New 10/22 stock coming in august

stevefrench

stevefrench

Regular
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
was trying to find some new stocks for a 10/22 and just saw this :D DAMN:( hopefully didint give false hope ? we cant have these :( ?

http://www.sportsmansguide.ca/net/cb/red-jacket-firearms-zk-22-drop-in-bullpup-stock.aspx?a=1128106

282668m2_ts.jpg



Fits to any standard Ruger 10/22 receiver with carbine barrel or .920" bull barrel 18.5" or longer. Adapters for standard or heavy barrel included
Easy installation, no gunsmithing needed
Engineered, designed, built and assembled in the U.S.A.
Rail system for mounting optics or other accessories
Accepts most full-capacity magazines including MGW 50-round coffin magazine and the Ruger BX-25®
Ambidextrous charging handle, sling-point mounts, safety and mag release
Integral trigger safety
Adjustable trigger interface to tune to your preference
Included shell deflector allows for full ambidextrous use
 
Last edited:
Yuck, no irons!!! The #1 reason I am am not a fan of bullpups as they often do not have them or are ####ty and have a short radius. They means you have to buy an optic (more money) and then rely on it...best case if you bump your scope you have to re zero which takes time and a know distance to shoot it and wastes ammo and worst case you bust it making your rifle next to useless.
 
Are you SURE they are restricted? I see the ISA bullpup in 223 is not restricted. Man thats exactly what I have been looking for.
 
Not bad... Not really my thing, but looks OK. Looks like it's made from polymer though... Not that it's a bad thing (given the number of polymer components nowadays), and I understand that they were going for the solid machined look (by putting the seam along the midline of the gun), but I seriously doubt the accuracy of any sights on that. It's the same reason I won't get an Archangel Nomad stock. If they'd had the carry handle/rail attach solidly to the top of the receiver, and had the whole thing drop into the rest of the chassis (a-la Nordic Components chassis), then I'd be more interested. But, again, I'm not that into bullpups, so the details of the design are not really my concern.

Only thing I'm curious about is that ejection port deflector... I wonder if that'd actually deflect casings straight down, or if it'd just kick them out at an angle and have them land on your arm. It also raises questions about getting to the bolt handle... I wonder if they'll design one that sticks down the side of the stock, under the deflector, so you can access it without sticking your fingers into the ejection port.

As for legality: I haven't looked at the Firearms Act for this recently, but IIRC only certain styles of bullpups were illegal, and it was mostly those that could be fired without a barrel attached (or something of the sort). I think it was more to do with OAL, rather than the actual bullpup design. Aren't the Tavors bullpups?
 
Yawn... Is it that time again? Removable bullpup stock, suppressors, tannerite, slidefire stocks= bad. fun, but evil. Baby seals die when you use them. I know I guy who got some tannerite in Sask, and look: no seals in Sask.
 
5440fight said:
Yawn... Is it that time again? Removable bullpup stock, suppressors, tannerite, slidefire stocks= bad. fun, but evil. Baby seals die when you use them. I know I guy who got some tannerite in Sask, and look: no seals in Sask.
Click to expand...

Lol...

Well, just goes to show how much attention I pay to bullpup stocks. I retract my earlier statement re: legality of bullpups in Canada.
 
pope_face said:
Not bad... Not really my thing, but looks OK. Looks like it's made from polymer though... Not that it's a bad thing (given the number of polymer components nowadays), and I understand that they were going for the solid machined look (by putting the seam along the midline of the gun), but I seriously doubt the accuracy of any sights on that. It's the same reason I won't get an Archangel Nomad stock. If they'd had the carry handle/rail attach solidly to the top of the receiver, and had the whole thing drop into the rest of the chassis (a-la Nordic Components chassis), then I'd be more interested. But, again, I'm not that into bullpups, so the details of the design are not really my concern.

Only thing I'm curious about is that ejection port deflector... I wonder if that'd actually deflect casings straight down, or if it'd just kick them out at an angle and have them land on your arm. It also raises questions about getting to the bolt handle... I wonder if they'll design one that sticks down the side of the stock, under the deflector, so you can access it without sticking your fingers into the ejection port.

As for legality: I haven't looked at the Firearms Act for this recently, but IIRC only certain styles of bullpups were illegal, and it was mostly those that could be fired without a barrel attached (or something of the sort). I think it was more to do with OAL, rather than the actual bullpup design. Aren't the Tavors bullpups?
Click to expand...

That's an ambi cocking lever underneath the carry handle/rail.
 
hometownhero said:
Bullpup stocks are prohibited here. Also the bx25 mags are also prohib here.
Click to expand...

Why would the bx-25 magazine from Ruger be prohibited? They are nearly identical to the butler creek ones. I haven't seen any for sale in Canada yet, but finding a 10-22 on the shelves lately isn't very easy either
 
purplezuk said:
Why would the bx-25 magazine from Ruger be prohibited? They are nearly identical to the butler creek ones. I haven't seen any for sale in Canada yet, but finding a 10-22 on the shelves lately isn't very easy either
Click to expand...

Because it's marketed as being compatible with the Ruger 10/22 Charger PISTOL. Which means, in the eyes of the 'law', it's a pistol magazine, and limited to 10 rounds. Meaning - it's useless up here, even if pinned.

Butler Creek 10/22 mags (and others) are sold and marketed as RIFLE magazines. Meaning in the eyes of the 'law' - capacity is unregulated (unlimited), as it's for a rimfire rifle.
 
Oh, I've already learned... Its just hard to believe that the people making the laws are as oblivious as they keep proving they are. I just hadn't heard about those mags yet. For those who haven't handled a bx25 mag, they have a very nice feel to them compared too the butler creek ones. Feed lips are a different profile as well. And of course they look better in the Matt black than the Gloss bc ones. Its really to bad they cannot be legally owned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom