Kingpin / Maglock and Locking Back Bolt

[Dohboy]

I run featureless on my AR rifles. But need a fixed mag solution for AR pistols and CompMag isn't for me. I'm probably two cycles behind all of the changes to AR pistol rules and requirements.

 

[AR15barrels]

I run featureless on my AR rifles. But need a fixed mag solution for AR pistols and CompMag isn't for me. I'm probably two cycles behind all of the changes to AR pistol rules and requirements.

Hogue freedom fighter magazine catch lock and a takedown pin from Juggernaught tatcical is the most reliable setup.

 

[AR15barrels]

You can't fire the gun when the action is broken.

False.
If you can break the action open with the bolt to the rear to release a mag, you can ALSO break the action open while the bolt is forward.
The gun will fire if the hammer strikes the firing pin.
None of the "break the action open" rear pins that let you "break the action open" without physically removing the rear pin actually cause the upper and lower to separate enough that the hammer will not reach the firing pin.
Therefore, if you break the action open enough to remove a mag, and the hammer would strike the firing pin with the bolt locked into the barrel in that "disassembled" condition, the firearm is not legally disassembled.

You argument is completely invalid because it assumes that the bolt is ALWAYS locked to the rear.
The legal problem occurs when the bolt is forward.
Does your mag lock system NOT allow you to "disassemble the action" when the bolt is forward?

 

[AR15barrels]

Here’s my reasoning.

Let’s say it takes 1/8th of an inch for the receiver to open in order for the bolt not lock to the rear. 1/8th of an inch is “disassembled” and ok drop the magazine.

If you can open it 1/16th of an inch and lock the bolt the rear, the weapon is not disassembled and not ok to drop the magazine. If your rifle is capable of dropping the magazine (with let’s say the ar mag lock) that’s been filed down to 1/16th of an inch (so you can drop the magazine with the bolt locked to the rear) that means your rifle is capable of dropping a magazine when the rifle is not disassembled per state definition (it can still operate at 1/16th of an inch).

The hammer also has a cut out that prevents it from hitting the firing pin unless the action is closed, I am unsure what the tolerances are for that, but I bet if the bolt is capable of being locked and unlocked to the rear when the receiver is “open”, I’m guessing it can fire too.

It takes at least 1/4" of opening (at the hammer face and firing pin junction) for the hammer not to strike the firing pin.
The hammer is about halfway between the pivot pin and the takedown pin so the receiver needs to be opened at least 1/2" at the takedown pin for an AR to be legally "disassembled" enough to meet the state's definition of "disassembled".
The takedown pin is 1/4" in diameter and all the "disassemble the action" takedown pins let the action open about 3/16" at the takedown pin which translates to around 3/32" gap at the hammer face/firing pin junction.

For the mathematically challenged, 3/32" is a lot less than 1/4".

The SP1 hammer face notch that you mention actually has nothing to do with the upper and lower being closed.
That notch is to make sure the gun won't double-tap if the disconnector fails and the bolt follows the hammer closed.
The notch on the hammer end will hang up the forward travel of the carrier, keeping the carrier from fully closing which absolutely ensures that the firing pin can not stick through the boltface and strike the trigger.

Also, that notch is a Colt specific invention and not part of the milspec design that most hammers are made to.
I don't know of any non-colt hammers with that notch but maybe there are some around.

 

[AR15barrels]

why don’t you go test your theory and report back.

I’m not saying he’s correct or within the law, but the designer of AR Maglock has multiple videos out there, demostrating that his system works with bolt hold back. Is he lucky that they haven’t gone after him yet? Or you think they don’t have a problem with it?

None of his demonstrations videos actually show a rifle to be legal with a kingpin and AR maglock installed.
The test for legal is done with the bolt CLOSED and the action "disassembled".
If you pull the trigger while the bolt closed and the action disassembled and the hammer can fire a cartridge, the action is not LEGALLY disassembled.

Here is a quick video showing a test for compliance of the ca legal description of “disassembly of the action”.

Notice in the video that the upper is separated from the lower even further than any sliding-takedown-pin compliance device allows and that the hammer clearly strikes the firing pin as the firing pin causes an 18” brass rod to jump upward when the trigger is pulled.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Can't believe no one mentioned this.

It depends on the lower you have as well. Does your lower have a "tensioner" the extra screw/bolt/whatevers behind the grip screw or near it that you can tighten or loosen to make the upper and lower fit better?

If yes, try making it very "loose" or remove it.

This "tensioner" can make the king pin not separate the upper and lower at desired gap to get the king pin and maglock to not work properly.

Source: me.

 

[Gunsforevery1]

Also, that notch is a Colt specific invention and not part of the milspec design that most hammers are made to.
I don't know of any non-colt hammers with that notch but maybe there are some around.

this is the notch I’m referring to. It’s in every hammer I’ve seen. When the receiver is closed the firing pin can be fully contact by the hammer and the bottom of the BCG firing pin channel fits into the cut out part (circled in red). If the receiver is slightly open the part in blue will contact the bottom of the firing pin channel preventing full contact with the firing pin. At least that’s my understanding.

 

[AR15barrels]

Can't believe no one mentioned this.

It depends on the lower you have as well. Does your lower have a "tensioner" the extra screw/bolt/whatevers behind the grip screw or near it that you can tighten or loosen to make the upper and lower fit better?

If yes, try making it very "loose" or remove it.

This "tensioner" can make the king pin not separate the upper and lower at desired gap to get the king pin and maglock to not work properly.

Source: me.

The tensioner screw has no effect on how much the upper and lower will separate when the read takedown pin is removed or slid to the side to allow the upper receiver to separate from the lower.
The tension screw WILL cause problem with the takedown pin sliding if the screw is too tight, but it will not effect how far the upper and lower can separate even one bit once the takedown pin is no longer engaging the upper receiver.

The limiting factor on up-travel is the bolt carrier group, the fit of the carrier in the receiver and ultimately the notch in the sliding takedown pin but with the bolt locked back, the main factor will be the fit between the carrier, receiver and buffer tube, not the sliding takedown pin.

 

[AR15barrels]

this is the notch I’m referring to. It’s in every hammer I’ve seen. When the receiver is closed the firing pin can be fully contact by the hammer and the bottom of the BCG firing pin channel fits into the cut out part (circled in red). If the receiver is slightly open the part in blue will contact the bottom of the firing pin channel preventing full contact with the firing pin. At least that’s my understanding.

That’s not a notch.
That’s just the transition between the hammer face and the flat part of the hammer where the hammer spring wraps around the hammer.
The hammer can not push on the firing pin when the carrier is to the rear because the actuall hammer face is rubbing on the bottom of the carrier.
The bottom of the carrier is ramped and that ramp is to aid in cocking the hammer as the carrier moves rearward.

The colt notch I was talking about is the SP1 notch on the top of an SP1 hammer:

That notch works in concert with the SP1 cut on the underside of the bolt carrier.
The SP1 cut in the carrier is to let that notch catch on the large spool rim of the firing pin.
Without an SP1 carrier cut, the notch on the hammer does not do anything.
It’s very uncommon to see carriers with SP1 cuts anymore as the industry as a whole has gone to milspec ramped carriers.
Milspec carriers do not have SP1 cuts.

 

[DuckDawg22]

Hogue freedom fighter magazine catch lock and a takedown pin from Juggernaught tatcical is the most reliable setup.

Now that you've acknowledged this is the best set up, why are we still running in circles? If you have a featureless rifle and the bolt is locked back, what happens when you pull the trigger? Nothing, right?

 

[AR15barrels]

Now that you've acknowledged this is the best set up, why are we still running in circles? If you have a featureless rifle and the bolt is locked back, what happens when you pull the trigger? Nothing, right?

The relevant legal test is NOT done with the bolt locked back.
The relevant legal test is done with the bolt closed and the action disassembled enough that a magazine could be removed.
Any AR that can lock the bolt locked back AND have the action disassembled enough that the magazine can be removed via a sliding notched takedown pin which does not fully remove from the upper receiver will likely fail the legal test of what "disassembly of the action" is.

 

[ikeo1]

I run featureless on my AR rifles. But need a fixed mag solution for AR pistols and CompMag isn't for me. I'm probably two cycles behind all of the changes to AR pistol rules and requirements.

Me too.. This thread is intriguing but makes me glad I stick with pistols. CA and Rifles is nuanced.

Now that you've acknowledged this is the best set up, why are we still running in circles? If you have a featureless rifle and the bolt is locked back, what happens when you pull the trigger? Nothing, right?

Gentlemen, keep in mind, it's ok not to agree. We don't have legal experts (or maybe we do) here and should NOT be considered legal advice but it seems @AR15barrels is quite knowledgable so take it as a point to consider with some weight. I get what you're saying too because if it is broken but a lot of this is "interpretation".

The best I can do to help assist here is give me a question and two answers and we can hold a poll to see what consensus is, even then it's not legal advice, just what people think. It's an interesting question.

 

[Dvrjon]

The best I can do to help assist here is give me a question and two answers and we can hold a poll to see what consensus is, even then it's not legal advice, just what people think. It's an interesting question.

Crowd-sourcing truth has its limitations. Sometimes truth isn’t popular and sometimes what’s popular isn’t true.

There’s a lot of info in this thread. If folks can competently manage firearms, they should be able to decide how to manage the info.

Best.

 

[ikeo1]

Crowd-sourcing truth has its limitations. Sometimes truth isn’t popular and sometimes what’s popular isn’t true.

There’s a lot of info in this thread. If folks can competently manage firearms, they should be able to decide how to manage the info.

Best.

Agreed, but consensus also gives us a discussion point vs 2 people to see where other people stand. Then we can discuss the merits.

The second part is tricky, which is why I'd be curious what consensus is. When people start to discuss the point, you begin to see the background of the people and whether or not its from industry or not.

I'm learning a lot from this thread and others. I wouldn't necessarily call it truth either only definitely not legal advice.

 

[Dohboy]

Source: me.

 

[DuckDawg22]

I appreciate him posting that video, because none of these solutions are compliant if that's what they're testing against. There must be some looser interpretation or I don't think these companies would be spending the money selling these products.

 

[AR15barrels]

Agreed, but consensus also gives us a discussion point vs 2 people to see where other people stand. Then we can discuss the merits.

The second part is tricky, which is why I'd be curious what consensus is. When people start to discuss the point, you begin to see the background of the people and whether or not its from industry or not.

The consensus will be that most think that the "legal compliance" devices that they bought actually make their rifles legal because "why would companies sell something that that does not make a rifle legal"?
If you read the fine print from the sellers of these compliance devices, not a single one will unequivocally state that the device makes the rifle legal because the installer or the owner could simple "file down" the device until the device no longer makes the rifle legal.

The answer is easy to see, but people choose not to accept such answer because it disagrees with what they WANT to believe.

 

[AR15barrels]

I appreciate him posting that video, because none of these solutions are compliant if that's what they're testing against.
There must be some looser interpretation or I don't think these companies would be spending the money selling these products.

Ding Ding Ding!
We got a winner.

Companies sell products to make a profit.
That's reason number 1.
All other reasons are secondary to reason number 1.

 

[Dohboy]

The consensus will be that most think that the "legal compliance" devices that they bought actually make their rifles legal because "why would companies sell something that that does not make a rifle legal"?
If you read the fine print from the sellers of these compliance devices, not a single one will unequivocally state that the device makes the rifle legal because the installer or the owner could simple "file down" the device until the device no longer makes the rifle legal.

The answer is easy to see, but people choose not to accept such answer because it disagrees with what they WANT to believe.

I wanted to look more into this, as it seems like you're suggesting that these companies aren't really backstopping their claims that they are in fact complying with CA laws.

So here are the videos that I was referencing when I first raised this thread (I found them on youtube, not through the ARMagLock site, and at the time I wasn't focusing on whether the content creator was just a reviewer, a third party or with ARMagLock itself). I didn't know that ARMagLock was promoting these videos on their websites, but it seems like they would be taking on a lot of risk here if they are promoting a device as a "compliance" device, knowing that it actually doesn't comply. I did look at their boilerplate and they do say "this isn't legal advice" but it seems like with their content and website info, they are going a step beyond just throwing their hands up and saying "you can buy this product, it may make your gun compliant, but caveat emptor".

Videos of them saying you can clear a double feed: https://armaglock.com/live-fire-demos/. Based on the discussions above, it seems like some would argue this is a prima facie case of an illegal setup (the upper and lower can be separated while the holding the bolt back).

They also have a section of their site that says "regulatory approvals" https://armaglock.com/regulatory-approval/ that seem to state this stuff was green lit by the state.

I'm not saying this is making me want to set up my AR Pistol to be able to hold the bolt back while separating an upper and lower as in their video. I'm actually happy with the fact that I can't, as this will probably be a gray area until specifically litigated. But I don't know if ARML's statements change your view that there is more to their claims that this is a legit compliance device (including in the double feed clearing setup), and not just a CA user wanted to see what they want to see, in terms of compliance.

 

[ikeo1]

The consensus will be that most think that the "legal compliance" devices that they bought actually make their rifles legal because "why would companies sell something that that does not make a rifle legal"?
If you read the fine print from the sellers of these compliance devices, not a single one will unequivocally state that the device makes the rifle legal because the installer or the owner could simple "file down" the device until the device no longer makes the rifle legal.

The answer is easy to see, but people choose not to accept such answer because it disagrees with what they WANT to believe.

It would still be beneficial to see if this were true or not. From my understanding, until it’s tested in court, it’s the interpretation of lawyers who gave the ok for the design.

When it comes to this, you may be right functionally but counsel will usually have arguments ready. Then it turns into a matter of legalease.

I just don’t want to make the assumption and see what the data shows with what people think.