Rugar 10/22 modified with folding stock! Anyone have one?

ivanthehunter

Has anyone ever fitted these with a folding stock and if so what do you think of the usability now that you have been out 'n' about with it.

PS is there any red tape associated with their use?

Sparks

There might well be red tape, the restricted list says the standard 10/22 is fine, but any "assault rifle" is restricted; and the problem is the definition of "assault rifle" in the SI, which includes any rifle that looks like what we'd know as an assualt rifle. It's not clear if a 10/22 with a 'black rifle' stock would qualify, you'd wind up in court for a decision, and if the DC went against you we'd all be lumped with a crappy precedent, so the first case has to be a good case.

Darr

hmmm i wonder what the actual defination of an assault rifle is .. wiki says ( but wiki is also full of crap)

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder;
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

the 10/22 have 2 of them ..


one would wonder is it a case it ahhhhhhh its black and therefore an assault rifle .. 20 years for you good sir ,you with your plastic stock 10/22.

Darr

Sparks

The wiki definition doesn't matter Darr, the SI has it's own definition:

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic
firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

Darr

The wiki definition doesn't matter Darr, the SI has it's own definition:

Quote:
“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic
firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;


Thought it might ... b is so Ambiguous as to be almost completely worthless for law abiding members of the public to adhere too.. how much of a resmeblance is ok one would wonder and would this change super to super .

Thanks Sparks
Dar

Mellor

I know its very easy to harp on about how we are being painted as criminals, but to ever stand a chance of decent representation regarding the restricted list we have to be reasonable adults. Calling certain restrictions "comical" is pointless, probably does more harm than good. When it comes to legal precedent, (which will likely decide most aspects of the RL) a defence based on the fact that it's comical restriction will be throw out.
The (b) part is there for a reason. For example, an AK-47 is restricted as it is an assualt rifle. Some models come without the full auto option. So these are covered by part (b). The first step is accepting that, and then setting legitimate firearms aside.

A ruger with folding stock imo, isn't covered by the (b)

It wasn't me!

Mellor wrote: »

I know its very easy to harp on about how we are being painted as criminals, but to ever stand a chance of decent representation regarding the restricted list we have to be reasonable adults. Calling certain restrictions "comical" is pointless, probably does more harm than good. When it comes to legal precedent, (which will likely decide most aspects of the RL) a defence based on the fact that it's comical restriction will be throw out.
The (b) part is there for a reason. For example, an AK-47 is restricted as it is an assualt rifle. Some models come without the full auto option. So these are covered by part (b). The first step is accepting that, and then setting legitimate firearms aside.

A ruger with folding stock imo, isn't covered by the (b)

I think the problem is how open to interpretation it is. To counter your argument (and purely plaing devil's advocate here; don't mean to get up your nose) an AK-47 without full-auto capability is merely a semi-auto centrefire rifle, in all but appearances, and they're restricted elsewhere, with no mention of "resemblance" to assault rifles. The question is what constitutes resemblance really. CZ Style/Silhouette? Black synthetic stock, matte barrel? Large capacity magazines? It's difficult to see the point of including the clause, when semi-auto centrefire rifles, which is in effect what we're discussing, are provided for elsewhere.

Sparks

It's not comical really Mellor, but it is utterly inconsistent - if a 10/22 in a standard stock is unrestricted:



And a third-party stock for the 10/22 is an uncontrolled item (it's just a chunk of plastic after all, it has no firearm parts within it):



Then combining the two should not logically produce a firearm that has to be restricted:



Because it's the same firearm. The stock has no component parts (according to the definition sections in the Act), it does not enhance the firearm in any way (you could stick that magazine or a larger one in the 10/22 with or without the fancy stock). The stock doesn't change the calibre, rate of fire, or any other relevant fact about the firearm. It makes it look scarier I suppose, but frankly, that's only of concern to victims of a crime, and it makes no sense to have a law saying it's more serious to point a scary-looking gun at someone than it is to point a not-so-scary-looking gun at someone. Especially since the scariest part of having a gun pointed at you is the fact that it's pointed at you, not the shape/size/colour of the stock...



(and that's not even getting into the incredibly loose language used in the SI in part (b) of that definition).

Mellor

Thats a very good point It wasn't me.
I can't think of any other firearms that would be covered by resemblance, and not semi-auto centrefire. Except prehaps, Assault replicas that fire rimfire rounds (semi-auto). I suppose thats the only case.
What would be opinions on them?
I personally don't see a need for them, and would always rather a regular styled hunting/target rifle (btw I include synthetic as regular).
But I also know that they are no more dangerous than other rifles, as the rounds and rate of fire are the same.
What could be other concerns, concealability? Or public reaction if brandished during a crime.

Mellor

Sparks wrote: »

It's not comical really Mellor, but it is utterly inconsistent - if a 10/22 in a standard stock is unrestricted:

And a third-party stock for the 10/22 is an uncontrolled item (it's just a chunk of plastic after all, it has no firearm parts within it):

Then combining the two should not logically produce a firearm that has to be restricted:

I understand your point Sparks. But this is a bad route to go imo. We shouldn't be trying to discredit the restricted list. Instead should show how it doesn't apply to simply a folding stock.

With all due respect, your "logic" above is hugely flawed. And would be thrown out of court so fast. The fact that two items are legal/unrestricted, has no bearing on their legality combined. The same could apply to a bayonette, or even a homemade additions to a firearm. I remember being younger and show some garda confiscated weapons. Almost all were converted from household items.
Firearms aside, alot of illegal subtances could be made a a chemistry student from ingredients each legal alone etc

Just to be clear. In case anyone takes me up wrong. I'm not saying that they should be restricted. I'm saying that some firearms should. Ones which people have no need for what so ever. And instead of trying to get them to drop restrictions, we should be trying to get the reasons for restrictions, accept them and show how legitimate firearms don't meet the reasons.

Sparks

It's not about how two legal substances shouldn't be illegal if combined Mellor; it's that the Firearms Act restricts the Firearm, it has nothing in the primary act in any place that says the stock has to be of a certain configuration to be legal. And while I personally think these AR-look-alike stocks are a bit sad really (though I could see advantages for, say, gallery rifle), the law isn't meant to make distinctions like that and it's supposed to be at least internally consistent. The given reason for the presence of those items on the list is that they are deemed to be more dangerous through potential lethality. The fact is, an AR-look-alike stock doesn't make a 10/22 more dangerous (except to your ego when someone rolls their eyes at it, of course ). If you were to say that a belt-fed 10/22 variant should go on the list, I'd say that at least that had some merit; but if I paint the stock black it can be argued to resemble an M-14 and I refuse to believe a coat of paint will materially change the objective characteristics of a firearm.

Mellor

Sparks wrote: »

The given reason for the presence of those items on the list is that they are deemed to be more dangerous through potential lethality. The fact is, an AR-look-alike stock doesn't make a 10/22 more dangerous (except to your ego when someone rolls their eyes at it, of course )

Well it that the "offical" reason. Then its inconsistant. However, I assumed that the reason was just like similar restrictions on shotguns. Folding stocks on a shotgun don't make it any more letal, but do make it more concealible, (although so would cutting off a legal stock)

I agree that a 10/22 is still a 10/22 and no more dangerous. I don't think it should be stricted. I don't really think its covered by (B) above. As to me it doesent. But to a super, it might.
Sparks, have you any off the shelf examples, as in the way the super first sees it. I can only think of bullpup rifles at the minute.

Sparks

Off-the-shelf, omitting the 10/22, there's the MP-161K (if you can find it):


there's the G22 but that's bullpup and probably what you're thinking of:


there's AR15 clones in .22 like the Armscor M1600 (this is them off-the-shelf):


and there's things like this mossberg:


The problem is, when do you say X appears to be like Y in a courtroom? What's the standard?

cavan shooter

Help me out here......Maybe I am getting old and grumpy (grumpier):D, but why does somebody want to take a nice 10/22 that shoots (ok) and turn it into something that would turn heads and scare the beGod out of someone and have the ERU come running

Why would you need a folding stock??

Why pretend to have a M4 or M16 or an MP5. You cant say that shooting a souped up 10/22 is ever going to be like shooting the "real thing"

I have seen lads turn up at a range with the pretend MP5 in 22lr and saw them pack up again when they were told to leave??

Does a line not have to be drawn some where????

Sparks

I dunno if it has to be drawn cavan (though frankly, turning up to a match with a 10/22 is going to get you laughed out of it on most ranges I know of, for most disciplines, so that's one line right there ), but if it does have to be drawn, I'd rather it wasn't drawn so badly.

Mellor

Thanks Sparks.
The G22 was the bullpup I had in mind, as well as the Ster Aug version (not sure if it can be bought commercially though). And as they are restricted due to being bullpup, they are covered else where.

In my opinion, the AR15 clones are covered bt part (b). As it obviously resembles one. Granted its no more dangerous than a regular .22, but its scary :rolleyes:

As for the other two, I personally dont think they rememble assualt rifles.
The russian jobbie, does look a bit out there but most laypeople would say its a sniper rifle (if fitted with scope).
The mossberg appears to be a fine rifle. Although its black, to be it looks exactly like what it is. The 18" version looks "scarier", but imo is still fine.

Sparks

The problem with the russian one Mellor, is that it looks like the cx-4 storm:

Which comes under part (a) of the assault rifle definition in the SI.

Grizzly 45

[

Why would you need a folding stock??

Lots of reasons..
1] You are backpacking to your shooting area,and a full stock is nothing but a PITA getting caught in things.
2] Storage space is a major factor
3] Extreme brush hunting here where a 24in is still too long and annoying.
4]You like the look of it,[which means you havent shot it alot with a folding :eek:]and a folding stock doesnt make it any more leathl,what 10mins work with a hacksaw wouldnt do better for concealbility.

Why pretend to have a M4 or M16 or an MP5. You cant say that shooting a souped up 10/22 is ever going to be like shooting the "real thing"

No,but it will be a darn sight cheaper in ammo for a start:eek:.seeing that we cant have "the real thing"??? here why shouldnt somone customise their gun or whatever to the way they like it?So long as they are not comitting any crime with it or making it patently unsafe or illegal..22s are FUN guns and dressing them up is primarly exactly for that purpose.Fun,or have we forgotten one of the pertinent points of shooting???

I have seen lads turn up at a range with the pretend MP5 in 22lr and saw them pack up again when they were told to leave??

Great !Do tell who this place is as I will never set foot in it !!!! and everyone else should BOYCOTT that club and range.
What a bunch of IDIOTS!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:.
Like we really need to discourage people from shooting and joining in clubs,just because some idiots in charge think their gun is different and that therefore the person behind it is somhow going to turn into John Rambo and start blasting in full auto at everything in sight!!Maybe they were worried that they would chuck a few grenades downrange as well!!

Do they throw everyone else out with a Ruger 10/22as well,because thats really all thats in the.22 Mp5,the rest is all clamshell bolt on bits.Even the genuine HK parts wont fit it!
That kind of dimwitted attitude is what will destroy shooting for EVERYONE here.Bad enough that other clubs are fleecing shooters with "You can only use ammo you bought at the club here [at no doubt a 100% mark up:mad::mad:].And if you dont like it FK off!"

All those kind of owners,clubs and associations should be told where to get off and be blacklisted by any right thinking shooter.We can do with out snobby eliteism and rippoff merchants thank you very much!

Could we PLEASE STOP looking at anything in the shooting sector that offends our eyes with suspicion ,loathing or downright hostility!
Not everything in the "idonlikedelookodat" category means that the people using it,practising it or otherwise are training to be bodygaurds,Rambos,mercenaries or whatever[The practical pistol saga here in Ireland springs to mind].

So long as the person is not actually engaged in a criminal activity,being reckless with the firearm in the company of others,endangering life or property ,that club on the basis of just the looks of the firearm had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to descriminate against those shooters.
Were you to do this to a person in any other walk of life because of them being different you would have a discrimination suit on you quicker than you could say "equality".

It is bad enough that we have Govt muppets deciding what we should shoot,but that we descriminate against our own,because of what type of gun they like to shoot goes beyond belif.Lets move on with the times abit,the semi rifle is just an advance in technology,same as the modern car is over the Model T Ford.Is anyone suggesting that auto technology should stop and we should all drive ModelT's because the Model T is what is considerd a "traditional" car??And anyone else wanting a different "modern"car must be up to no good???

100 +years ago the bolt action was the "assault rifle" of it's day and looked down upon by both the military and target shooters as "unsporting":rolleyes:.Nowadays it is a "traditional" rifle.In time the "unsporting" semi rifle wil be "traditional" as firearms technology moves onto the next level.

Saying this gun is good,and that one is bad because it is black and semi auto is the height of BS these days.Offering up one type of
gun in the hope of saving your own in the end doesn't work.
Ask the UK pistol owners.
Whats to say tomrrow your bolt action target rifle isnt labelled a "deadly sniper rifle??"

Rant over!!

CS this is not a pop at you BTW.Just at some downright ignorance that should not exist anymore in the shooting community in ireland in these times.

Does a line not have to be drawn some where????
Yes,with the total idiots like you described,and with this attitude that some guns are more dangerous than others,or some will become more deadly by adding on bits of plastic,wood or metal.Or by flushing them out of the shooting community of these "evil" guns "good " guns will be safer.The line is drawn in that we support each other as "gunowners" wether you shoot a 20mm Vulcan cannon or a single shot airpistol.it is irrevelant,we either hang together or we will assuredly hang seperately.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

that club on the basis of just the looks of the firearm had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to descriminate against those shooters.

Actually, it does, being a private club. It might be stupid or even wrong to do so, but they do have the right to do so, same as a nightclub has the right to refuse entry. Of course, those going to that range have the right to go elsewhere. But saying they have no right to have rules is like saying that Tesco have no right to require people to wear shoes and a shirt while shopping.

Were you to do this to a person in any other walk of life because of them being different you would have a discrimination suit on you quicker than you could say "equality".

That's not even apples and oranges, it's chalk and cheese.

It is bad enough that we have Govt muppets deciding what we should shoot

Muppet if anything there Grizzly, it's the guy at the top not the lads doing the job below you ought to be yelling at.

the semi rifle is just an advance in technology,same as the modern car is over the Model T Ford.

It's not, it's more like the modern car is to the modern sailing yacht. Horses for courses - there's not a semi made that is accurate enough to replace an ISSF bolt-action .22 rifle, for example, but an ISSF bolt-action is a distinct disadvantage for gallery rifle matches.

Grizzly 45

[

quote=Sparks;58901502]Actually, it does, being a private club. It might be stupid or even wrong to do so, but they do have the right to do so, same as a nightclub has the right to refuse entry

Fair enough if they put that in preconditions of joining[which I would doubt] and it is still a very shaky legal arguement,considering equality is a big issue these days.Portmarnock golf club springs to mind.Even night clubs have to be pretty careful on that one these days.
Not to mind a sucidial busisness move.Can anyone be so pickey these days?


.

Of course, those going to that range have the right to go elsewhere. But saying they have no right to have rules is like saying that Tesco have no right to require people to wear shoes and a shirt while shopping

See above point.Unless Tesco actually posts and informs it's customers at the door of it's shops that there is a dress code,then anything goes.

.

Muppet if anything there Grizzly, it's the guy at the top not the lads doing the job below you ought to be yelling at.

Talking worldwide there Sparks.

It's not, it's more like the modern car is to the modern sailing yacht. Horses for courses - there's not a semi made that is accurate enough to replace an ISSF bolt-action .22 rifle, for example, but an ISSF bolt-action is a distinct disadvantage for gallery rifle matches.[/quote]

Indeed,a better comparision .However there seems to be still the hidebound traditionalists out there that insist that in the shooting world we stay with model T Fords,and vintage 1920 Thorny Croft motor launches.Times move on,and there should be a respect for a persons personal choice in firearms,not derision or snobbnishness.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Fair enough if they put that in preconditions of joining[which I would doubt] and it is still a very shaky legal arguement,considering equality is a big issue these days.Portmarnock golf club springs to mind.

Portmarnock proved to be immune to legal action on that point; all the state could do was take away the liquor licence. Not too many rifle clubs have those. Again, as I said, most ranges are private clubs legally, so they can have enormous leeway on their rules.

Not to mind a sucidial busisness move.Can anyone be so pickey these days?

That's more the approach to be looking at. Tesco don't ban women from their stores, not because they're great feminists, but because they want to make money.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Portmarnock proved to be immune to legal action on that point; all the state could do was take away the liquor licence. Not too many rifle clubs have those. Again, as I said, most ranges are private clubs legally, so they can have enormous leeway on their rules.

BUT rifle clubs are much more vunerable to other pressures from the powers that be.Like range compliance and authorisations,security requirements, insurances etc.You know how it goes here,if they dont get you one way....

Sparks

True - but if they went after a private club on discrimination grounds, it would be rather unusual, and not only that, discrimination is tied very closely to legal rights (and I don't mean "we have a right to guns 'cos my mate down the pub says so, roight?", I mean section 42 of the constitution and the other non-enumerated rights that have legal standing through common law and so on. So refusing access on the grounds of race, colour, creed, age, sex or something where equality is guaranteed through law; that can be tackled. Saying you can't have a particular type of firearm on the range? The court would dismiss with prejudice and say your complaint had no merit, which is today's civilised version of being laughed out of court while being pelted with rotten fruit. Especially when the principle of refusing access to ranges for certain firearms is well-established. Try shooting something over a certain muzzle velocity/energy on MoD ranges in the UK, for example, or try shooting a 9mm in WTSC. In both cases you'll be refused, quite legally (you can't shoot 9mm in WTSC because you'd go through the target, the target holder, the backstop, the wall behind the backstop, a hundred yards of air and then the next house down the road from the range ). The parts of the law that cover licencing ranges will just add to the defence against discrimination.

Fact is, the only recourse you really have is the same as every other consumer - go elsewhere. (Well. You could join the club, get on the committee and try to effect change that way, but most people don't. Which is why shooting in Ireland is in the ha'penny place compared to anywhere else in the EU.)

Grizzly 45

OR OTOH If it was not made clearly understandable to members that certain types of firearms are not allowed on the range,and then somone decides contrary to any written rules that these types are not suitable,"cos I dont like them...so there!" They are leaving themselves open to discrimination[if that is the right word to use here] on the personal level.
Wel it is also logo that you cant shoot 9mm in a ISSF match,etc.But that wasnt the point.It would be the same if somone said.you cant shoot ISSF matches with that gun,cos it is colored pink and blue!Despite that it has the same technology,etc as required for your ISSF match rules.
But you are right on two things.about joining and changing,or simply leaving that club and telling everyone what sort of a stuck up place/shysters are running it.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

OR OTOH If it was not made clearly understandable to members that certain types of firearms are not allowed on the range,and then somone decides contrary to any written rules that these types are not suitable,"cos I dont like them...so there!" They are leaving themselves open to discrimination[if that is the right word to use here] on the personal level.

I really don't think it's the right word and I really don't think they are leaving themselves open to anything bar club censure. Private clubs are unincorporated associations - they're subject to remarkably few laws, and it's hard if not impossible to even enforce their own rules on them (as we've seen time and again in our sport at different levels).
If the club was actually a limited company, and the rules as to what was and was not allowed were in the articles (unlikely) or specified byelaws (more likely), then you might have a leg to stand on. But there aren't many clubs set up that way.

Wel it is also logo that you cant shoot 9mm in a ISSF match,etc.But that wasnt the point.It would be the same if somone said.you cant shoot ISSF matches with that gun,cos it is colored pink and blue!Despite that it has the same technology,etc as required for your ISSF match rules.

Under those circumstances, you'd protest to the NTSA; they might kick it to the ISSF (unlikely) or to JSI (more likely). But you wouldn't have grounds to go to any court.

But you are right on two things.about joining and changing,or simply leaving that club and telling everyone what sort of a stuck up place/shysters are running it.

Yeah.... just not that last bit. Libel law, don't'cha know. You can relate your experiences, with zero embellishments and no conclusions or generalisations drawn. (Believe me, you don't need them - if it's that bad, folks draw their own far faster than you can speak).

Rovi

Sparks wrote: »

(you can't shoot 9mm in WTSC because you'd go through the target, the target holder, the backstop, the wall behind the backstop, a hundred yards of air and then the next house down the road from the range ).

Just as a point of information, unless I'm very much mistaken, WTSC is a 10 metre air rifle/pistol range and wouldn't be up to specification or authorised for any cartridge type firearm.

teddy bruckshot

lads when are ye goin to stop feeding this troll.
all hes doin is giving more ammo to the anti's i.e. any lazy ársed journo too shiftless to resarch his/her work propperly.

i havnt seen 1 reply form the op.

im not around here that long but i can see nearly every thread hes started hase been some way contraversial.

pistols were goin just grand untill the media found out about them, whey ruin it for other shooters as well.

Sparks

Teddy, first off thanks, we'd noticed.
Secondly, I'd rather the journos got their facts here and so got them straight. The ones that do us damage don't bother to get facts, they just make them up.

milkerman

Sparks wrote: »

Off-the-shelf, omitting the 10/22, there's the MP-161K (if you can find it):

I like the look of that! Has anyone got one? Is it available here? Is it any good?

Grizzly 45

teddy bruckshot wrote: »

lads when are ye goin to stop feeding this troll.
all hes doin is giving more ammo to the anti's i.e. any lazy ársed journo too shiftless to resarch his/her work propperly.

i havnt seen 1 reply form the op.

im not around here that long but i can see nearly every thread hes started hase been some way contraversial.

pistols were goin just grand untill the media found out about them, whey ruin it for other shooters as well.

Excuse me if I may give a differing opinion???I have met personally ,[whom I assume you refer to as Ivanthehunter??]and while being shall,I say " very enthuastic".He is deffo not a journalist,or a agent proveucetor!!!He is one of us!

ivanthehunter

Ok i asked if anyone had a folding stock on a 10/22 and no body hear has one. I seen them for sale in NI and i had a look at the joint/hinge a TBH it seem like a really go job.
I personal see a folding stock as mearly an advantage when traveling- try shooting a rifle with no shoulder to rest on and its near impossible to hit the target!

I didn't respond when i seen the crap about shooting clubs not allowing people to shoot firearms that didn't live up to the traditional format!!!:mad:

As others have said here, it seems that some have forgotten that for some shooting is for enjoyment, and that is provided by trying new ranges, new ammo, old ammo, and different calibers and configurations of firearms.

Yes i did as if there was any red tape as i like to know before i buy such a stock.. although it wont be fitted on a rugar 10/22..

Anyway i have seen the new butler creek folding stock but i have also seen an older factory rugar side folding stocks that is fitted to a wooden stock.

Anyone have a date for the manufacture of the folding side stock that fits to a timber stock/fore-wood?? Take a look here at some photos
http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/showthread.php?t=39604

The troll.. Ha:)