Chipperchoi Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Hey all, I bought a M1014 awhile back and swapped out a few parts to make it 922r compliant. Because of the skeleton stock and PG, I was told we need to replace 4 parts instead of just 3. So the 7rd tube and follower (DMW) and forend from FFT (the plastic replacement). I decided to sell the skeleton stock and PG and bought a Mesa stock since I can't have a collapsible stock where I am. Now I really want a field stock instead of the Mesa stock. Since the original stock and grip combo is removed, am I good with just 3 parts replaced (since a field stock isn't US made)? The requirement for 4 parts is only if I still had the original skeleton stock setup correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ihrinwe Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Yes, you need 3. FFT has a whole page dedicated to 922(r) that may help you. https://freedomfightertactical.com/pages/922r-faq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chipperchoi Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 32 minutes ago, Ihrinwe said: Yes, you need 3. FFT has a whole page dedicated to 922(r) that may help you. https://freedomfightertactical.com/pages/922r-faq Ok thank you. Just getting some reassurance that there isn't some stupid rule about it originally coming with 14 parts and fall under the 4 parts rule instead of 3 even if the parts are removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benelliwerkes Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) It's admirable to try and play nice with 922(R) guidelines. However, unless you are already in the line of night vision sight of criminal law enforcement prosecutors no one is going to check your firearm for minutiae compliance details against the "list" of items to be compliant. IF the lawman ever comes knocking to inspect and itemize your firearm accessory list you are in heap of deep legal ginsha. Be quiet, drop your dime to your lawyer and await his/her arrival. This would be a "add on" prosecutorial charge to have the long arm of the Feds to punish you further. Just for fun try to cite a single case in modern history where some poor soul was prosecuted on 922(R) during routine traffic stop, at the local gun range, selling their firearm online etc. Edited February 1 by benelliwerkes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chipperchoi Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 On 2/1/2024 at 3:19 PM, benelliwerkes said: It's admirable to try and play nice with 922(R) guidelines. However, unless you are already in the line of night vision sight of criminal law enforcement prosecutors no one is going to check your firearm for minutiae compliance details against the "list" of items to be compliant. IF the lawman ever comes knocking to inspect and itemize your firearm accessory list you are in heap of deep legal ginsha. Be quiet, drop your dime to your lawyer and await his/her arrival. This would be a "add on" prosecutorial charge to have the long arm of the Feds to punish you further. Just for fun try to cite a single case in modern history where some poor soul was prosecuted on 922(R) during routine traffic stop, at the local gun range, selling their firearm online etc. I understand. Since I have gone through the trouble already, just trying to do it right. Sure there are no precedence set for 922r but with all the anti 2A sentiment nowadays, no one know what the future holds. Unless you are the authority on this matter or willing to fight an over zealous DA for me here in California, I'm going to cover my ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.