Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/27/2002 10:59:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/27/2002 11:35:58 AM EST by NYPatriot]




It might help a little to visit their web site www.fulton-armory.com, and read about the stock in the pics.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:03:17 AM EST
???? Looks like you did everything correctly???
If you'd like email them to me and I'll host and post. Good luck!
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:08:22 AM EST
Maybe I should have expressed myself more clearly...What is wrong with the AR in these pics???

Hint: There is a problem with the upper & the lower receivers.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:11:59 AM EST
What pictures?
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:14:57 AM EST
those are the new red "X" sights I beleive... they are much easier to see on a web page than the old red "." sights...
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:16:40 AM EST
picture quality sucks
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:17:36 AM EST
Guys, the pics show up for me. Any idea why they won't work for you? How do I fix the problem?
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:20:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/27/2002 11:22:34 AM EST by osprey21]
Look's to me like there's something weird going on at the rear of the receiver between the buffer tube area and the pistol grip.
The pics not quite big/clear enough for me to make it out.



BTW;
webshots doesn't work here anymore.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:27:14 AM EST
Osprey... Webshots seems to be working just fine on my end (pics come up no problem).

How about you?
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 11:31:52 AM EST



Link Posted: 7/27/2002 12:52:31 PM EST
its just because the ergo grip so it looks different..
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 2:21:44 PM EST
so is a stock like that legal on a post-ban or is it condisered telescoping?
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 2:22:28 PM EST
It looks to me like the darker areas are just damp with oil.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 2:23:06 PM EST
Uh, is it that big green thing attached to the barrel beneath the front sight?
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 2:28:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By marvl:
Uh, is it that big green thing attached to the barrel beneath the front sight?



Those are the new GI high cap mags/shooting supports
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:02:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/27/2002 10:02:32 PM EST by NYPatriot]
Posted by CounterStrike...

so is a stock like that legal on a post-ban or is it considered telescoping?


Give that fellow New Yorker a cigar! I do believe that you have identified one of the problems with this POST BAN rifle... that stock sure looks and acts like it's collapsible!

Magpul is also marketing an AR stock that is adjustable for length of pull...the Modular Stock System (MSS), but they are waiting on BATF approval for use on post ban rifles (which seems unlikely IMHO.)

Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:15:02 PM EST
NY Patriot- I was eyeballing that short stock with interest, and noticed Bushmaster is selling a stubby stock for $46.95 (without the telescoping portion, but just long enough to make their 16" carbines the minimum legal length of a rifle)

I wonder if Fulton Armory made this the minimum length to be considered a rifle, then added the telescoping segment, but in it's collapsed state it is a legal rifle length, thus is a "loophole" to the collapsable stock law. If so, I think it'd be quite a seller.

Here's a picture of the Bushmaster "Stubby" stock.

Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:43:21 PM EST
Last time I looked, the minimum legal length for a rifle was 26 inches. My XM177E2 clone, built on a Colt SP1 carbine, w/a 12inch barrel and a welded on suppressor to make a 16.1 inch total barrel, measures 29.1 inches with the stock collapsed.

It's not overall length that's the problem here.It's that the clowns that wrote the law, and the bigger clowns tha enforce it, have decided that you're a criminal if you have a stock that can be made longer or shorter----but only on a reciever that was made after a certain date.

See, if you have enough money to be able to afford a pre ban rifle, then you must not be a crook, cause you have enough disposible income to afford this kind of weapon. BUT, if you can only afford a less expensive, newer built unit, then they have to keep you from having a length adjustable stock, for you will surely use it to rob people with---so you will have enough money to buy the expensive preban, legal, version. Make sense? Not to me!

To the original question, if ATF certifies this "adjustable" stock as being OK for post ban rifles, they will be opening up a very large can of worms. Because at that point they are making judgements not about whether or not a stock is adjustable, but how adjustable is OK; and the law as I understand it does not give them that discretion. They will also be inviting lawsuits by thousands of CAR and M4gery owners , saying that if one brand of adjustable stock is OK, then they should all be OK.

Course I could be totally wrong about all of the above . It's been known to happen
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 7:50:22 PM EST

So anyways, tell me whats wrong with this AR....
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 7:57:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By rahimiv:

So anyways, tell me whats wrong with this AR....



It blew up.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:04:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By rahimiv:

So anyways, tell me whats wrong with this AR....



I didnt know that Glock made an AR Just kidding guys, said in good humor.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:35:32 PM EST
Anyone pick up on the error in judgement located on the upper receiver???

Hint: look forward of the delta ring, and no... I don't think that is a real flash suppressor.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:39:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/27/2002 8:40:39 PM EST by Lickity-Split]

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
Posted by CounterStrike...

so is a stock like that legal on a post-ban or is it considered telescoping?



Give that fellow New Yorker a cigar! I do believe that you have identified one of the problems with this POST BAN rifle... that stock sure looks and acts like it's collapsible if you ask me.



Cue up the 'Twilight Zone' theme. Just last night I happened to be browsing the Fulton Armory website, saw the rifle in question and wondered the same thing myself. It sure looks like a telescoping stock to me.

Clint McKee is a regular poster in the rec.guns newsgroup. I'd like to find out what BATF ruling makes this legal myself.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:45:03 PM EST
On this stock, as I understand because it requires tools to lengthen or shorten it is legal, as I understand it. I am sure if I am wrong soemone will point it out to me


Link Posted: 7/27/2002 9:00:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Edward_Forrester:
On this stock, as I understand because it requires tools to lengthen or shorten it is legal, as I understand it. I am sure if I am wrong soemone will point it out to me





Not sure if you're wrong or not but, there's still something odd here. Someone can manufacture (or do-it-yourself) a permanently fixed M-4orgery type telescoping stock... be it blind pinned, epoxied, welded or whatever, but the FA version passes muster because it requires an allen wrench or screwdriver to be adjusted?
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 10:51:42 AM EST
OK...enough guessing games. The other thing I wanted to point out is that Fulton Armory has optics mounted on a plastic handguard ( Fobus M33 Rail Handguards.)

I have never personally handled these Fobus handguards, but I can't imagine that they mount with enough stability to prevent an optic's zero from shifting with hard use and general wear and tear.

Link Posted: 7/28/2002 11:08:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By rahimiv:

So anyways, tell me whats wrong with this AR....



It looks as though the bolt never locked into the breach and somehow it was able to fire =(

Could the primer have blown-out also?

I appears that the most violent rupture was in the middle of the carrier?

How the hell do you get so much pressure into the gas chamber in the carrier (where it unlocks the bolt) to be able to blow the carrier apart like that??? Yikes!
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 11:12:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
OK...enough guessing games. The other thing I wanted to point out is that Fulton Armory has optics mounted on a plastic handguard ( Fobus M33 Rail Handguards.)

I have never personally handled these Fobus handguards, but I can't imagine that they mount with enough stability to prevent an optic's zero from shifting with hard use and general wear and tear.




I can see FRP being used for that. Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic is pretty strong/durable....LIGHTWEIGHT.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 2:06:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/28/2002 6:10:22 PM EST by NYPatriot]
Devil... these handguards may be ok for a forward grip, and maybe even a light, but I would never put an optic on them.

Optics need to be mounted to something very stable in order to maintain proper zero. The rails on this are plastic and the handguards lock into nothing except the delta ring & the handguard cap (no setscrews for added stability like Knight's RAS system)

Ever notice how your standard handguards wiggle a little bit? Couple this potential to wiggle and flex with plastic rails that could easily wear, & you have about as unstable a mounting platform as you could possibly have.

Top Top