Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
4/19/2008 12:46:09 PM EDT
OK, how about this for those that travel light.....

www.zahal.org/rifle/p22.htm

Not sure how much it weighs, but it's polymer so it's a lot lighter than
a trunk gun.  A Glock with this would be a fair addition to ones bag.
Ofcourse one would need to have a 16" barrel as well, but if the SHTF and
there is no law, one could leave that baby behind.

I would think a 10mm Glock and this would definely give one an edge.  There's also
a sight mount that attaches to the frame....something like that combo and an Aimpoint would be awesome.  
I wonder how the site would return to zero?  That would be important because ones' CCW would not use the sight 100% of the time.

Anyone have any experience with this set up?
4/19/2008 12:51:15 PM EDT
[#1]
I can really see no use for that.

I see that getting in the way and not being able to move you gun correctly more often than not. I'd save your money.

When in a gun fight, if your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.


You're right about the barrel length!

ETA: Where your eyes look, your gun should be pointing, I don't see enough range of movement with that.  How often do you turn your head and not your whole torso, like that thing would require.
4/19/2008 1:12:06 PM EDT
[#2]
I think that idea was originally developed for the G18.

4/19/2008 1:19:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Looks illegal to me without the required form.
4/19/2008 1:54:39 PM EDT
[#4]
Would turn your pistol into an SBR.
4/19/2008 2:14:07 PM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
Looks illegal to me without the required form.


Yep,and I'm not wild about the idea of NFA in my GHB.
4/19/2008 2:32:16 PM EDT
[#6]
The idea is to install the shoulder stock for long range shots only.

It's not a SBR unless the stock is installed with the pistol barrel.

One would need to have the 16" rifle length barrel to be legal.

Or am I mistaken?
4/19/2008 6:00:51 PM EDT
[#7]
to be legal you would have to instal the barrel first then the stock.  You'd be better off with a Kel-tec sub 2000 or any folding stock rifle/subgun.  Even with the long barrel and the stock I see no real utility.  The stock was designed to turn a Glock into a sub gun which is impracticle/illegal for most.

Your not the first person with this idea.  I would suggest that you give it up and move on as those before you have.
4/19/2008 9:52:35 PM EDT
[#8]
Be careful when using a fore grip on a full auto Glock
4/19/2008 9:55:15 PM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:
The idea is to install the shoulder stock for long range shots only.

It's not a SBR unless the stock is installed with the pistol barrel.

One would need to have the 16" rifle length barrel to be legal.

Or am I mistaken?


As I understand it, ATF could construe simple posession of that and of a Glock pistol as constructive intent. I just work on an ambulance though, I don't chase them. (Not a lawyer)

My Sub-2000 fills the same role without the legal concerns.
4/19/2008 11:11:15 PM EDT
[#10]

As I understand it, ATF could construe simple posession of that and of a Glock pistol as constructive intent. I just work on an ambulance though, I don't chase them. (Not a lawyer)

My Sub-2000 fills the same role without the legal concerns.


If you have the 16" rifle barrel to go with it, you're fine.

The Thompson/Contender case proved this pretty clearly, I think.
4/20/2008 12:31:42 AM EDT
[#11]
That thing is not needed.  If you are not getting your hits with a pistol then you just need more practice or training.

Spend the money on ammo.
4/21/2008 12:23:02 AM EDT
[#12]
When I read your post title I thought you had a substance abuse probem!!!
4/21/2008 11:25:09 AM EDT
[#13]

Quoted:
Be careful when using a fore grip on a full auto Glock


Fucking OW!!!
4/21/2008 11:37:10 AM EDT
[#14]

Quoted:
That thing is not needed.  If you are not getting your hits with a pistol then you just need more practice or training.

Spend the money on ammo.


+1 or if it is too far out to get a reliable hit, then you need to either switch to a rifle or gtfo of the situation.
4/21/2008 11:50:00 AM EDT
[#15]

Quoted:

As I understand it, ATF could construe simple posession of that and of a Glock pistol as constructive intent. I just work on an ambulance though, I don't chase them. (Not a lawyer)

My Sub-2000 fills the same role without the legal concerns.



That is absolutely the way they will construe it.
4/21/2008 12:47:13 PM EDT
[#16]
completely and utterly useless unless you are shooting it FA <ie gl-18> not to mention the legal aspect.

you'd be FAR better off with just the pistol and extra mags. thats not going to give you any range advantage over what you already have in the pistol.