WTS Bumper stocks..

[csspecs 1,987]

Yeah thats the other thing, it may not move enough to bumpfire. Right now they slide about an inch or so quite freely, if I go to using normal AK pistol grips like a number of people have asked than I'm going to have even less room to work with.

 

Right now I'm not setup nor have the cash for doing any plastic molding, so it's either what I can buy off the shelve or fabricate in a somewhat limited shop.

[Bvamp 604]

I gotcha now.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

You could always just weld a threaded nut to the stock where the current grip is... still allowing for the space for anti-finger-smashing distance, but then allowing a customization of SAW/AK/Etc. Grips.

[csspecs 1,987]

Yep it's possible, it would also need a little tab at the right distance to act as a trigger guard to keep the grip from spinning. (I've been working on that project for a couple of days now). It also requires a somewhat special screw as it can only be threaded in a short distance before bottoming out.

[headshot 52]

a part mechanically reset the trigger for you each time on the akins. This is not your finger doing it, it was a part in the atkins. I looked at the drawings of the thing. its clear.

 

this stock is not the same, no part touches the trigger or moves your finger. your finger is physically releasing the trigger and physically touching each shot off with no part resetting the trigger for you. this was, and has been the definition of "machine gun" in ATF terminology and is not new. I agree with the designer of this part that it is NOT the same method of firing as the akins is/was. The akins vs "machine gun" definition takes all of a minute to figure it fit the letter of the law as one, however unfortuneante it worked out in the end.

 

from what I have seen, heard and read about the whole akins fiasco, I do interpret the law as it WAS a machinegun, due entirely to a PART helping to reset the trigger from the guns recoil. One can readily tell from the drawings at the us patent office, which are readily available, that your finger does NOT allow the trigger to be let up while it fires. The gun bangs into the trigger and pushes your finger up. Maybe you guys are right though, and maybe he should send them one to get a letter on. I bet they AINT gonna like it, and will TRY to find a way that it is not legal, but that would require adding to definitions that are already in place, and THAT might be what they do, which would be unfortunate to say the least. I also agree that a patent might be a good idea as well.

 

And I am SURE that you can touch one single round off of your gun with this stock on there if you pull the trigger HARD and hold it down, although on this stock, it looks like it would hurt a bit, or possibly severely, depending on the amount of force that the spring in the stock exerts. That I would like to see on video, actually. Because if you CANT do that, then you very well will have a problem.

 

I coulda swore there was some statute that went in some state in that named bumpfiring as either unintentional dishcharge or careless use something or other. I gues I was wrong on that, but one never CAN find what you are looking for in legal books half the time.

 

 

Talk to Akins on arfcom. There is nothing reseting the trigger outside of normal gun function, and the only thing tripping the trigger is your finger. The gun drops-in the stock. Its a stock and a spring...thats it. Just like the one above, but the receiver is more supported. The akins is a bump-fire stock plain and simple.

The stock would limit how far your finger could press backward, so when the receiver came back forward the trigger would hit your finger. Same as bumpfiring, but idiot-proof.

This is why akins has a pending lawsuit against the ATF. One shot per trigger pull, and nothing mechanically different with the host gun.

[csspecs 1,987]

HOLY CRAP!!!! I thought we got through this??

 

NO SPRING IN THIS STOCK

 

Good lord I thought you guys read better than that!

 

The Akins stock is a machine gun because the user did not have to do anything but pull the trigger and hold it back THATS IT... My stock you must push the firearm forward to bumpfire just like you would have to if you have a normal stock rifle with no add-ons. All it does is keep the buttstock to your shoulder and your hand on a grip.

 

Please go back and read the other 10+ times I explained this... Not trying to be rude it's just we have been down that road a few times already.

[corbin 621]

A possible way to avoid having the pistol grip screw only going in a few threads might be to spin it around and weld it to the top so that the shaft is pointing downward through the grip and you'd have to use a nut on the bottom somehow. You'd have to modify a standard AK grip to fit the nut up inside, but perhaps something like a SAW grip might work. I hope this makes sense.

 

 

So........where does the spring go?

 

 

JUST KIDDING.

[headshot 52]

HOLY CRAP!!!! I thought we got through this??

 

NO SPRING IN THIS STOCK

 

Good lord I thought you guys read better than that!

 

The Akins stock is a machine gun because the user did not have to do anything but pull the trigger and hold it back THATS IT... My stock you must push the firearm forward to bumpfire just like you would have to if you have a normal stock rifle with no add-ons. All it does is keep the buttstock to your shoulder and your hand on a grip.

 

Please go back and read the other 10+ times I explained this... Not trying to be rude it's just we have been down that road a few times already.

 

 

Whoops! Sorry I missed that.

 

However, on the akins, you don't hold the trigger back, you just hold your finger back. The receiver moves back, and moves the trigger off your finger. Your finger is not in contact with the trigger the whole time. It is basically the same concept as using the belt loop on your pants and pulling the gun forward.

[csspecs 1,987]

Whoops! Sorry I missed that.

 

However, on the akins, you don't hold the trigger back, you just hold your finger back. The receiver moves back, and moves the trigger off your finger. Your finger is not in contact with the trigger the whole time. It is basically the same concept as using the belt loop on your pants and pulling the gun forward.

 

Sorry got a little carried away..

 

Yeah your right you don't hold the trigger back, but thats where the ATF made a new rule that said that function of the trigger should read function of the shooter (sorry using simple terms). Thats where my design is ok is that you are triggering each round using a push of your left hand rather than a pull of one right trigger finger.

 

Someone should ask akins if he can make a manual only modification for his stock, I thought of something like a forward pistol grip with a trigger, you pull the trigger and it will push the barreled action forward into your trigger finger the recoil would force your finger on the front trigger forward as it recoiled and it would bumpfire... All manual, less idiot proof but should work well enough for a range toy.

[Bvamp 604]

Hi Ben.

 

I lost your phone number and wanted to give you a call. So would you please e mail me your phone number again so I can put it in my address book next to your e mail address.

Or just give me a call today (Sunday), I should be home most all day.

 

I went to the Saiga 12 thread link you sent me and saw there were some misunderstandings about my accelerator rifle stocks. So I wanted to reply and clarify them, but I was unable to figure out how to post my gif animation and pictures. So I am including my reply below and hope that you might be able to post it for me there if you know how to put the gif animation and pictures into the post. My reply wasn't to any certain particular post, but was a general reply to clarify things in that entire thread. If you could post it there for me I would appreciate it. Here's the thread to post this at that you sent me previously. Just make me the last post responding to no one in particular, but just responding to the thread itself.....

 

http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=31943

 

 

 

 

 

Here is my reply below Ben for you to copy and paste to the Saiga site. Please let me know if you were able to post it and include my gif animation and photos. Thanks Ben,

 

 

 

 

 

Don't forget to re-e mail me your phone number or just call me and I will get it then. We need to talk. Here's my number again. (XXX) XXX-XXXX

 

 

Bill Akins.

 

 

 

I know this is an older thread, but I was just recently sent this thread in an e mail by a member here. There seems to be confusion on how my Akins Accelerator bumpfire stock worked. I'd like to clarify how it worked and also comment on the subject of the last person who posted, who mentioned that I might retrofit my existing accelerator stocks to operate using human muscle tension only without relying on a spring to return the trigger from recoil back forwardly into the shooter's trigger finger. There are a few other things I would like to comment on too.

 

First the clarification on how my stock worked. Here is a moving gif animation of a cutaway view of my accelerator stock.

 

 

You will note from the above animation, that when the shooter FUNCTIONS the trigger, and then the shooter's trigger finger is held tightly against the finger stops located on either side of the pistol grip, the barrel, receiver, trigger group and magazine all recoil rearward approx three quarters of an inch, moving on the two linear motion rods, and thereby compresses the spring located on one of the linear motion rods. When that rearward recoil force is dissipated by the spring being compressed, the spring then decompresses which pushes the barrel, receiver, trigger group and magazine back forwardly again which brings the trigger back into contact with the shooter's trigger finger which is being held against the finger stop ridges on either side of the pistol grip. This causes the trigger finger to FUNCTION the trigger again which repeats the cycle. One shot per each separate function of the trigger. Exactly as federal law stipulates is a semi auto, NOT a full auto. My patented invention was simply bumpfiring within a stationary stock. The trigger was FUNCTIONED separately once for each and every shot fired.

 

Below are two pictures showing my linear motion assembly attached to the receiver of a Ruger 10/22 rifle. In these photos you can only see one linear motion rod, (the one with the spring on it) but the other is behind it. There are two linear motion rods that ride on fine linear bearings.

 

 

 

 

[Bvamp 604]

Both rods ride in linear bearings located on the linear motion "block" housing and one rod had the spring on it that would push the action back forwardly after recoil. The entire action of the rifle free floated on the two linear motion rods which themselves rode in fine linear bearings to maximize resistance against friction which was necessary to get enough recoil out of the .22 LR cartridge to operate. My prototypes that were made for the AK and SKS did not need fine linear bearings because those rifles have more than sufficient recoil to operate.

 

 

Next, here is what happened and why my accelerator stock approval was rescinded by BATFE.

 

BATFE tech branch TWICE IN WRITING approved my stock as NOT being a machine gun.

 

 

Acting BATFE director Michael J. Sullivan was a Bush appointee. But former prosecutor "Maximum Mike" Sullivan, (so called because he always sought the maximum penalty against whoever was unfortunate enough to be prosecuted by him). Sullivan was (and still is) an anti gunner who was also friends with Ted Kennedy. Sullivan has given speeches at anti gun organizational meetings even though the BATFE is SUPPOSED to not be biased one way or the other on gun control, but is supposed to simply enforce federal law as it is written. Why would Bush appoint an anti gunner who was friends with Democrat Ted Kennedy? The story I heard was that it was a Bush payoff to Kennedy for something that Kennedy did not oppose Bush on. Whatever the reason for Bush appointing Sullivan, the record shows that Sullivan was and remains an anti gunner.

 

Ted Kennedy was on record as saying....."I look forward to working with director Sullivan on gun control issues". At the time of Ted Kennedy's statement, Sullivan wasn't a confirmed director yet and never was confirmed. Sullivan left BATFE when Obama was inaugurated to make way for the Obama BATFE director appointee.

 

What is troubling about the Kennedy statement is that the director of the BATFE is not supposed to be "working with" any politician on "gun control". That is not the BATFE nor its director's function. But then we are talking about an out of control federal agency that routinely does whatever it wants regardless of congressional law or any other law it breaks and congress and the courts continue to let them get away with it. Basically if you or I break the law, we get punished. If the BATFE breaks the law, the congress and the courts overlook any wrong doing by the BATFE. Nicely rigged system, looking all nice and legal with congress turning a blind eye and judges twisting the law and giving unbelievable wide latitude to the BATFE simply because the BATFE has the title of...."a federal law enforcement agency". That title seems to impress the judges (especially the liberal Clinton appointee judge in my district court case) So there is no law that the BATFE is held to, but we, the little people are held to the law.

 

There are words for this that were realized by our forefathers. They are called....UNJUST TYRANNY. Anytime a government agency, or indeed the entire governmental INjustice system sets itself up to be above the law and able to break the law with impunity and the rigged court system and parliament...er I mean congress allows it, that is the same kind of injustice and tyranny our constitutional fore fathers opposed.

 

The BATFE is SUPPOSED to be a law enforcement agency which does not MAKE LAW, but simply enforces existing federal law. But the BATFE went beyond their authority of simply enforcing federal law, and with a stoke of Sullivan's bureaucratic pen (aided by BATFE attorneys) Sullivan decided that he and the BATFE was going to rewrite congressional law so that "Single FUNCTION of the trigger".....became synonymous with "Single PULL of the trigger". The BATFE ruling is a tyrannical ruling which contradicts the federal law wording of "FUNCTION of the trigger". According to the BATFE the word "Pull" means the same as the congressional law word of "Function", they ignore that a trigger can be FUNCTIONED in other ways besides being just pulled. Unfortunately the federal courts sidestepped the issue in both my district court case and appellate case and the Supreme court of the U.S. denied cert.

 

Just to make this clear, the district court and the appellate court did NOT rule that my stock was a machine gun. What both courts side stepped the issue and ruled on, was that they were not going to overrule a federal agency decision. In this way the injustice train conductors in black robes caused my cases to be ruled against me in SUMMARY JUDGMENT without my attorney or myself ever having the opportunity of appearing in court or having the opportunity to show the courts how my device and other bump fire devices (hellfire, hellstorm, tac trigger, acu trigger which ALL use a spring just like my stock did) worked. The prejudice by the BATFE against my rapid fire device was made clear when my attorney uncovered BATFE memos in discovery that said...."This guy is making machine guns. Buy one (secretly) and test it". So even though the BATFE had TWICE IN WRITING approved my stock as NOT being a machine gun, BATFE heads directed tech branch to buy one and test it......after they had ALREADY said it was a machine gun in their memo. BATFE heads were ALREADY saying my device was a machine gun BEFORE their people bought one to test it to see if it WAS a machine gun. So the prejudiced message was clear to their people....even though tech branch had TWICE approved IN WRITING my accelerator stock, they were now being told by their superiors, that IT WAS A MACHINE GUN and for them to secretly buy one and test it ......and make damn sure they came to the right conclusion that the higher ups wanted. So you see my friends, the higher ups at BATFE were saying I was guilty even BEFORE their people secretly bought a stock of mine to test. That's the same as saying "He's guilty, now investigate and make sure you come to that same conclusion"....if you want to keep your jobs. Both the district federal court and the federal appellate court totally ignored this prejudice against me by the BATFE.

 

The judges in both my district court and appellate court cases, did not rule one way or the other that my stock was or was not a machine gun. What the district and appellate courts did, was simply to say they saw insufficient reason to overrule a federal agency decision. But....this had the effect of the courts rubberstamping all the illegal and rights breaking actions of the BATFE which my attorney clearly showed exhibited prejudice against my stock in relation to other rapid fire devices on the market. Also that the BATFE was ACCORDING to law supposed to inform me and include my participation in their investigation, which they never did. The BATFE did their reevaluation of my already approved stock in total secret without including me in the investigation in any way. None of this mattered to the judges who did not seem to care that the BATFE violated my rights, and they rationalized and twisted the law to let the BATFE off the hook on all those counts as well as let the BATFE get away with many other illegal actions against me and the judges just side stepped the material issue of was it or wasn't it a machine gun conversion device. Although the courts did not rule my stock to be a machine gun, their ruling that they would not overrule a federal agency (BATFE) decision, effectively defeated my cases without the judges actually ruling on the was it or wasn't it a machine gun question. See how that kind of justice works?

 

What is boiled down to my friends is that I invented something that conformed perfectly to federal law and was not a machine gun according to federal law and was previously TWICE approved in writing by BATFE tech branch as NOT being a machine gun. Then a couple of months after we went public and were selling my stock, anti gunner acting BATFE director Michael J. Sullivan decided he was going to sacrifice me to make points with his anti gun friends, such as Ted Kennedy and anti gun activist political organizations. Even though the Hellfire, hellstorm, tac trigger, acu trigger, and other rapid fire device STILL on the market operate by using a spring, Sullivan did not direct BATFE tech branch to go after them. You see those rapid fire devices had been BATFE approved in some cases for almost 30 years and it would have been too embarrassing for Sullivan and BATFE to try and make the case that what had been legal for 30 years suddenly wasn't legal anymore, even though no congressional laws had changed. But I was the new rapid fire device on the market. My TWO WRITTEN BATFE approvals had not been around for 30 years, but only for about two years. So Sullivan had his people go after my stock which he sacrificed to make himself look good to his anti gun political friends.

 

What precipitated Sullivan's action was even though I had TWO prior written approval letters from BATFE, a group of stab in the back devious individuals wrote to BATFE about my accelerator stock asking for BATFE to reevaluate my stock. Some of them were supposedly our brothers in the firearms industry. Whether or not they did this because they were afraid my stock would lower their substantial investments in registered machine guns....is unknown at this time.

 

I have heard from a source that was told by a BATFE employee that when BATFE acting director Sullivan saw the video of my stock working on You Tube, he exclaimed...."Oh Goddamn!" and he immediately directed his tech branch people to set about doing an internal investigation on my stock and to make sure they found some way to twist the law to declare my device a machine gun even though according to the wording of congressional law....it was and is not a machine gun. It is simply a stock which AIDS bump firing, since you can bump fire many semi automatic firearms WITHOUT my stock or any other type of rapid fire accessory.

 

There are several interesting things about the wording of the BATFE ruling against my stock. The BATFE ruling against my stock says...."Once the trigger is pulled, it initiates a sequence of automatic fire that continues until the finger is removed (they don't say removed from what, and they ignore that the finger is completely disengaged from the trigger between shots and that the finger SEPARATELY FUNCTIONS the trigger once for each and every shot fired) or until the ammunition feeding device is empty."

 

Now, what the BATFE ruling by its very wording does, is outlaw bump firing. Because when you bump fire any firearm, (even without any accessory bump firing device) the BATFE can say that you are "initiating a sequence of automatic fire that continues until the finger is removed, or the ammunition feeding device is empty". This dangerous ruling sets the stage to outlaw ALL semi automatic firearms that are capable of bump firing if the BATFE decides they want to enforce their ruling that way. So far they have not. But you can clearly see how the very wording of this tyrannical ruling could rationalize BATFE outlawing any firearm CAPABLE of bump firing. That would of course outlaw almost all semi automatic firearms. The BATFE has only enforced this ruling against my rifle stock and not against any semi automatic firearm capable of bump firing ......so far. That in and of itself is another example of prejudice against my stock. The BATFE writes a ruling that actually makes what their ruling's wording says to be illegal. Then only enforces it against my stock and not against any other SPRING ACTIVATED rapid fire devices (Hellfire, hellstorm, acu trigger, tac trigger and others that use springs) and also not against semi auto firearms in general. Don't misunderstand. I would not want BATFE to enforce their unjust ruling against those other rapid fire devices nor would I want BATFE to enforce their ruling against all semi automatic firearms either. I am just underscoring the clear prejudice of BATFE against my rifle stock.

 

That was just a very encapsulated short story to give those not familiar a basic understanding of what happened. The entire story would make a thick book. I plan to one day write and publish the entire story.

 

Next, I would like to comment on my patent on the accelerator stock. My attorney and myself are co owners of my patent which is still in force. The other bump fire stock mentioned and shown in this thread that is being made by another member at this site, incorporates the same embodiments patented in my patent. I did not just patent the embodiments included in the linear motion assembly as used on my Ruger 10/22 stock version, but also patented the concept and embodiments of the firearm recoiling to remove the trigger from the finger and to allow a way for the action to go back forwardly again so that the action would come back in contact with the shooter's trigger finger.

 

I patented SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS that the stock and recoiling assemblies could work. In fact if you research and look at the SKS and AK version drawings of my accelerator stock included in my patent available to be seen online at the U.S. patent office, you will see that in my AK accelerator version drawing, I patented exactly the same actions and embodiments the other member's AK stock has that is being discussed in this thread. The only difference is my drawings included a spring for moving the action back forwardly after recoil while this other member's stock uses human muscle tension to replace the spring. Since my embodiments covered that, it would be impossible for the other person to obtain a patent on those embodiments, since I have already patented them.

 

Not to misunderstand, I did not patent bump firing itself, but I did patent not only the concept, but also the embodiments of a recoiling action within a stationary stock that can be tightly held against the shoulder. The simple omission of a spring being replaced by human muscle tension does not obviate the embodiments in my patent. Other people may have thought about doing it, or may even have made a stock or two of their own, but I was the first person to actually patent the embodiments associated with the actions of a rifle recoiling rearwardly within a stationary stock and then going back forwardly again to facilitate and aid in bump firing. My patent attorney was one of the best in the business and is the same one that was used by Ohio ordnance. Even though I am precluded by the unjust BATFE ruling from selling my stocks with springs installed in them, I can sell them without springs and I along with my attorney, still jointly co-own and enforce the patent.

 

I am more interested in rectifying the BATFE unjust ruling and getting back the rights for all of us to own these types of stocks, rather than for me to sue every individual for patent infringement that infringes upon my patented embodiments by making a stock or two of their own, (which even for personal use is still an illegal infringement). However, if someone goes into production and manufactures for sale to the public a stock that infringes upon my patented embodiments, that would be a matter I and my patent co-owner attorney would take very seriously as a patent infringement.

 

 

 

If someone wants to manufacture for market a bump fire stock using isometric human muscle tension in replacing a spring, that incorporates the conceptual embodiments protected by my patent, then I and my patent co-owner attorney would be willing to talk with them about a patent licensing agreement that could be acceptable and beneficial to all parties. The more versions of my patented embodiments that could be marketed, the better I would like it. So my attorney who co-owns my patent, and myself would certainly be willing to discuss a patent license agreement with a potential manufacturer who would be interested in licensing some or all of my patented embodiments, rather than for both parties to have to engage in costly patent infringement litigation. I will not engage in any disagreements with other members here regarding what another member may feel is the limits of my patent. I and my attorney know what our mutually owned patent covers, and will vigorously protect our interests in this intellectual property. It is a benefit to have an attorney as one's co-owning partner in patent ownership.

 

 

 

Next, I would like to comment on the member here who mentioned that I should look into retrofitting my accelerator stocks by replacing the spring with a method of utilizing (in the words of BATFE) conscious, isometric, human muscle tension.

 

 

 

I have already done that and have several prototypes already built. Below are photos and videos of them. One of the prototypes has a isometric tensioning lever that looks like another trigger on the forward pistol grip. However, it is not the trigger. The trigger is the original Ruger 10/22 trigger. What looks like a trigger on the forward pistol grip, is actually an isometric human muscle tension lever that the index finger of the offhand (usually the left hand) places….conscious….human muscle….isometric tension against the barrel/receiver which will always be translating the barrel/receiver action forwardly, while at the same time the Ruger trigger is functioned. This sets up a condition whereby the barrel/receiver action recoils enough to move the trigger rearwardly away from the shooters trigger finger (as in my original accelerator stock), but then instead of a spring pushing the action back forward again, instead, the shooter's offhand finger keeping tension on the forward lever forces the action forwardly so that the Ruger trigger is brought back into contact with the shooter's trigger finger. The recoil overcomes the tension of the offhand finger keeping tension on the isometric lever on the front, and does this just enough for the lever to push back against the offhand's finger when the action recoils to the rear allowing the finger to disengage from the trigger completely and for the trigger to reset, but by the shooter keeping that steady tension on the isometric lever the action is swiftly brought back forwardly again. Basically an Akins Accelerator but without the spring and with the well supported off hand fingers supplying the isometric tension to translate the action forwardly again.

 

 

 

It works and I have two working prototypes. One prototype utilizes an isometric lever that reminds me of a grip safety on a 1911 pistol. So the web of the off hand actually keeps tension on the isometric lever since the isometric lever is located at the back side of the forward pistol grip. The other prototype utilizes an isometric lever located at the front of the forward pistol grip.

 

 

 

It would be incorrect to refer to the isometric tensioning lever as another trigger, because the trigger is still the standard factory Ruger 10/22 trigger. True you could operate this stock in two ways. One way would be to allow the isometric tensioning lever to push the standard factory Ruger trigger against your trigger finger. The other way would be to pull the standard Ruger trigger while keeping tension on the isometric lever. Either way would function the intended result. However, the rifle will not fire unless the standard Ruger trigger is functioned. So there is still only one trigger. Whether you use the isometric tension lever to push the standard Ruger trigger against your trigger finger, or whether you keep tension on the isometric lever and function the standard Ruger trigger by pulling it, either way you are still only able to fire the firearm by functioning the original factory Ruger trigger.

 

 

 

Below are photos of my prototype retrofitted Akins Accelerator isometric lever prototype utilizing a web of the off hand tensioning lever (similar to a grip safety in looks).

 

This has been retrofitted to work on my standard accelerator stock for the Ruger 10/22 by adding a forward pistol grip with the isometric lever which is activated by the web of the shooter's offhand.

 

And here's a link to a video showing how the web of the off hand tensioning lever works on this prototype.

 

 

 

http://good-times.we...099763970axOJzH

 

 

 

First picture in this post is the only photo I have of the other prototype which utilizes the isometric tensioning lever at the front of the forward pistol grip. This gives the appearance that it is another trigger but it is not a trigger. Only the original factory Ruger trigger is the trigger. This is just a human muscle tensioning lever.

[Bvamp 604]

[Bvamp 604]

the above is a letter from Bill Akins, and spans three posts, one of which is on the previous page in this thread. Ill get some better pictures of this later in the week when I see him.

[Jpanzer 1,265]

Add a regular pistol grip to this one and I'm interested for sure....

[csspecs 1,987]

Bill akins alteration looks interesting, I emailed him several times about doing something like that. I never heard back from him so I'd guess they are in a junk mail folder on his email.

 

My letter from ATF is dated jun 18th 08 and his new letter is from jun 26th 08. My letter looks very close to what he got and it also looks much like they reused my wording from the letter I sent along with my device in both of the reply letters. I'm not terribly interested in this item any more.. I think in the end I may have made 20.00 on it. So if Bill is saying I stole his idea he can have it.

 

If I was to make anymore it will be after I get my mill hooked up so that I can use either AK or AR-15 grips instead of steel tubing.

[Bvamp 604]

csspecs - no, no not at all man. Bill specifically said that he isnt directing this at you.

 

come on out to the florida shoot on the 21st dude.bring your stock and a copy of your letter, Bill really wants to meet you, and no, he isnt going to slap you, he WANTS to talk to you.