Jump to content

collapsible M4 Mag extention


Recommended Posts

I think your asking on the wrong website, but the combo's vary from state to state. People in this forum say that it is illegal to put a mag extension on a base M4 (fixed pistol grip stock) in California when according to the California Department of Justice it is not.


If you happen to live in California then it would be illegal to have a pistol grip with a collapsable stock. Whichever state you live in try this but change the state.


Google - California Department of Justice


Which brings "Office of the attorney General"


( http://ag.ca.gov/ )


Click on "Publications" - "Firearms" - "California firearms law (current year)"


On Page "13" item "6"


"A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock

(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.


(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.


(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.


The following definitions shall apply relative to defining assault weapons:

(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.

(2)"Capacity to accept more than ten rounds" shall mean capable of accomodating more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accomodate more than ten rounds.


G/L in your search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see now the main thing I wanted you to see, m4madness' letter from the atf a few years ago is no longer hosted, so let me link it here:





Long story short: The theory is that if you make the gun have less than 10 imported parts, 922r no longer applies, and everyone lives happily ever after. Benelli stopped selling full length tubes/collapsible stock for fear of the ATF, but the ATF has done nothing beyond stating that these modifications would technically be illegal under certain laws.


Long story even shorter: 922r is a crock, and there's no reason to worry about vague "sporting purposes" clauses written by people who have no clue about guns, or to worry that the ATF is going to break down your door and arrest you for having a stock that lets you adjust your length of pull.


Long story the shortest: The ATF, to my knowledge, does not prosecute 922r offenses. The accessories are available and easy to install. You're more likely to get sued by the RIAA for mp3 downloads or charged by the DMV for using a catless exhaust than you are likely to be hassled for not being in compliance with 922r.




Have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone now or past; however, unless the response is specific to the part added and from ATF, then there is no answer yet--at least for my use.


Ad nausum debates are fun; however, generally dont provide anything but our "opinions"--mine is worthless for the most part, without supporting data.


Again no disrespect at all to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the point.


Vague, confusing, unenforceable laws are very good at keeping the majority of people in line, while allowing the minority to do what they want to an extent.


If you're really caught up on the technicalities ... I don't know what to tell you. You won't find a clear answer. You're not supposed to. Since when have gun laws had to make sense to get put into effect?


On one hand imported shotguns can't have over a certain number of random features ... but it takes a certain number of imported parts to make it an imported gun ... so people have been replacing imported parts with US made parts in hopes of dropping under 10 imported parts and thus making 922r null and void.


On the other hand, the benelli is obviously made up of more than the 11 parts listed in the ATF letter, and the ATF could "realize" and revise their supposed list at any time, making the people who have replaced stock imported parts with US made parts possessors of now illegal weapons. Plus there are local laws to comply with, and the "sporting purposes" clause.


My opinion: Don't fret over it. Enjoy your gun.


Take it or leave it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was apparently an inappropriate question.


Having said that, since I had not been on this site for quite a while, I would have assumed/hoped someone would have gone to the trouble to make the specific request to ATF in the past long time. Would have seemed a pretty simple thing to do for one of the more knowledgable members.


From past experience, U S Attorneys do not subscribe to the theory that "forgiveness is easier to get than permission"!


I have no interest in even being in a "gray" area of the law--not worth it to me.


Either way, I appreciate the thoughts and responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...