations but not with others so there will never be a definitive answer because it's not definitively compliant or non-compliant.

Have followed this debate regarding the Kingpin, does your concern regarding being able to fire also apply to just having the ARmaglock installed without a limited opening rear takedown pin as well?

[ar15barrels]

Have followed this debate regarding the Kingpin, does your concern regarding being able to fire also apply to just having the ARmaglock installed without a limited opening rear takedown pin as well?

Any of the fixed magazine devices that require only minimal opening of the upper and lower can have the same problem.
The gen1 ARmaglock is so thick so you have to actually remove the takedown pin to get the upper and lower far enough apart for the ARmaglock to clear the upper.
That's what it should take.

Any of the ARmaglocks that are milled down real thin are potentially problematic, with or without a quick-open rear pin that allows you to open and re-lock the receivers without actually removing the pin because you can pinch the receivers together on the ARmaglock while it's pressed in and then you can hold a magazine in the magwell and get the gun to run.

[Dave Hoback]

I am trying to wrap myself around how the products comply and keeps you out of court.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Not buying this at all. The CADOJ is not anyone's friend and will gladly make felons out of people on this board who are honestly attempting to follow the law. What makes someone a DOUCHEBAG is telling their customers that the products they are pushing are 100% legal when in fact they just might not be and they refuse to even test it. It has happened before in the past with various products. Watching out for other gun owners is nowhere near the same as contacting law enforcement when you see someone take off a stupid compliant device at a range.

[Nate]

I’ll tell you what keeps people out of court....if CERTAIN individuals.., certain “so called” SUPPORTERS of 2A & firearms enthusiast’s rights, would STOP carrying water for the Left!

(I’m not insinuating you Wins1. Nothing you said is doing any of this. I simply quoted your response to frame the COURT question is all.).

Here’s an example. I’ve always had a problem with the guy who sees another person with a class III item and immediately BLURTS OUT ACCUSINGLY, “Hey...ya got a TAX STAMP for that....., DON’T YA!??” Why do certain people think it’s their job to “Police” others?? This is A-class “Douchebaggery” at its worst!

Same thing throughout this thread! A guy working hard to overcome a problem; (making lemonade with the lemons” he was given, so to speak), by inventing a product and creating a business. And another so called “enthusiast” immediately calling him out for illegality. Seemingly Hell Bent on destroying this other business on a very public forum no less.

I’ve said this for years. Don’t be THAT DOUCHEBAG! The DOUCHEBAG who calls people out PUBLICLY for legality on anything. Because a DOUCHEBAG like that is carrying water for the Left without even knowing it!

Dumbest post today.

Stating the opinion is not destroying another business. Like many I want the ARmaglock and Kingpin to work, but I don't want to be the test case to prove it. There were a lot of naysayers about the Bullet button in 2006 and 2007 with the OLL also.

[Nate]

Any of the fixed magazine devices that require only minimal opening of the upper and lower can have the same problem.
The gen1 ARmaglock is so thick so you have to actually remove the takedown pin to get the upper and lower far enough apart for the ARmaglock to clear the upper.
That's what it should take.

Any of the ARmaglocks that are milled down real thin are potentially problematic, with or without a quick-open rear pin that allows you to open and re-lock the receivers without actually removing the pin because you can pinch the receivers together on the ARmaglock while it's pressed in and then you can hold a magazine in the magwell and get the gun to run.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/regs/text-adopted-regulations-bullet-button.pdf

[Super Chicken]

Any of the fixed magazine devices that require only minimal opening of the upper and lower can have the same problem.
The gen1 ARmaglock is so thick so you have to actually remove the takedown pin to get the upper and lower far enough apart for the ARmaglock to clear the upper.
That's what it should take.

Any of the ARmaglocks that are milled down real thin are potentially problematic, with or without a quick-open rear pin that allows you to open and re-lock the receivers without actually removing the pin because you can pinch the receivers together on the ARmaglock while it's pressed in and then you can hold a magazine in the magwell and get the gun to run.

Thank you for your input. Appreciate the help/advice on this.

Cheers