At the risk of starting another controversial topic, I'm going to pose this question...

Not trying to rock the boat, the engineer in me is just contemplating alternative solutions...

 

Has anyone considered permanently attaching one of these Bayonet Lug Accessory Mounts to their lug instead of grinding? Would this satisfy the "No Lug" requirement? I'm thinking install with the two setscrews as pictured, and weld over (like muzzle brake pin/weld) so that it is not easily removed?

 

Could/would this be equivalent to "grinding the ears" such that the lug is still partially present, but not capable mounting a bayonet, therefor acceptable?

 

http://www.brownells...ACCESSORY-MOUNT

i. A semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least

two of the following:

(3) A bayonet mount;

(4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash

suppressor; and

#4 states "or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate..." That means that if you disable the rifles ability to accept a flash suppressor, that feature doesn't exist. #3 is not phrased in the same fashion. It just simply says "A bayonet mount." Now I am not a lawyer, but to me that means that if the rifle has a bayonet mount at all, it counts as a feature. I wouldn't risk it when you can get a rail mount like that for the handguard.

I think that if it was permenently attached, it would count. Its like permenently attaching a barrel extension and the rifle not being a SBR. Of course, nothing is well defined here so...

vjf - seems straight forward enough, i think... you're basically interpreting it as even though its not functional as a bayonet mount, it is still a fully intact bayonet mount present on the weapon?

 

so along the same lines, would a pinned stock still be an adjustable stock present on the weapon, even though it is not functional? application of the same logic to the other feature...

I think that if it was permenently attached, it would count. Its like permenently attaching a barrel extension and the rifle not being a SBR. Of course, nothing is well defined here so...

 

this is what i was thinking... at least the "permanent" method with respect to barrels is clearly defined by BATFE and widely accepted and has precedent..

if the rifle at time of inspection has a provision to attach a bayonet.. then that is an evil feature.. if the rifle does not have the same provision then it is not an evil feature.. with that said.. keep in mind the literal writing of the law.. it says nothing about lugs.. it says bayonet mount.. since there are now bayonets that will attach to rail section.. it is a VERY fine line..

 

without starting another shitstorm.. I would say that ANY rail section that extends far enough to enable the attachment of a rail mounted bayonet.. is TECHNICALLY an "evil feature" per literal NJ law...

 

can you attach a bayonet to a rail?

some of them.. YES

does the rail extend far enough to make use of the bayonet?

sometimes.. YES

 

then is that not a functional bayonet mount?

 

 

if the rifle at time of inspection has a provision to attach a bayonet.. then that is an evil feature.. if the rifle does not have the same provision then it is not an evil feature.. with that said.. keep in mind the literal writing of the law.. it says nothing about lugs.. it says bayonet mount.. since there are now bayonets that will attach to rail section.. it is a VERY fine line..

 

without starting another shitstorm.. I would say that ANY rail section that extends far enough to enable the attachment of a rail mounted bayonet.. is TECHNICALLY an "evil feature" per literal NJ law...

 

can you attach a bayonet to a rail?

some of them.. YES

does the rail extend far enough to make use of the bayonet?

sometimes.. YES

 

then is that not a functional bayonet mount?

 

 

 

now there is a different way of looking at it!! new one to me.... now implicating full length handguards with a tac rail at the muzzle end??? uh oh...

 

enough evidence here to leave this one alone... thanks fellas.

I am pretty sure that the intention of the law is NOT that you would be charged with a full length rail..

BUT "technically" if the planets aligned and you were just in a situation where they WANTED to slam you.. it would be pretty easy to illustrate to a court room the mounting of a "bayonet" on a full length rail..

 

so along the same lines, would a pinned stock still be an adjustable stock present on the weapon, even though it is not functional? application of the same logic to the other feature...

You bring up a very good point here. We consider a pinned stock as legal because you take away the ability of the stock to telescope. Therefore, under that same train of thought, you would be correct. I just think that welding something onto the bayonet lug is a lot of extra work compared to other options.