Grip Alternative

[SC_00_05]

I still think you could hold it with the "web" of your hand under the lip and negate what you are trying to do. Just because you don't plan on holding like that, doesn't mean it couldn't be done, so I think you would be at some risk.

Has everybody totally ignored what 10thAdmendment just posted? That is the first time I've seen that letter and it definitely puts a lot of my fears to rest. Time to cut up some old pistol grips that I have sitting around.

[1911_Mitch]

--------

[1911_Mitch]

-------

[Chaingun]

OKOKOK Next! This is my Thumb Hook Design...

I'll take one of those.

It's still a warm and cozy feeling to have some letter from the DOJ saying "it's okay". That would stop any anti-gun LEO in their tracks.

[C9X19]

It just depends what you are planning to do with it. For a fighting gun, a detachable magzine is more important than a pistol grip. But for target shooting, I prefer having the pistol grip. Reloading is a minor inconvenience. I can still change the configuration if my needs change.

And I've read stories that the upper to lower lock up loosens over time from loading from a fixed mag. That's part of the reason why I won't pin my mag.

[SpeedTribe]

Hopefully I can break in my new SRB this week. Thanks Bu-bye.
Superior Arms lower
ACE stock
Bushmaster Bullpup mag w/ magpull
Matech rear, YHM front sights
DelTon Upper w/DPMS Compensator, FF handguard, Chrome Bolt

[Mud]

I'll take one of those.

It's still a warm and cozy feeling to have some letter from the DOJ saying "it's okay". That would stop any anti-gun LEO in their tracks.

If anyone is up for writing a leter to the DOJ and sending the Detent & Spring Retention device (or whatever it should be called) some pictures and an explanation about it, would help us find out what they think. Hopefully in the San Jose/Bay Area so I can meet you to give the Bracket for shipment. Any Takers? The letter can be drafted and shown on this thread to get feedback on it's wording. I am working hard on the "CA Project" and can't find the time to get this done. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=30568

[6172crew]

If anyone is up for writing a leter to the DOJ and sending the Detent & Spring Retention device (or whatever it should be called) some pictures and an explanation about it, would help us find out what they think. Hopefully in the San Jose/Bay Area so I can meet you to give the Bracket for shipment. Any Takers? The letter can be drafted and shown on this thread to get feedback on it's wording. I am working hard on the "CA Project" and can't find the time to get this done. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=30568

The NRA has already agreed to send off a mag catch and has told me they would write the letter, why not have them argue the case for us?

[Dont Tread on Me]

I got to shoot Mud's invention today and watch him compete in a 3 gun match. Mud shot as well as anybody who had a grip on his/her AR.

To me, it felt a bit strange but I was able to shoot well both slow and rapid fire. I'm going to buy one if the DOJ find a way not to let us add a pistol grip.

[Mesa Tactical]

Right after SB23 went into affect, a few vendors attempted to sell AR's with cut-down pistol grips, which is essentially identical to the item being discussed. In response, the DOJ made the following determination.
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/pistolgrip.htm

From your link:

"THESE RIFLES AS CONFIGURED ARE REGULATED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS"

WTF? The SKS has a detachable magazine, so it's an assault weapon no matter what kind of stock it has.

If it was a normally configured SKS, it would have a fixed magazine so it wouldn't meet the first definition of assault weapon, and so could have any stock you wanted.

[vonsmith]

Interesting thread. I just came across it. First of all I think the DOJ's definition of what consitutes a "grip" is bogus. How can you call something a grip if you can't even get one finger to wrap around it?

Anyway, there's a lot of good discussion and ideas here. However, think outside the box (I like to say that.). Instead of trying to force the web of the hand higher to be above the arbitrarily assigned "imaginary line", move the "imaginary line" down. Modify the trigger group so that the top exposed part of the trigger is lower. In other words add a glue-on shroud on each side of the lower that covers the top 1/4" or so of the trigger. And then add one of the non-grip designs that has been discussed here.

The trigger would still have the same pivot point and all internals. Do you really need that top 1/4"?

978.20 (e) Pistol Grip that Protrudes Conspicuously Beneath the Action of the Weapon

This term was originally defined as "any component that allows for the grasp, control, and fire of the firearm where the portion grasped is located beneath an imaginary line drawn parallel to the barrel that runs through the top of the exposed trigger" and noticed during the initial comment period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000). This definition was subject to broad interpretation primarily due to the wording "any component." The definition was accordingly initially revised by replacing "any component" with "a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp." The Department believes that the concept of a "pistol style grasp" is generally understood by persons affected by the regulations. This revision: "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp below the top of the exposed trigger" was noticed to the public during the first 15-day notice period (May 10 through May 30, 2000). Subsequent comments resulted in additional modifications. To further clarify the criteria that establishes a "pistol style grasp" and its relationship to a grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, the condition "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" was added to the definition. The revision also reflects a change from "top of the exposed trigger" to "top of the exposed portion of the trigger" because as one contributor pointed out, the former would mean the upper portion of a trigger, a part of which is exposed, with the balance hidden from view in the receiver of the firearm. The final revised definition: "Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means 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" was noticed during the second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). Although additional comments were received, no comments were received during the second 15-day comment period that warranted additional revisions to the definition.

Another alternative is legally challenge the DOJ's definition of a pistol grip. In reading the above definition it seems to me that the underlined section would be properly interpreted as meaning a pistol type grasp WHICH ALSO PLACES the web of the trigger hand below the "imaginary line". It seems to me that to be a "pistol grip" it has to have both a pistol type grasp (at least one finger can wrap around the "grip" portion) AND in doing so the web of the trigger hand is below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing. I don't see anything that infers that "a pistol type grasp" OR "the web of the trigger hand can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" is non-compliant. I read it as both conditions must exist to be non-compliant. This would mean the ideas presented in this thread would be legal.

I'm not an English major. However English is my first language, I have written many technical documents, and I've had plenty of school to back it up. So what am I overlooking? The DOJ's interpretation of their own definition is so irrational I think it's indefensible.

Any lawyers on forum? Tell me why it isn't so.

=vonsmith=

[FluorideInMyWater]

Remember the web of the hand must be above the exposed portion of the trigger.

See attached photo for my mock-up.

you know, i was thinking about this......is it illegal to modify the buttstock where it meets the lower (underneath) to make a bit of extra room for a better grip? let see if i can sketch the stock (A2 stock)

----------------------------------------------
\
\ _____
\-------------------------------------/ X \

sorry, it probably does not translate well to a post.

back end<<<<------->>>>connect to lower
yeah, the shap is a bit off the "X" marks the spot that i'm talking about.

[kick Z tail out]

I think It puts the web of you hand below the line.....
But only slightly. Only way is to send this photo to DOJ and get a letter of approval.

Problem is it looks like it would be useful, and so... The DOJ would shoot it down.


The DOJ only uses regulations when it goes the way they want it to.

[vonsmith]

I think the DOJ's definition of what consitutes a "grip" is bogus. How can you call something a grip if you can't even get one finger to wrap around it?

978.20 (e) Pistol Grip that Protrudes Conspicuously Beneath the Action of the Weapon

This term was originally defined as "any component that allows for the grasp, control, and fire of the firearm where the portion grasped is located beneath an imaginary line drawn parallel to the barrel that runs through the top of the exposed trigger" and noticed during the initial comment period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000). This definition was subject to broad interpretation primarily due to the wording "any component." The definition was accordingly initially revised by replacing "any component" with "a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp." The Department believes that the concept of a "pistol style grasp" is generally understood by persons affected by the regulations. This revision: "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp below the top of the exposed trigger" was noticed to the public during the first 15-day notice period (May 10 through May 30, 2000). Subsequent comments resulted in additional modifications. To further clarify the criteria that establishes a "pistol style grasp" and its relationship to a grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, the condition "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" was added to the definition. The revision also reflects a change from "top of the exposed trigger" to "top of the exposed portion of the trigger" because as one contributor pointed out, the former would mean the upper portion of a trigger, a part of which is exposed, with the balance hidden from view in the receiver of the firearm. The final revised definition: "Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means 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" was noticed during the second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). Although additional comments were received, no comments were received during the second 15-day comment period that warranted additional revisions to the definition.

Another alternative is legally challenge the DOJ's definition of a pistol grip. In reading the above definition it seems to me that the underlined section would be properly interpreted as meaning a pistol type grasp WHICH ALSO PLACES the web of the trigger hand below the "imaginary line". It seems to me that to be a "pistol grip" it has to have both a pistol type grasp (at least one finger can wrap around the "grip" portion) AND in doing so the web of the trigger hand is below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing. I don't see anything that infers that "a pistol type grasp" OR "the web of the trigger hand can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" is non-compliant. I read it as both conditions must exist to be non-compliant. This would mean the ideas presented in this thread would be legal.

I'm not an English major. However English is my first language, I have written many technical documents, and I've had plenty of school to back it up. So what am I overlooking? The DOJ's interpretation of their own definition is so irrational I think it's indefensible.

Any lawyers on forum? Tell me why it isn't so.


=vonsmith=