Approximately 1 year ago, I purchased yet another Ruger 10-22 (3rd one) with the expressed plan to "build" an M1 Carbine Tribute. I have always loved that piece but of course cannot own one in our state.

 

I purchased a walnut M1 Carbine stock, side sling with oiler, and a set of Tech Sights from EA Brown over the internet. I redid the weapon and it looks and shoots awesome. I have to admit that it does look exactly like an M1 Carbine. HOWEVER, I am again reading the Federal and NJ Gun Laws and I am worried about the language of "substantially identical". Since the .30 caliber M1 Carbine is specifically banned by name, does my build fall into the definition of "substantially identical". There is no flash suppresor, no bayonet lug, etc. and is in fact at heart a Ruger 10-22 in a different stock. It is still a .22 caliber "plinker" with the original 10 round Ruger rotary magazines.

 

My original thought process was that being a .22 caliber rim fire weapon and not a .30 caliber ball center fire weapon, it did not qualify as "substantially identical".

 

Any thoughts or known legal precedents?

Good question, that is on my project list to do. Hopefully someone can answer.

It's fine, it's a stock. You still have a 10/22. Stop worrying about it and just buy it

Please Hold for the M1 Carbine Tribute Police .....

at RTSP they have a very cool looking .22 cal M1 carbine look-a-like, you should check it out. I didn't get a chance to ask who makes it but it wasn't based on a 10/22. It might give you an idea of how far you can go. I can tell you you have nothing to worry about if your using a 10/22 as the base.

Thank you learned fellow gun enthusiasts......I wish all a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.....see you at the range,

Pics or it was never built!