ArchAngel stock for M1A

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

I wish they'd just get a letter of interpretation from CA DOJ on this issue. CA DOJ might shoot it down causing them some sales, but it wouldn't be tough to make a "CA Compliant" variant if that were the case. They should do it as a service to their customers if nothing else. We call that "doing your due diligence".__

It would be nice, but DOJ just won't do it. It took court testimony to get an admission from DOJ that Bullet Buttoned rifles, when properly configured, are not illegal.

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

I wish they'd just get a letter of interpretation from CA DOJ on this issue. CA DOJ might shoot it down causing them some sales, but it wouldn't be tough to make a "CA Compliant" variant if that were the case. They should do it as a service to their customers if nothing else. We call that "doing your due diligence".__

It would be nice, but DOJ just won't do it. It took court testimony to get an admission from DOJ that Bullet Buttoned rifles, when properly configured, are not illegal.

It wouldn't be too hard to mold a filler using Quicksteel or a similar material, building up the gooseneck grip until it is not possible to obtain a hold with the web of the shooting hand thumb below the top of the trigger. Don't forget to use release agent on the gooseneck so that you can return the stock to its original condition if desired. Sand your filler smooth, paint it and glue it in with silicone adhesive so it can be removed later. Done, no more issues.

[Sniper3142]

It would be nice, but DOJ just won't do it. It took court testimony to get an admission from DOJ that Bullet Buttoned rifles, when properly configured, are not illegal.

Strange, the good folks over at JAE had no problem getting verification from the CA DOJ on their M1A stock.

[Pathfinder2]

I would LOOOOVE to see your statistical evidence on this.....because the last time I browsed through that area of stats, Cal was like 1.8 guns per 100 residents, versus lets say, Montana's 8.8 per.

And it seems REDICULOUS to design a stock specifically to annoying standards/laws for ONE state out of 50......

I personally agree with the designer, the lower goose neck is more comfortable, the JAE is too heavy, if I was going to blow that big of a load for a stock, it would be a McMillan M3A stock.

------

And the argument of all this "ProMag stole dis!" you all clearly own a JAE stock, because there is no other logical reason to be all butt hurt over the two stocks. The ProMag has plenty of differences from the JAE to be considered a totally different beast........just because 2 things look "similar" does not by ANY means make them similar......


See " BCM M4 compared to Bushmaster M4" ...........
(I could go on and on with gun related examples)

[CA2ndAmendPremium]

M1A- Archangel M1A Precision Stock (Springfield M1A)

Let's not get distracted on the rational for Archangel's marketing decisions, or other issues of originality, etc.

The premise I'm coming from is, I like the product, and I'd buy it if it's DOJ legal. So let's get back on track... the main question is whether the Archangel M1A stock is DOJ approved in CA. We know the DOJ will issue letters of approval, as they did for JAE. Mike from Archangel wrote a lengthy opinion piece on this forum, but did not follow through on confirming with the DOJ. For me, I like this product, and would certainly like to support it. The pre-condition, of course, is that the company selling the product support the customers' concern of CA DOJ compliance. If Mike and Archangel chooses to ignore the customers' concern, then Archangel as a company does not deserve my (or our) support for this stock and their other Promag products. It's part of a global customer service mindset.

I wrote Mike on 8/27/12, but received no response:

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:28 PM

TO: info@promagindustries.com

M1A- Archangel M1A Precision Stock (Springfield M1A)

Hi Mike,

Members on CalGuns are still wondering if this M1A stock is CA DOJ compliant. Has an request for review been submitted to CA DOJ? If not, why not?

I understand rumors has it that various SWAT leaders or police chiefs opine the stock as legal, but they are not the legal authority on the issue, and cannot replace an official opinion from CA DOJ. Neither can pictures on the forum arguing that this stock is DOJ compliant.

Money is tight in this economy, and we certainly don't want to spend $300 on a stock that requires a bullet button release on our M1A.

We look forward to hearing from you.
Best Regards.

[sffred]

It took the JAE people TEN YEARS or so to perfect this stock, and someone can buy one, make a mold off of it and sell a cheap knock off. This is the stuff about Chinese goods that makes us crazy.

Yup that's why almost everyone loves Chinese made stuff. 90% of you guys own iPhones! Lol.

[Sumo99]

I would LOOOOVE to see your statistical evidence on this.....because the last time I browsed through that area of stats, Cal was like 1.8 guns per 100 residents, versus lets say, Montana's 8.8 per.

Not sure where any numbers are coming from but...If you use the numbers you provided and the population numbers for Montana (approx 1 million) and California (approx 37.7 million) then, there would be about 88,000 guns in Montana and 678,600 guns in California.

[defcon]

I modified it to fit my 10/22 using an M14 EBR rail/handguard. who needs a bullet button anyways? hehe


_MG_3714 by defconskylude, on Flickr


_MG_3715 by defconskylude, on Flickr


_MG_3711 by defconskylude, on Flickr


_MG_3713 by defconskylude, on Flickr


_MG_3710 by defconskylude, on Flickr

[ArchangelDevelopment]

Let's not get distracted on the rational for Archangel's marketing decisions, or other issues of originality, etc.

The premise I'm coming from is, I like the product, and I'd buy it if it's DOJ legal. So let's get back on track... the main question is whether the Archangel M1A stock is DOJ approved in CA. We know the DOJ will issue letters of approval, as they did for JAE. Mike from Archangel wrote a lengthy opinion piece on this forum, but did not follow through on confirming with the DOJ. For me, I like this product, and would certainly like to support it. The pre-condition, of course, is that the company selling the product support the customers' concern of CA DOJ compliance. If Mike and Archangel chooses to ignore the customers' concern, then Archangel as a company does not deserve my (or our) support for this stock and their other Promag products. It's part of a global customer service mindset.

I wrote Mike on 8/27/12, but received no response:

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:28 PM

TO: info@promagindustries.com

M1A- Archangel M1A Precision Stock (Springfield M1A)

Hi Mike,

Members on CalGuns are still wondering if this M1A stock is CA DOJ compliant. Has an request for review been submitted to CA DOJ? If not, why not?

I understand rumors has it that various SWAT leaders or police chiefs opine the stock as legal, but they are not the legal authority on the issue, and cannot replace an official opinion from CA DOJ. Neither can pictures on the forum arguing that this stock is DOJ compliant.

Money is tight in this economy, and we certainly don't want to spend $300 on a stock that requires a bullet button release on our M1A.

We look forward to hearing from you.
Best Regards.

I'm sorry you didn't get a response from customer service. They do have information regarding this and should have passed it along to you.

We have submitted for approval to DOJ our stock design numerous times. I've even had an independent Ca FFL dealer submit the questions to DOJ for a ruling. Their response continues to be that they do not make rulings on this type of subject any longer.

Funny that they won't rule on it, but they are supposed to interpret and enforce the laws?

Does anyone have a copy of the letter from the DOJ that approves the JAE stock? I'd love to see it to maybe find out who the signing agent was. Maybe we can get some action. (if this agent still holds a relevant position)

I understand that some people consider the stock legal due to the positioning of the web of your hand in relation to where the trigger exits the stock (as the law is written). There has been no legal action taken on anyone in California employing an AAM1A stock that I'm currently aware of. But in order to make sure our stock is compliant in this area, we are currently designing a Ca-Compliance part that will snap/glue into position in the crook of the gooseneck to eliminate all question until (if ever) a ruling is made by DOJ. We will offer the parts with all new AAM1A stocks, and if you have already purchased an AAM1A stock, we will send one to you free of charge upon request. I expect these parts to be available first quarter of 2013.

Thank you for your support and ongoing interest in Archangel products.

Best Regards,

Mike Ballard
Director of R&D
Archangel Manufacturing
a division of ProMag Industries

[cfusionpm]

I have an archangel stock and have had no issues with it whatsoever, but it would give some peace of mind to have that snap on piece. Where do I sign up?

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

Mike,

Nice to see a solution that removed doubt about using your stock in CA! That doubt was the only thing that kept me from trying it.

[NOTABIKER]

ok i will volunteer to be the one. i just bought a M1A and i would not ever put that or any other tactical stock on my M1A. if i wanted that i would just buy a AR.
so many choices in tactical rifles why put that an a rifle that came with a nice walnut stock. ANSWER because it is your rifle and you can. OK OK OK

[cfusionpm]

ok i will volunteer to be the one. i just bought a M1A and i would not ever put that or any other tactical stock on my M1A. if i wanted that i would just buy a AR.
so many choices in tactical rifles why put that an a rifle that came with a nice walnut stock. ANSWER because it is your rifle and you can. OK OK OK

It's also a tighter fit and improves accuracy over standard synthetic or walnut stock. My Scout shoots 4-5MOA out of the factory synthetic and 60$ gun show M14 stock. In the AA stock, it will get ~2MOA with that German DAG surplus stuff. I haven't tried nice 168gr ammo. And this is a beat up older model with no other upgrades.

I don't use it much anymore because I have a 700 bolt 308 for long range and I turned my M1A into an M14 clone. But I like having options to swap back and forth without having to buy another $1500 rifle.

With Archangel, forward rail, sadlak mount, scope, and bipod:


Same rifle with M14 stock, mock selector switch, replacement brown handguard, and forward rail removed:

[beachbound]

It DOESN'T do the same thing. That's the point.
The JAE Stock completely stabilizes your rifle in a very expensively made aluminum bedding system. This is a drop in plastic stock. It just rips off the major design cues of the JAE so people who want one that looks like it but don't care about performance (or the morality of buying a rip off) can get it cheap.

Here is the real deal --



The angle around the cheek piece, the palm shelf, the thumbwheel, location of the flush cups, the contour around the mag well -- even at a quick glance these are all directly ripped off to make people think they are getting a JAE stock -- We went over this before, but if you can't see how this is WRONG -- if Promag wanted to compete with JAE, they would have come up with an entirely NEW design, and if it was better or cheaper, people would buy it.

Also, as pointed out, the pistol grip on the Promag appears as if it is not compliant for CA and the stock telescopes, so that'a another baddie.

HI THERE. I STUMBLED ACCROSS YOUR POSTING AND PHOTO. I HAVE AN M1A LOADED IN A JAE STOCK VERY SIMILAR SETUP TO YOURS (NICE RIG!!). WAS CONSIDERING THE VLTOR HANDGUARD BUT CAN'T FIND DEFINITIVE ANSWER IF IT WILL FIT WITH THE MEDIUM WEIGHT NATIONAL MATCH BARREL ON A LOADED M1A. IS YOUR'S A 'LOADED' M1A BY ANY CHANCE? IF SO, DID THE HANDGUARD FIT WITHOUT ANY ISSUES. I APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK. BEST.