somebody is quickly reaching troll status.

 

Yeah, the thought occurred to me as well.

i think people should mind their business, do you guys also count other patrons drinks at a bar and say "hey buddy you know you probably shouldn't drive right"

If, as a community, we aren't willing and prepared to police ourselves, then we have no excuse when the state comes in and does it for us. Get with it, or get out.

i think people should mind their business, do you guys also count other patrons drinks at a bar and say "hey buddy you know you probably shouldn't drive right"

Somewhere there is an empty hole in the sand the size of your head.

 

If we do not try to help each other then who will? If the person clearly shows they do not want to hear it, then leave them alone and let them take their chances.

Somewhere there is an empty hole in the sand the size of your head.

 

If we do not try to help each other then who will? If the person clearly shows they do not want to hear it, then leave them alone and let them take their chances.

 

 

that is the logic I would apply to something that has no safety repercussions....

 

illegal stock for example.. it is only going to effect the individual in violation..

 

a drunk driver on the other hand.. would cause me to escalate the level of involvement.. I would not just ignore a situation like that.. I would escalate it to police involvement if need be.. but ideally just get him to phone a friend to pick him up..

that is the logic I would apply to something that has no safety repercussions....

 

illegal stock for example.. it is only going to effect the individual in violation..

 

a drunk driver on the other hand.. would cause me to escalate the level of involvement.. I would not just ignore a situation like that.. I would escalate it to police involvement if need be.. but ideally just get him to phone a friend to pick him up..

I agree, I was only refering to the stock.

OT: What improvements does a UBR have over a traditional collapsible stock?

 

From the design alone, it doesn't look very sturdy or anything.

OT: What improvements does a UBR have over a traditional collapsible stock?

 

From the design alone, it doesn't look very sturdy or anything.

 

 

it is "tactical" lol

 

just kidding.. yeah it is a pretty expensive stock to buy when you are completely negating the key functionality of it..

DevsAdvocate- Consistent cheekweld regardless of LOP is the thing with the UBR. That and it's supposedly built like a tank. Personally when I used it, I was not blown away by the cheekweld compared to my ACS.

 

 

it is "tactical" lol

 

just kidding.. yeah it is a pretty expensive stock to buy when you are completely negating the key functionality of it..

 

Which is exactly why I didn't get one.

Which is exactly why I didn't get one.

 

 

makes sense.. most magpul stuff I have used was built really well.. yeah it is mostly plastic.. and most of it is pretty inexpensive (except for some stuff like the stocks..)... I would consider the higher end stocks they sell if I lived in a fee state that allowed them..

i wish they would change the law on telescoping stocks. though we know they will not.

 

if a telescoping stock when fully collapsed still makes the legal rifle length in nj then what is the big deal.

 

uhh. i know... beating a dead horse here, but hey i can dream.lol

My Colt SP1 carbine (No forward assist) sits in New York because I'm afraid to even have it locked up in my home never mind taking it to a range.

Well, the length of pull (LOP) is adjustable on both stocks. The official letter doesn't say that the 1" of LOP adjustability on the PRS is ok, where the 3.36" LOP adjustment on the BRS is illegal. Either they're both OK or they both aren't. The PRS has a different mechanism, but a prosecutor might argue that there is still a component that "telescopes" into the main body.

 

If I was in a court of law, trying to defend myself, I'd make some argument that the amount of adjustability that would make an adjustable stock illegal is the amount that would make the rifle an SBR. As long as the rifle is of legal length at all positions the adjustability of the stock shouldn't make a legal difference. I'm pretty sure that's what they were trying to achieve - not allowing a folding stock or stock that was illegally short at some position.

 

The letter indicates "a folding or telescoping stock" - folding makes sense, why would they put telescoping in there?

 

Can someone find a firearm they might have been thinking about when they put this letter together? We all see folding stocks on various wonderful rifles, like an M1 carbine, but what's an example of a rifle with a telescoping stock they might have had in mind?

 

Remember, this letter came out in 1996, and the AR accessories market was nothing like we have today. Magpul wasn't even in business until 1999; were there commonly-available adjustable AR-15 stocks around in 1996?

 

Here's that letter again: AW Letter

 

-Dave

MP5 style "telescopes"