Just wondering if anyone had fabricated (or carved, whittled, etc, etc, etc) a detachable stock for their pistols?
I see the wire frame ones on eBay every once in awhile and may have to pick one up for my MK10.
Has anyone made a detachable stock for their MKI/II/III?
Moderators: Bullseye, Moderators
-
arizona-hermit
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:01 am
- Location: The Old Southwest
Has anyone made a detachable stock for their MKI/II/III?
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain. [1 COR 15:10a - NASB]
I was in this conversation over at Rimfire Central with a guy who posted this picture of a item called an Aimbrace.
He claims it's BATF legal because it doesn'tactually attach to the pistol, you hold it to the pistol with your grip. I can see where it attaches, the black portion near the end is shaped to cup the rear of the Mark II's grip. I've no idea how well it works.
Couple of crossed shooting sticks seem like they'd work just as well.
R,
Bullseye
He claims it's BATF legal because it doesn'tactually attach to the pistol, you hold it to the pistol with your grip. I can see where it attaches, the black portion near the end is shaped to cup the rear of the Mark II's grip. I've no idea how well it works.
Couple of crossed shooting sticks seem like they'd work just as well.
R,
Bullseye
-
arizona-hermit
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:01 am
- Location: The Old Southwest
Aim Brace
He was correct. As long as the device does not 'attach' to the weapon (but is held in place by hand), it is considered legal to use.
I use crossed shooting sticks when shooting long range rifle, but have never tried it with a pistol. I suppose that is because I am usually standing up when shooting a pistol and sitting down when shooting long range rifle.
Perhaps I need a 6' staff with a padded U bracket on the top. That may just work.
hmmmm
I use crossed shooting sticks when shooting long range rifle, but have never tried it with a pistol. I suppose that is because I am usually standing up when shooting a pistol and sitting down when shooting long range rifle.
Perhaps I need a 6' staff with a padded U bracket on the top. That may just work.
hmmmm
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain. [1 COR 15:10a - NASB]
I use crossed shooting sticks when shooting long range rifle, but have never tried it with a pistol. I suppose that is because I am usually standing up when shooting a pistol and sitting down when shooting long range rifle.
Perhaps I need a 6' staff with a padded U bracket on the top. That may just work.
I was thinking use taller crossed sticks and an isosoles stance. The lower, weak hand holds the sticks crossed and steady, the upper, strong hand operates the pistol. Those Yucca stalks make mighty fine sticks and as I recall they grow quite tall.
R,
Bullseye
-
arizona-hermit
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:01 am
- Location: The Old Southwest
Yes, they grow quite tall, can be straight, are exceptionally light, and extremely sturdy. I'll see what I can do to rig a couple up and test it out.Bullseye wrote:I use crossed shooting sticks when shooting long range rifle, but have never tried it with a pistol. I suppose that is because I am usually standing up when shooting a pistol and sitting down when shooting long range rifle.
Perhaps I need a 6' staff with a padded U bracket on the top. That may just work.
I was thinking use taller crossed sticks and an isosoles stance. The lower, weak hand holds the sticks crossed and steady, the upper, strong hand operates the pistol. Those Yucca stalks make mighty fine sticks and as I recall they grow quite tall.
R,
Bullseye
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain. [1 COR 15:10a - NASB]
I didn't read it real close... but...MicroGuy wrote:Why would that be illegal?? I mean, what's the reasoning behind it? Why would it be illegal to have a stock attached to a target pistol??
I suspect a Mounted-shoulder-stock makes it into a 'Rifle'...
and Rifle barrels have to be a minimum of 16" long bore...
which begs the question... why can I have a Ruger MK-10
as a perfectly legal pistol as hand-held (longer pistol barrels exist)...
but with the Shoulder-Stock it can't be less than 16"...
I still don't know "why"...
what is so 'dangerous' about a 14" 12ga shotgun ??
Can I put a Pistol-Grip on it and call it a Shot-Pistol ?
what about the Taurus (??) Revolver that shoots 410 & .45colt
-
MicroGuy
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:32 pm
- Location: Flowery Branch, Georgia. USA
I was reading up on the Georgia gun laws, and by their definition, it seems that a shoulder stock, as you said, would turn it into a "rifle", but with one mod, it seems to fit into the "sawed off" category.
http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php
Dangerous Weapons, section b. under definitions. (near the top)
So, it's still a pistol, but the stock turns it into a rifle category, but the short barrel then makes it enter into the sawed off "dangerous" category.
But also, it seems that if I load one of those shot shells, into my .22lr, that it's no longer a "handgun" any more!
The shot is far smaller than a .17 cal. And I"m not sure about the .17 powders either. Where do they fall?
Looks like, no matter what, they'll never get "perfect" gun laws. At least here, they're pretty "slack".
And it's a good thing that you no longer have to retreat before killing the sludge that broke into your house.
There were a few incidents where armed citizens were able to prevent "bad things" from happening because they were able to draw their weapons and put a stop to it, like an abduction.
They're getting there.
But it still doesn't make sense. If they can make exceptions for certain guns/categories/events etc.... you'd think they could make an exception for a gun stock!
If it was just something they didn't think about, that would be fine (dumb, but fine). But if it's an intentional exclusion, then I fail to see the "dangerous weapon" reasoning behind it.
I mean, how much more "dangerous" can my Mark III become just because I added a removable stock to it??
http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php
Dangerous Weapons, section b. under definitions. (near the top)
So, it's still a pistol, but the stock turns it into a rifle category, but the short barrel then makes it enter into the sawed off "dangerous" category.
But also, it seems that if I load one of those shot shells, into my .22lr, that it's no longer a "handgun" any more!
The shot is far smaller than a .17 cal. And I"m not sure about the .17 powders either. Where do they fall?
Looks like, no matter what, they'll never get "perfect" gun laws. At least here, they're pretty "slack".
And it's a good thing that you no longer have to retreat before killing the sludge that broke into your house.
There were a few incidents where armed citizens were able to prevent "bad things" from happening because they were able to draw their weapons and put a stop to it, like an abduction.
They're getting there.
But it still doesn't make sense. If they can make exceptions for certain guns/categories/events etc.... you'd think they could make an exception for a gun stock!
If it was just something they didn't think about, that would be fine (dumb, but fine). But if it's an intentional exclusion, then I fail to see the "dangerous weapon" reasoning behind it.
I mean, how much more "dangerous" can my Mark III become just because I added a removable stock to it??
others can correct my "firearms law history"... but...MicroGuy wrote:I mean, how much more "dangerous" can my Mark III become just because I added a removable stock to it??
it is all "emotional"... not fact, statistics or physics...
I **think** a 'silencer' is legal in the UK (for those that manage to
satisfy the rules for a firearm)...
but in the US... it was portrayed long ago in the movies as associated
with 'assassinations'... so a silencer is an individually licensed & TAXED
item if you decide you really want one...
so, it's not logic, it's 'the law'...