Correction: Law Tactical AR-15 Folding Stock Adapter


Yesterday I wrote that firing the Law Tactical AR-15 Folding Stock Adapter with the stock open could damage the user. This was incorrect and the post has been updated.

The manufacturer says …

The Bolt Carrier Extension part, when installed correctly, will hold the Bolt Carrier Group in place.

The Bolt Carrier Extension will also stop the Bolt Carrier Group from flying out and causing any injury or loss of life if someone should accidentally fire the weapon with the stock folded. If fired when folded, the locking finger will bend, preventing further operation of the weapon until it is replaced. This is done to eliminate the possibility of catastrophic failure of the adaptor due to repeated misuse.

I apologize to the manufacturer for making this error.





Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Bill

    Great job trashing a product before getting the facts straight

  • Kommac

    “If fired when folded, the locking finger will bend, preventing further operation of the weapon until it is replaced. This is done to eliminate the possibility of catastrophic failure…”

    Yes, the bolt flying into someone’s eye socket would be catastrophic, and so would the gun no longer working until the enemy was kind enough to discontinue their attack so you can unfuck your firearm.

    Thanks for the correction Steve, but whoever engineered this product apparently had airsoft commandos in mind.

  • D

    Lol, nothing like turning a multi-thousand dollar weapon into a brick until you can get it into the workshop. Who thought this was a good idea?

  • Yves
  • Big Daddy

    I still say it’s a bad idea from a safety standpoint and from a mechanical one too. And the key words are when installed correctly!!!

    I would like to know how many were fired with the buttstock in the open position to prove that it is indeed safe for the user and people around the weapon when it goes off. How does it work when installed incorrectly?

    If the manufacturer is just saying it is supposed to work like that without having actually tested it he gets a huge FAIL. Nothing works the way it was designed to, everything looks great on paper. You must test it before you make any claims especially where safety is concerned.

    The fact that it CAN be fired with the butt stock open is in itself a FAIL in terms of functionality in my opinion. It breaks a kind of unwritten law about mechanical objects and especially firearms.

    Go back to the drawing board before you end up getting someone hurt or killed and losing everything you have in court.

    Someone did bring up a good point about using it with a piston gun. Did you try it open with a piston setup to see what would in fact happen?

    To me being able to fire a basically OPEN weapon sounds like an accident waiting to happen.

    I don’t care how it is supposed to work I would like to know that it was tested that way and proof of those tests. This has the potential to open a can of worms with the government.

    It’s an interesting idea that the designer has and a good basic concept, but it just seems like a half finished product. Being able to fire an open weapon, NO.

  • Zachary

    I don’t understand the appeal of shooting with the stock folded like some third-worlder. If this doesn’t affect reliability then this would be a great tool to keep the stored discreetly. And if you’re accidentally firing your weapon enough that you can’t be trusted with this stock, then you are the liability.

    • Because good engineering does not create such obvious failure modes.

      • Zachary

        There are plenty of machines out there that can be destroyed or cause bodily harm if used incorrectly. I worked on machines that can kill you if you were careless. Are those machines poorly engineered? This isn’t designed to be fired when folded and if you do so you are using the product incorrectly. If you can’t keep your finger off of the trigger when it is going to destroy or harm something you shouldn’t handle a firearm. This stock adapter looks to be designed only to make the rifle more convenient to store or carry. Can someone point out a benefit of shooting with the stock folded like a Liberian?

  • RickH

    Yes, a fine piece of engineering. So if you HAD to fire it repeatedly, the weapon will become inoperative. But hey, look, I got a folding stock. Cripes, I have no problems with new products, but until all the bugs are worked out, stick with what works.

  • Megalomaniac

    Why not make the extension and hinge plate pull the bolt out of battery when folded, that would on AR15 prevent the gun from firing. Still a stupid idea but that would make it some what safer.

    • JMD

      Then you’d have to rely on the stock moving the bolt back into battery correctly every time. Too many moving parts, too much possibility for serious problems.

  • Kent J

    I still think people are looking for things to pick on with this stock.

    Fact: Most people who own an AR-15 use it for sporting purposes not combat.

    If it makes it easier to transport your rifle then cool. Accept the product’s limitations and use it as it was intended. If you fire it at the range with the stock folded and can’t use it again till it’s fixed I wouldn’t feel bad for you.

    If you use your AR for combat you don’t have to buy this stock if you think it’s a liability. You don’t have to trash the product because it doesn’t suit your hypothetical needs. I doubt the military is going to adopt this stock so soldiers in the armed forces have nothing to worry about when laying down suppressive fire from inside their vehicle.

    • Kommac

      That is a fair viewpoint Kent, I’d just like to point out that no professional soldiers would ever lay down ANY sort of fire from inside the vehicle. The risk of one projectile failing to exit the vehicle and instead turning the vehicle into a blender is greater than that of exiting the vehicle and firing from cover elsewhere. Thanks for the perspective though.

      • Big Daddy

        Kommac What are you talking about, I was a Cav scout 1/11 ACR, not lay down fire while inside a vehicle, DUH.

        I was issued a M3 grease gun to do just that from the drivers compartment.

        You’re saying you should just sit in the vehicle and take rounds without returning fire? What army were you in?

      • Kommac

        Big Daddy, I have never been a professional soldier myself. I apologize if that disqualifies me from making comment on tactical situations, but I have never heard of anyone firing from within a vehicle for the aforementioned reason, and it certainly made sense to me, which is why i explained it so. Never too smart to learn. Therefore, just out of curiosity, you were issued a WWII submachine gun for engaging targets from inside an armored vehicle? What were the circumstances surrounding this engagement, if you don’t mind me asking? Were you firing through a gun port designated for such a purpose, or were you engaging targets by firing out a window? Thanks for the correction Big Daddy.

      • Big Daddy

        I was not in combat, I was issued that weapon in 1981. They were still used until the 1990s for drivers of armored vehicles. You have no ports, you shoot out of your open hatch. I drove m113s, M577, ITVs and so on.

        Each armored vehicle was issued a M3 and M1911, yes the vehicle itself not the troops. When the troops were assigned to the vehicle they drew that weapon from the armory. It was changing when I came in as the Army was getting new vehicles like the M1 and M2/3. The M113s in each scout platoon was issued a M16/M203 and M60 if I am not mistaken and not the M3 grease gun. I was in a few different units.

        The training is the same no matter what year, it has changed now with the new vehicles coming out like the MRAP. I am sure if you talk to anybody who drove in a HMMWV in Iraq or Afghanistan they would say you return fire from your station in the vehicle with your M4 or whatever you’re issued.

        You remind me of a guy online who could not believe we had to march 20 miles with over 100 pounds of gear in basic training, TWICE. He said I was full of it until other ex soldiers came and said yes that was standard for the US Army at that time. Not to mention in both Iraq and Stan infantry were carrying up to 150 pounds of gear on them with those plates on. Unless you did it I can understand someone finding it hard to believe, it is difficult to say the least, my left foot has never been the same and hurts me terribly 30 years later.

        Getting back to the folding stock, I do have some experience with M16s, this is not a good idea.

    • Benjamin

      Frankly there’s less thrashing of the product than a polite discussion here. There are perceived pros and cons about every product and the accusers have yet to be as much on the offensive as it’s supporters being defensive. To state that one should not express critical opinion about a product that they may not want to purchase is to imply that companies should shut down their PR department, stop making specialized variants of their products as well as stop research and development of product improvements. Not to forget such suggests that blogs like TFB be shut down, since most topics on weapon products on TFB have similar discussions, minus snarky defensive comments.

      Be thankful that readers actually bother commenting and making suggestions. It shows they feel it at least has potential.

      • snack

        in a near ambush in afghanistan, my buddy cracked open his humvee window and stuck his M4 barrel out to to put down some suppressive fire while i brought the fifty around. maybe more motivation than judgment, but it was helpful.

      • snack

        whoops, wrong comment, sorry.

  • Big Daddy

    Another issue I had was the hyped up video showing a combat situation. Now the words are this is not for a combat weapon.

    Just admit that it is a poorly designed and finished product or should I say unfinished.

    There HAS to be a way to stop the weapon from functioning while the stock is folded, period or to me it is a safety issue. Until that is added to this product it should be taken OFF the market.

    Again I will ask if it has been tested fully which means firing the weapon while the stock is folded and using different versions of the AR, like piston versions. Did the manufacturer do that? Did they test it incorrectly installed?

    I would think these things would have been done before releasing a product like this.

    I recommend to the people that manufacture it to go back and do these tests if not already done and find a way to make the weapon inoperable while the stock is folded. I feel strongly about this.

  • jaekelopterus

    Did you guys know that ARs already break down into two easy pieces for storage, and that in that condition, there is no way for you to put the bolt carrier through a “locking finger” or your optic nerve. I’m not even sure what kind of storage this was intended for, since an AR with a nice, fat receiver extension on its side will be way too thick to fit in most gun cases.

    I don’t think you were wrong to cast doubts on this half-baked product, Steve. This design will prove very profitable for the first person to put a bolt carrier through his or her incisors and sue.

    • Zachary

      If someone ends up putting a carrier through their smile, they should have stayed with coloring books. Don’t pull the trigger if it’s gonna cause problems. Easy.

  • Andrew

    Someone is going to get hurt with this thing……

    Fired open on a piston version (that energy has to go somewhere and this was clearly only for a gas gun, worn/dirty and not locked tightly and it all depends on that little loop to keep it all buttoned up.

    Could it create enough headspace problems by moving just enough open to blow a cartridge at the base if it did all jam up???

    There is enough variance in the M4gery world to cause all manner of interactions, many not nice.

    There is just WAY too many failure modes this creates where things will fly and let loose.

    And as much as some claiming it’s being trashed – there have been some very valid questions about how much testing etc has been done and all we get back in the same “bolt locked” message.

    They clearly and boldly claim ANY AR ANY caliber but with a asterisk next to the glaring safety issue this creates.

    I am sorry the Blog seems to have got some flak from LT but that does not answer any of these sorts of questions

  • Beaumont

    Even with this caveat and correction noted, this is still a terrible idea.

    Folding-stock ARs are available on the market for those who are so inclined, and they don’t destroy themselves when fired w/the stock in the Liberian position.

  • Brandon

    Wait, so now this this can render your AR inoperable by destroying itself if you fire with the stock folded? This just keeps getting better and better….

  • D

    i have no idea why people are so adamant on shooting the gun while folded. Its even worse than shooting an AR pistol because you have a 16″ barrel on this thing. Folding stocks are for better storage, concealment, and transport not for shooting it like a Somalian

  • Jay.Mac

    So, basically, our concerns that firing the weapon with the stock unfolded (or not locked shut tight) would injure the shooter. That’s not the case, firing will render the weapon inoperable until a new part is installed.

    I fail to see the utility of the stock- totally unsafe for combat, law enforcement or self-defense. If you flip that stock out and don’t realise it hasn’t closed tight and then pull the trigger, you’re left with a non-functioning firearm. That’s an unacceptable level of risk when a person’s life is on the line. Why add something to your firearm that increases the risk of a malfunction which requires a part replacement to repair? If you want to add one to your range gun, go right ahead- but if you depend on this weapon to protect your life, or the lives of anyone else, my advice is to steer clear.

    I also fail to see the benefit for storage- the AR takes down into two parts as it is and unless you’re running an extremely short barrelled rifle then the receiver/stock length isn’t going to be an issue. If size is that much of an issue, buy a weapon where the folding stock does not interfere directly with its functioning.

    Perhaps the manufacturer can tell us what roles or situations they think this product is suitable for because I can’t see a use for it.