featureless is better than fixed mag?

[Dopefkr]

my armag/juggernaut set up is extremely easy to use. Takes fractions of a second longer to change a mag. Clearing malfunctions is no problem. If i had some standard mags i mightve gone featureless but i dont so might as well keep all the good stuff

[theLBC]

i just went with long range precision gas gun because "featureless" doesn't impact performance at all, and i am too old to run around anyway.

[Squidward]

Thank you. Hope they don't change the rules again.

That, right there!

[mrvash]

We could easily flip this on it's head.

Defensive functionality is far superior with a rifle that has a flash hider attached to it, a normal pistol grip, and a foregrip or whatever kind you want.

You trade off a lot of actual functionality and defensive abilities, all so you can swap a mag a millisecond faster in some fantasized home-defense multi-mag-dumping shooting spree. It's not like the parts you cannot attach to a featureless rifle have no purpose... turns out the exact parts LEO and MIL want to use for offensive AND defensive purposes also fit the home/self defense use-case perfectly. Gee, I wonder why that might be???

Featureless is literally the worst at everything. It's louder (with a muzzle brake), it'll blind you in the night, it's not ergonomic, nor can you easily control the rifle with the absence of both a pistol grip and vertical foregrip... but you have 30 bullets! Wait, you don't own Freedom Week Mags? So now you just have 10 rounds like the featured rifles... except you have to hug a tree-trunk of a stock plus all the other downsides too. What fun...

But, but, but I can convert my featureless back into featured in under an hour for when the government collapses and zombies roam the land! Ya? I don't think you can best unscrewing a mag release button and screwing on a new one... like maybe 30 seconds at most? Come on folks...

Plus... Featureless looks dumb. Icing on the cake...

Yes, the bolt remains locked back, even when the upper/lower are "popped open". Clearing malfunctions with one of these is the same as with a non-maglocked AR.

For me, the only noticeable difference between this and a regular AR is having to "close" the receiver after a mag swap. Fortunately, that happens naturally without any extra motions.

1) Bolt locks back on final round
2) Squeeze Kingpin + Mag Release at same time -> Receiver opens a smidge and mag drops free
3) Load new mag
4) Drop bolt with bolt release like normal
5) Place your weak hand on the rifle handguard like normal, with a slight upwards pressure to close the receiver
6) Shoot!

Really, step 5 happens all on it's own. As you go to reposition your hand on the handguard, it naturally closes itself. You are, after all, at the long end of a fulcrum, making the upwards motion needed to close the receiver extremely minimal.

It's really a great setup for fixed-mag builds.

Not my video (obviously) but double feeds with an ARMaglock are a non-issue. Seriously... put this myth to bed please.

(double feel clearing starts around 1:29)

A lot of the "Featureless Rocks and Fixed Mag Sucks!" rhetoric is predicated on OLD original design mag locking devices which were definitely far from ideal and flat-out could not handle double feeds (among a plethora of other common issues) without a full disassemble of the firearm. None of these issues exist on modern generation fixed mag devices, such as ARMaglock (there are others, I just have no experience with them so can't comment). ARMaglock requires less than a millimeter of gap between upper and lower receivers for the little paddle thing to slot into, allowing you to fully press the mag release button. If you use a takedown pin that catches your upper and holds it there (with that micro-gap open), then mag swaps become nearly as fast as a normal mag release.

The only advantage to Featureless as far as I can see, considering modern fixed mag devices and pins, is the ability to legally use standard capacity magazines. If you don't have any of those... then I see no reason to prefer Featureless these days - hobbling your rifle in every aspect in exchange for millisecond faster mag swaps... as-if you're shooting competition every day or like to get into gun fights...

[NorCalRefuge]

What extra steps are you talking about? Have you tried a modern fixed-mag device like in the video? It's literally one motion to drop the mag, and one motion to close the receiver. It can't get any closer to a "real" AR without becoming illegal in CA.

featureless allows the rifle to function as closely as it was originally intended do

It clearly does not, since you have to change the grip and/or stock and/or muzzle device and/or foregrip. You're changing or avoiding a minimum of 4 features on your rifle to preserve one feature. You may value a regular push-button release more... fair enough, but let's not kid ourselves - featureless requires more modifications and is more limiting than a modern maglock device. End of story.

We can argue about personal preference - that is fair. What's not fair is to continue the myth than maglock devices can't be field cleared when they jam, or are way slower than a non maglocked AR. Both of those myths are just straight up BS at this point in time, even though they were valid complaints in the past.

[SharedShots]

Learn to side load a fixed magazine, it's a two step process, the same number of steps as to change a magazine. What extra steps are there? You will carry either extra magazines or carry side loaders, they take up the same amount of space. If you can't effectively side load then you probably can't be more effective at changing magazines either. If anyone is that worried about a jam in a HD situation, consider not fumbling in the middle of the night trying to clear the jam that might take longer than you will live and use something else. From a back up to a different firearm, there are lots of choices.

Side load:

1. Insert loader
2. Slide the loader or;

Magazine change:

1. Depress mag release
2. Change magazine.

As to speed, practice takes care of speed.

In the end, you use what works for you not what someone else says works best. Try both ways and then decide. If its for home defense etc, neither are optimum and there are lots of choices other than an AR for that purpose and that too is up to you.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Featureless. A vertical foregrip isn't worth the headache.

All this talk of the AR Maglock yet no mentioning of this thread.

[therealnickb]

10 rounds vs freedom mags made it an easy decision for me.

[NorCalRefuge]

Featureless. A vertical foregrip isn't worth the headache.

All this talk of the AR Maglock yet no mentioning of this thread.

I read through that (and others) prior to deciding to buy an ARMaglock.

Ya, the company has some attitude issues - but that's not going to stop me from buying the best mag-locking device on the market right now. If another, better one comes along, I'll switch.

The other issues brought up were legal in nature, and after reading the law many times, I'm convinced there is no issue there. IANAL however.

Compared to Featureless builds, the legal issues are the same. "A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon." and " A thumbhole stock." seems it could apply to every featureless stock/grip combo on the market, and all of the slanted backwards pistol grip types like Sparrow's (who frequents this forum).

At the end of the day, all the CA compliance devices are legally grey, in that none have been challenged (and prevailed) in court. We do not actually know what the state considers legal or not, everyone is guessing more-or-less until someone goes to court. Nobody wants to be the guinea pig though.

With that in mind, I do not consider the legality arguments a pro or con for either option since they are on equal footing, legally speaking.

[SharedShots]

No system from featureless to mag locks has been adopted by enough of the people who own semi autos for California to say exactly what and what is not compliant to the point you will or will not be prosecuted for having either system.

None of the laws even allow the sale of semi-auto from FFLs, large or small of manufacturer configured rifles to be stated as 100% compliant based on anything other than opinions or examples which can be rendered null and void depending on who is asked.

When enough people adopt one system or another then the ambiguity will allow for a determination that such a system is non-compliant and all the opinions from lawyers or laymen, experts or amateurs will not matter just like they don't matter now. The current circumstances have created the condition that there is a risk to owning a semi-auto of any kind since its merely opinion that decides if something is non-compliant with the law.

There are many people who say they support the 2ndA and RTKBA that have resources so vast it amounts to pocket change to get to court but just where are they? They talk and say this or that but when it comes to actually doing, they are quiet as mice. To them, even hundreds of thousands of dollars and more isn't an issue. Why are they so quiet until they want your money, your support and your allegiance for something that benefits them?

[NorCalRefuge]

There are many people who say they support the 2ndA and RTKBA that have resources so vast it amounts to pocket change to get to court but just where are they? They talk and say this or that but when it comes to actually doing, they are quiet as mice. To them, even hundreds of thousands of dollars and more isn't an issue. Why are they so quiet until they want your money, your support and your allegiance for something that benefits them?

I suspect the issue is more akin to asking the ATF for clarification about something - once you go that route, whatever they say becomes the law of the land, and could turn thousands of Californian's into criminals literally overnight.

That is not in anyone's best interest.

So... we remain legally grey, and hope either:

A) The State never prosecutes anyone for using a CA Compliance Device

and/or

B) When the State prosecutes someone for using a CA Compliance Device, they rally resources and provide as best of a legal defense for that individual (and really, everyone else in CA) as possible in hopes of overturning the law.

In reality, everyone is bending over backwards trying desperately to stay legal under an ambiguously written law. Intent should matter, but it probably won't when the time comes.

[plumbum]

Featureless is for people who shoot.
Fixed is for people who play dress up.

[NorCalRefuge]

Featureless is for people who shoot.
Fixed is for people who play dress up.

Ah, I see the joke!

Featureless is for people who like Space Ray Blasters.

Fixed is for people who like normal guns.

I hope you're not being serious - if so, then "they've" won... convinced people to view normal looking guns as "dress up" wannabe's and gimped bizarre looking rifles as "normal". What a world to live in...

[Sparrow Dynamics]

I read through that (and others) prior to deciding to buy an ARMaglock.

Ya, the company has some attitude issues - but that's not going to stop me from buying the best mag-locking device on the market right now. If another, better one comes along, I'll switch.

The other issues brought up were legal in nature, and after reading the law many times, I'm convinced there is no issue there. IANAL however.

Compared to Featureless builds, the legal issues are the same. "A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon." and " A thumbhole stock." seems it could apply to every featureless stock/grip combo on the market, and all of the slanted backwards pistol grip types like Sparrow's (who frequents this forum).

At the end of the day, all the CA compliance devices are legally grey, in that none have been challenged (and prevailed) in court. We do not actually know what the state considers legal or not, everyone is guessing more-or-less until someone goes to court. Nobody wants to be the guinea pig though.

With that in mind, I do not consider the legality arguments a pro or con for either option since they are on equal footing, legally speaking.

We respect what route you chose and that you researched it and that you realize it is your personal responsibility, not many do. We do however respectfully disagree with your statement that ALL compliance devices are legally gray. We believe some are and some aren't, and that some are more gray than others, and therefore they are not on equal footing legally speaking.

Someone might think that our grip would be considered "A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon." BUT, the CA DOJ has clearly defined what that statement means. You can't just read that statement alone because it is too ambiguous. The legal definition of a conspicuously protruding pistol grip is what anyone would be tried on.

This is the official legal definition from the DOJ...
“Pistol Grip, conspicuously protruding - 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.”

Here is how the DOJ defines thumbhole stock...
"Stock, thumbhole - A stock with a hole that allows the thumb of the trigger hand to penetrate into or through the stock while firing."

Our gun laws in CA are onerous and unconstitutional, and many are confusing. Some DOJ definitions are confusing and ambiguous, but these ones are not when you read them carefully.

There has been a court case dealing with featureless, but none that we know of as of yet for modern mag-locked devices. In 2010 Tulare Superior Court case "The People vs. Haack and Haack", CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms Special Agent Frank Navarro stated that the Exile Machine Hammerhead was not a pistol grip (which is what inspired our grip design). This case MAY be helpful to an attorney in the future, but we were told by Michel & Associates that because it was a superior court case, it has little to no precedential value and a different court or prosecutor could come to a different conclusion. I mention this though, because it does show some legal history with featureless rifles using a grip similar to ours. Michel & Associates said the clear part of the definition is what you want to go by.... forcing the web of your hand above the line at the top of the trigger while firing does not meet the definition of a pistol grip.

[SharedShots]

I suspect the issue is more akin to asking the ATF for clarification about something - once you go that route, whatever they say becomes the law of the land, and could turn thousands of Californian's into criminals literally overnight.

That is not in anyone's best interest.

So... we remain legally grey, and hope either:

It is in our best interest to have a defined standard to defend against or eliminate. Ambiguity is never our friend it is the friend of the interpreter who has the authority to prosecute or confiscate.

The reason we have the gun laws we do is because there is no truly organized point of pressure, its all piecemeal efforts. So everyone goes along hoping they aren't the test case because most can't withstand the financial burden of defending against a mere opinion or threat, they choose the least damage and go with that.

Can anyone really claim they leave their home to head out to shoot and that it never enters their mind that they are one individual opinion away from a really bad day? What does it matter if any company has a lawyers opinion about the legality of a particular product, it's just words to allow the sale and some false confidence on the part of the buyer it will all be ok. The truth is that no one is making enough money off any of these compliance parts to pursue a determination. The manufacturers of rifles with compliance features don't really care all that much either, right now it's just a few states affected and they can easily survive without those sale if it comes to that, they just sell other rifles.

When you buy a car it is either complaint or not. When you buy a pistol it is either complaint or not. When you buy a semi-auto rifle you have no idea other than what someone has said and they might not even be in a position of authority any longer, they probably retired. For almost all regulations or the laws from which they were derived, there is a standard that can be tested against and something made to that standard is compliant, except for semi-auto rifles and shotguns.

I submit that the manufacturers have decided not to push, not to get a determination because the California market just isn't that important and even the entire US civilian buyer market isn't enough for them to go at it. They have so many other markets and lets face it, it isn't all that hard for them to stop making something like an AR and just make something else for some other market. They know that if they stop making ARs or semi-autos that everyone will buy whatever else they decide to make.

Don't think for a second that any large manufacturer really cares about the civilian market, if they did then explain why they left the Australian and so many European markets without so much as a whimper? How could that happen?

If all civilian market semi-auto got banned the big name manufacturers just increase the price to government agencies to make up for the difference, it is after all TAX dollars that pay for the guns bought by the government, so while you can't have it you are still paying for someone else to have it. We are spending trillions of dollars, probably about 5 trillion this year all told and even 10 million guns in the civilian market is a big deal? If the government agencies have to fork over $3000 per gun is that going to stop anyone agency from buying them? Its taxes being spent, not someone's personal bank account.