Could one just use the slanted grip with a pinned stock?

Post # 1022.  Congrats!  Very cool.

Where do you get that grip?  Doesn't seem to be any different than the one on the thordsen stock, and I'd probably get some of them and use them with A2 stocks.



 

Looks photo chopped.

In for interest in the legality.

I thought the thorsden was legal because the "stock" and "grip" were the same thing?

It's the whole fuzzy-anal part of "conspicuously protruding below the action.  The angled part looks pretty inconspicuous.



 

Was just thinking that...

By definition in the law it certainly isn't a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon one would think. It has zero characteristics similar to that of a pistol grip.

I'm sure no one would want to test it, or it has been beaten to death already... But what about just a straight grip below the reciever at a 90 degree angle without any contours for a grip. It says "Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" - not "grip that protrudes....."

Antics I guess... And I am sure you guys have heard 100 different ways to get around it.

Anyway,

Someone wanna drop 100 bucks on a thorsden, cut it and show it to the NYSP and see what they think?


Edit: *ahem* FUAC

Nobody here can say whether that would be compliant in the eyes of a police officer or the courts.  We can make all the arguments that we want, but it won't prevent you from having your rifle taken, being arrested or having to appear before a judge, all of which costs time and money.

I would say this: even though the angle of the grip is the same as the Thordsen FRS-15 (since it was Photoshopped from one), I would much rather be making the compliance argument to an officer or a judge/jury with an FRS-15 on my rifle than what you've shown.  I can show numerous historical hunting rifles, including some semi-automatics with detachable magazines (e.g., the current Browning BAR), that have the same (more than) century old rifle stock design that the FRS-15 utilizes (albeit stylized and skeletonized.)  There is not a separate (from the stock) grip for the shooting hand, but rather the stock itself simply incorporates a curved section to make it more comfortable to hold.  

While all solutions are in the "gray" area of what should be, but is not, a black-and-white law, yours is just a bit more toward that black side than I would be willing to go.

Quite honestly, after handling the FRS-15 for a bit, since we can't have collapsible stocks either (so yours would be fixed), the only advantage that I see of your solution would be that I could choose a fixed stock with a shorter length of pull for use in home defense.  In combination with the required 16" barrel, the FRS-15 makes the rifle a bit long to maneuver in tight spaces.  Additionally, while the FRS-15 holds very nicely in a traditional (side-to-target) rifle shooting position, it is a little long when switching to a more front-to-target shooting position.  It's like being stuck with an A2 stock; great for some things, but too long for others.

Yeah, its a Photoshopped image. I was just curious if the reason the original compliant stock was legal was because it was combined with the stock.

Like I said, too much gray area in the law to know for sure, but it is much easier to justify when the grip, itself, is not separate from the stock.  The type of stock that the FRS-15 is based on was called a "pistol-grip rifle stock" when the only pistols were revolvers (single-action, cowboy style) with the grip that curved gently back and then down.  They have since been renamed as "semi-pistol rifle stocks" ("semi" as in "sort of" not semiautomatic) because most modern pistols have straighter, more vertical grips.  The military-style "pistol grips" that they are seeking to ban (e.g., those on M-16/M-14/AK-57/AK-74, etc) are both separate and based on semiautomatic pistol grips.  So, while your version is not the right style (angle), without the stock attached, you are left with a stand-alone grip reminiscent of a revolver grip.  Is the angle, then, sufficient to keep it from being banned?  Big gamble.  The FRS-15 gives you both the different style of grip and the fact that it is an integral part of the stock (pistols, by definition, do not have stocks.)

Note: thumbhole stocks were specifically banned because during the Bradey ban, manufacturers simply attached a standard A2 stock to a standard (straight/more vertical) pistol grip by a piece of plastic connected at the bottom of the pistol grip:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/HardShell/RWB%20-%20ARs/68SPCT-holelefthalf.jpg

This made a non-compliant rifle compliant without any change in how the weapon functioned or was handled.  The FRS-15 handles quite differently than a standard AR.  I happen to like it, but the point is that it is different.

Google the archangel stock for the m1a1 and you can see a good looking solution is possible.

I just wish they would go into competition with Thordson.

Not only does it look a hell of alot better, but if the receiver extension never touches the cheek riser than it is never a "thumb hole"
stock since the two pieces are independent.

Exactly!

I see the buffer tube running through the cheekpiece, and notice the stock is adjustable for length of pull, but by a screw, it does not telescope. Increase that length of adjustability and you can almost duplicate the range of a telescopic stock.

WHAT????

I can. No fucking way.


I doubt most people off the street would even know something was different on that gun.

You are most likely correct, but with a good attorney, I wouldn't say "no fucking way."  I would guess that most LEO would call that a pistol grip.  Now, whether your attorney could argue the "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of  the weapon" point, I can't say for sure.  The law seeks to restrict certain "military features" such as the pistol grip.  As noted, modern military rifles such as the M16/M4/AK-47/Ak-74/etc have pistol grips similar to semiautomatic pistols in that they protrude almost straight down from the action.  The grip portion of the FRS-15 protrudes horizontally and then curves downward, requiring a completely different grip more reminiscent of a hunting rifle.  I'm comfortable enough to believe that would be enough for the grip integrated into the stock (i.e., the FRS-15), but wouldn't bank on it for a stand-alone.

My opinion, for what it is worth, definitely a no go.

Looks like ProMag just released a Mini14 version, too

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/09/02/archangel-stock-mini-14-30/

And it would work with AKs. IF THEY MADE ONE!!!  

Bastards!

Now we just need manufacturers to make them.
I would buy one with that style stock