Thordson Customs FRS-15: Look Ma! No Pistol Grip!

As TTAG reader Chewbacca Defense points out, Thordson Customs‘ CA compliant FRS-15 “eliminates the dreaded pistol grip feature [/sarcasm] in a unique and acceptable way.” Right until California bans it. BTW: Am I the only one dreading the introduction of a CA and MA compliant seven round magazine?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

47 Responses to Thordson Customs FRS-15: Look Ma! No Pistol Grip!

  1. avatarTotenglocke says:

    I’m sure that will be classified as a thumbhole stock, thus it’s banned. And good God is that thing ugly!

    • avatarkb says:

      I dunno man…looking at their website, it would appear that the stock does not attach to the buffer tube. Loophole maybe?

      Either way, looks good. I’d snag one if I had to stay legal.

    • avatarSD3 says:

      F-uglier than a Kriss? Uglier than a hi-point? An ar-pistol?

    • avatarjwm says:

      Hideous. And I own Mosin Nagants. They look good compared to this contraption.

    • avatarJohn F says:

      7 Round compliance is “easy” make a follower that is 23 bullet in size. then a 30 Round Magizine will only hold 7, similar to what a Shotgun does to limit rounds for hunting..
      Then you can change it back in “Time of Need”

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        John, I believe some places require a permanantly fixed magazine. In other words you cant just stick something removable in it to limit capacity.

        • avatarJustice06RR says:

          I’ve never heard of those.. how would you reload a fixed magazine? Is it the same as a Mosin or SKS?

          Those rifles would use clips instead.

  2. avatarEsoteric says:

    Franklin Armory makes a pretty darn compliant model too

    http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS_FEATURELESS.html

    I doubt that one could be considered a thumbhole

  3. avatarLinebackerU says:

    The danger is the list of “900 specifically-named firearms”. That allows regulators to ignore compliance with the list of features and just ban based on look. They should make one of these in wood rather than plastic. Maybe then it would be less scary.

    Edit: I just realized that this is only a stock, not a fully-assembled weapon. Seems pointless for anyone who already owns an AR, but I can understand it for future build-it-yourselfers.

  4. avatarChris says:

    Manufacturers are going to have to get creative if these “one feature” laws pass.

    I’m with Robert though on his magazine limits. They frighten me and show the ultimate goal of the anti’s to ban everything. MA has a 10 round limit currently yet they want to now go to seven. What’s next, 5 rounds, then 2 rounds, finally 1 round. We are in a pot of water that is getting hotter. We need to get out now and stop this before we are cooked.

  5. avatarbt justice says:

    I like the monsterman grip and an a2 stock better. In california, there are a few non-pistol grips being used.

  6. avatarSteve says:

    Anyone producing compliant 7 rounders goes on my boycott list.

    We are all on the same lifeboat here. You either paddle, or swim. With the sharks.

  7. avatarMy name is Bob says:

    I think it’s nice that they are making compliant versions so that our 2nd amendment family in fascist states can still enjoy their infringed rights, but still find it tragic that such BS laws are passed in the first place.

  8. avatarRad Man says:

    I wouldn’t worry about the 7 round magazine thing. No manufacturers are going to retool and produce such things just to placate the blue states. I live in MA. Companies will simply give our states a hearty FU and do business elsewhere. That’s how Pols can violate our rights without actually ‘violating’ them. Drive the gun business away.

  9. avatarpc_load_letter says:

    Being from CA, it is tough dealing with these laws but we are a large, well organized group heading by the Calguns Foundation and the CA Rifle and Pistol Assoc.

    Sadly, we have to use these workarounds for those of us who want to use their legally owned pre-ban 30 round magazines.

    For me personally, I utilize a “grip wrap” that eliminates the pistol grip from my rifle as I can no longer wrap my thumb. It doesn’t take away from the rifle at all and works just find in training and rapid mag changes.

    Never the less, you can rest assured that CA already has litigation on stand-by for any NY style legislation that comes down.

    While I envy those of you in free states, my wife and I just can’t give up the fact that we are going to the beach today to bar-b-q when half the country is under a blanket of snow.

    • avatarJoe Grine says:

      I’d gladly plow through a mile of show with a spoon every day just to avoid living in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia. I’m thinking we should give it back to Mexico.

      • avatarRalph says:

        What makes you think that Mexico would want it?

      • avatarDyspeptic says:

        Hey, I am a 3rd gen. resident of Crazyfornia and Joe is right. This place is paradise lost. I am moving out of state ASAP and I don’t care how nice the weather is here. Nice weather doesn’t make up for left wing lunatic politicians run amok, it doesn’t make up for byzantine gun laws that can make you a criminal faster than you can say Oh Shit, it doesn’t make up for the pervasive feeling of being an oppressed citizen and it doesn’t make up for the ridiculously high cost of living here. And, it will only get worse for the foreseeable future.

      • avatarSammy says:

        If we gave Cali to Mexico the Illegals there would be compelled to “migrate” across the boarders to neighboring states so they would be back in the US.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      While I envy those of you in free states, my wife and I just can’t give up the fact that we are going to the beach today to bar-b-q when half the country is under a blanket of snow.

      And that is why I feel no sympathy for people in California. They think sunshine is more important than freedom. You’re getting what you deserve.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        If it were not for Silicon Valley, and some of the companies I’ve worked for in the last 15 years, the Internet as you know it would not exist and we would not be having this conversation.

        Nor would the iDevices used by so many of us, including the iPhone I’m typing this on.

        Shall I keep going with the list?

        • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

          Sure, keep going, and fully express how you value your toys over freedom.

          You’re also assuming that if Silicon Valley didn’t exist, these breakthroughs wouldn’t have happened…innovation isn’t limited to a specific geographic area. If Silicon Valley didn’t exist, I betcha $5 it would have showed up somewhere else.

          I’m not trying to pick a fight, AlphaGeek; I understand that my love of freedom may not be the same as another’s love. So be it. Regardless, I’ll set differences aside and stand next to you if the time comes.

          v/r
          Badger 8-3

      • avatarAaron says:

        Florida anyone? We’ve got the largest population of CCWs and great weather.

    • Without CA, you wouldn’t have Armalite. And honestly guys, you’d think people would get it by now…you have a supreme court affirmed individual right to keep and bear (at the very least in the home, at the very least for self defense) incorporated against the states because of DC and Chicago. Courts deal with outliers. See the recent Moore v. Madigan decision where the 7th Circuit essentially said “for crying out loud, even New York technically issues carry permits”. Carry is going to be decided in NY (Kachalsky), Illinois (Moore) and California (Richards).

      But by all means, throw the 2A’s front line troops under the bus.

      pc_load_letter: The CRPA heads the legislative efforts in CA with CGF? That’s the first I heard of it, and I ran CGF’s volunteer/grassroots efforts for StopSB249. ;)

    • All teasing aside, Calguns Foundation, SAF, and the Firearms Policy Coalition will continue to fight for your rights regardless of whether you would rather throw half of us under the bus. And if the crazy states want to go crazy and try to full out ban semiautomatics “in common usage for lawful purposes”….well please, oh please, whatever you do…don’t throw me into that briar patch!

      Food for thought: SB249 (Sen Yee’s attempt to beef up the AW ban in CA last year) was killed by a Democratic Appropriations Committee chair in large part because they were concerned legal action from CGF and SAF could use SB249 to unravel CA’s entire “AW” ban. Yee’s trying again this year, and we’ll stop him again.

  10. avatarMark says:

    The only necessary compliance is with The Bill of Rights!

  11. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Wow! No pistol grip, no flash hider, no forward hand grip, etc, etc; yet it still looks mean and scary. How is it that this instrument of death can be allowed to exist? Oh the humanity!!! (Sarc off)

    I actually kinda like the looks of that stock. It has a certain style and may feel more natural in the hands of someone that grew up with more traditional style rifles.

  12. avatarAharon says:

    It sorta looks like the WW2 British Sten Gun.

  13. avatarIn Memphis says:

    I actually kind of like it. Its a hell of a lot better than one that was pictured in an old post a few months ago where the grip looked like it was just bent backwards. This looks almost like a shotgun or hunting rifle stock (sorry, not sure if there is a more proper term).

    The only thing I dont really like is it looks like it may be difficult for someone with small hands and short fingers. Unless they were to remove some material where the webbing of my thumb and forefinger would rest, it would be a bit of a reach to the trigger for me.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      If have to hold it to be sure, but that’s the first ban-compliant stock I’ve seen that does not suck. If that allows me to use some of my dusty pre-ban mags at full capacity, it’s definitely worth a try.

  14. avatarYawner says:

    They new New York law states that you may possess an eight round (1911) magazine. But you can only fill it with seven. How on God’s green earth are they to enforce that? It’s laughable. This doesn’t apply to rifle magazines, which you must now dispose (sell out of state) of. It gets crazier the more you get into it.

  15. avatarPhil says:

    Wouldn’t this still be illegal under the proposed AWB? Now that we’re down to “one feature”, the detachable magazine would disqualify this thing, right?

    • avatarYawner says:

      No. You’ll have to buy a 7 round magazine (which don’t exist) for your grandfathered semi-auto. There won’t be any more new ones (‘assault rifles’) coming into the state

    • avatarMark N. says:

      It is currently compliant because you need a tool to remove the mag–there is no mag release. Instead it has the now dreaded “bullet button” that takles a bullet to depress the release. Senator Yee tried last year and is trying again this year to eliminate any magazine that can be removed without disassembling the receiver. If he succeeds, only internally loaded magazines will be allowed, adn as I recall, before the bullet buttons, the internal mags were limited to 8 rounds because of space limitations. He and his buddy Assemblyman Portantino have stated that it is there intent to ban all ebrs from California.

      • We kicked his @$$ last year and we’ll do it again this year if need be. They’ve been intending to ban all EBRs since 1989, and to stop the off-list-lower and bullet-button/featureless revolution since 2006. In the meantime, Allison and Iggy and all the CA DOJ BOF peeps who tried are gone, and we’ve legally brought in something like 500,000 EBRs since 2006. When I go to my local outdoor range in LA county, most days 50% or more of the shooters are there with ARs, AKs, SCARs, FALs, PTRs, etc.

  16. avatarإبليس says:

    Why does it resemble an avant-garde sex toy?

  17. avatarMercutio says:

    Other than a 1911, who ever heard of a 7 shot mag anyway… which I guess is the whole point of that little exercise…

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I have. It’s called a revolver, and that’s where this is headed.

      Surprising that no one else has made the association between a 7-round limit and the Taurus 66/S&W 686 class of revolvers. It’s clearly the floor for round count limits (for now) because it would be ridiculous to limit a mag-fed pistol to less than a mass market revolver.

  18. avatarYawner says:

    Beyond that, the floor is not those revolvers. 8 round mags for the 1911 are universally accepted in the mass market. BTW, is it just me or does anyone else think Cuomo would look great in a black uniform?

    • avatarYawner says:

      The revolvers I speak of are the ’27′ Performance series, which carry 8 shots.

      • avatarYawner says:

        Which, (I presume) means that you can only load those revolvers with 7 bullets. Who and how are they going to enforce this? I predict mass civil disobedience.

  19. avatarCali Girl says:

    The photo is a little miss-leading since the photo was taken at an angle. The stock and buffer tube cover are two pieces separated by about a 1/2 inch gap.
    You have to think about the functionality of both pieces. One does not support the other therefore it cannot be considered a thumb hole stock. The buffer tube cover is an aesthetic piece that it not required.

    A thumb hole stock is one single piece with a closed hole which is part of the stock design therefore the hole would be considered a functional part of the stock. “thumbhole stock” means a stock with a hole that allows the thumb of the trigger hand to penetrate into or through the stock while firing. The key words are “into or through the stock”.

    There is no “hole” in the stock piece itself, therefore the thumb cannot penetrate “through “ the stock while firing. It is not a thumb hole stock, it’s a rifle stock with a rifle style grasp.
    Hope that helps!

  20. avatarAnothergunownerwithgrayhair says:

    Wow, a lot of strong opinions.
    I would like to try this product against the monsterman grip also. Looks like an interesting article (review of aftermarket add ons meant to comply with CA laws).

    If CA gun owners followed the suggestion above (move out) then we (gun owning citizens) would have no voters and no allies in a state with a history of anti-gun legislation. If voters who
    A- live in CA
    B- own guns
    C- cannot move/flee to another state
    are willing to fight for their 2nd Amendment rights, then I salute them.

    The problem is opportunistic politicians, who use fear of crime to push ridiculous ‘feel good’ legislation. The problem is definitely not gun owners who live and vote in CA. Thank you.

    Respectfully, a voter and gun owner.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.