Tactical Tailor

LWRCI’s 50 State Compliant Rifle Demonstrator

At SHOT Show, LWRCI showed me an interesting new carbine demonstrator. It looks like their standard IC-style carbine with a 10 round magazine peeking out from the mag well. But then I noticed that there is no magazine release.

photo 1

Turns out, it features a 10 round, spring loaded, fixed magazine, you grasp the bottom of the magazine and pull until the bullet-shaped loading gate aligns. Then you can feed ammunition into the magazine to top it off. When you are done, you release the magazine and it automatically closes under spring pressure.

photo 2

This is still a concept demonstrator and not yet ready for primetime but it’s good to see industry developing rifles for every segment of the market; even those who live in areas with restrictive gun laws. When the latest wave of legislation was proposed last year, I knew that someone would analyze the laws and begin to work on technologies that accommodate them, yet allow the user to continually top off the magazine and in a for factor we all know and love, the Stoner AR platform.

I was so impressed with the concept that, during SHOT Show, I mentioned this rifle when asked by others what I had seen that was cool. Many in industry were intrigued with the idea and supported the notion. In fact, I was so struck by the rifle that I uncharacteristically shot and posted a quick video on the demonstrator to the SSD Facebook page. However, I was quite dismayed by the reaction from the readers. I noticed industry fans liked the rifle. Many, disappointingly, were outraged by LWRCI’s development of the rifle which they felt was an act of capitulation to laws they don’t agree with. Some mentioned that LWRCI should spend their money on legal action, opposing prohibitive gun legislation. Apparently, they don’t realize how much money the firearms industry pours into organizations that lobby for your gun rights.

I cannot explain this upside down attitude that would rather leave citizens without guns, than offer them something that complies with these laws. The attitude reminds of a spoiled child who won’t accept something unless they get it the way they want it. I find it to be a defeatist attitude that eschews resistance via innovation in favoring hunkering down awaiting change via legislation or the court system, or worse yet, abandoning areas with restrictive gun laws altogether. Naturally, the issue must be confronted via the middle path, with a balance of adaption during periods of prohibition combined with legislative and legal actions including education, lobbying, and court challenges.

Whether you agree with their LWRCI’s actions on a philosophical level, you have to admit that it is an innovative approach and I hope that it spurs more innovation industry-wide.


77 Responses to “LWRCI’s 50 State Compliant Rifle Demonstrator”

  1. Bill says:

    The pro gun lobby’s inability to conceive of a “middle path” makes it it’s own worst enemy. The SHOT Show being held in Vegas should be an implicit reminder that “all or nothing” usually results in “nothing.”

    • My Lying Eyes says:

      I do not understand what you mean by that. Where would the so-called “middle ground” hold the event?

    • Dairian says:

      Quote: “The pro gun lobby’s inability to conceive of a “middle path” makes it it’s own worst enemy.”

      Based on what?

      Quote: “The SHOT Show being held in Vegas should be an implicit reminder that “all or nothing” usually results in “nothing.”

      Because what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?
      Because Viva la Vegas?
      Because Elvis?

      I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Clarification?

      • Bill says:

        Vegas exists because people have unrealistic beliefs in their ability to play and win. No one goes there expecting to lose, but the vast majority do. If you go all in on every hand it is impossible to win, and there are plenty of PhDs in statistics in the gaming degree program at UNLV who will run the numbers for you. If that isn’t clear enough, Vegas eats people who think they are smarter than the game.

    • Engineer says:

      What is a middle path on gun control? The only logical arguments are for freedom, or to take them all away. Anything in between makes no sense.

  2. Dairian says:

    Innovative idea.

    I do agree though that this is creating technology that essentially signals capitulation (although yes this is a nice workaround to still sell LWRCI products $$$).

    The firms that take hard line stands (puling out of restrictive states, refusing to sell to LE in restrictive states, etc.) will always get my money.

    • KP says:

      There’s no reason to deny citizens access to LWRCi guns so there’s no reason to pull out of restrictive states, there is only reason to restrict sales in the state to what all residents can enjoy.

      There are plenty of pro-gun folk in California. We’ve just been gerrymandered into the margins and overrun by low information, low education, statist urban voters. That LWRCi supports us, makes me support them. And we need all the support we can get…

      • Dairian says:

        When I say pull out of restrictive states what I mean is move their operations to friendly states, not that they don’t sell to private citizens in restrictive states.

        A large motivator is money, and not having revenue sources from taxation of firearms manufacturers (as well as the jobs) should be a big motivator to lawmakers.

      • My Lying Eyes says:

        After CA bans these maybe you can get a taxtical lever action. And then when that high powered rifle is banned maybe you can get a tactical Brown Bess. Incrementalism is destroying your rights. And you just want more of the same in the form of another kind of bullet button. Enjoy for three years.

        • Dairian says:

          HOLY CRAP.

          I love this idea. I want an official TACTICAL Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle!

        • KP says:

          Our. Rights.

          I don’t live in California, but it and NY are on the brain bleeding edge of gun control. Colorado managed to fight it off but not before laws got put on books. Compliance items are the result of legislation, not the other way around and I consider it a good thing that the legislature is chasing its own damn tail while the courts stroll through the list of cases being litigated.

          There is literally nobody who wants to have these kind of guns. One side doesn’t want to have to deal with this crap, and the other side doesn’t want us to have guns at all. In neither case is a compliance item actually supporting gun control, and if gun companies decide don’t support gun folk in these states, there will be no guns and the other side will have won. When there’s not a single ounce of AR15 left, there will be a time when revolvers are the target, so for the sake of all of us, compliance firearms are welcome.

          • My Lying Eyes says:

            Valid point but something stinks of merely fighting a delaying action with this rifle and similar ideas. Instead perhaps taking a hard line stand would be a better way to go. I do not have the answer but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Tell me that is not he case of this new contraption.

        • bobX says:

          +1. I’ll be moving to a state that respects my rights when I get out…

        • Omega_6-2 says:

          Mossberg already makes a tactical lever action .30-30 win (464 SPX)…

  3. Bill says:

    And it is a cool concept, probably even useful with detachable-mag rifles. I’d keep one on hand to go with a survival or kit rifle, it would beat having no mag at all if they were lost or destroyed.

  4. Chris says:

    How is refusing to sel to LE in restrictive states a good thing? We don’t write the laws, and unconstitutional ones are bullshit to us too. Why should we not be armed like the bad guys, because again, they don’t follow the rules. To disarm us because law abiding citizens follow the rules is just dumb. I don’t like those laws, and luckily live and work in a pro gun state, but people need to remember, 99% of LE support the constitution, but can’t just leave the states or cities unprotected, or uproot families because of it. I’m sure some have, and I hope it worked out, but it isn’t as easy as just leaving because they don’t like it. I support gay rights and it’s illegal for them to marry in OK, but I’m not moving because of it. I still stand up for them and help to educate and convince people that they have rights, just like I do for gun rights.

    • Kaos-1 says:

      The right to be gay is not an amendment in the constitution of the United States of America .

      • Jack says:

        Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

        • Steve says:

          Uh Jack, you realize that particular phrase is in the Declaration of Independence and not the US Constitution, right?

      • orly? says:

        Tell the FLDS to comply with Federal Law and they’ll say “Religious Freedom.”

      • SqDb says:

        Ok, how bout the 14th Amendment, equal protection under law?

        • SSD says:

          I guess you aren’t a states rights kind of a guy. It cuts both ways you know.

          • SqDb says:

            My response was in reply to, “The right to be gay is not an amendment in the constitution of the United States of America.” While the constitution doesn’t even contain the word “gas AFAIK, the 14th amendment outlines that all citizens are afforded equal protection under law.

            (though a person can lose his/her rights by committing felonies).

  5. Chris says:

    My point being that I get what you are trying to say, and it isn’t “fair” that LE are given leeway, but we also have rules that allow us to speed, you know, to catch people not following rules, or to get someplace and save lives, so do you not buy cars from those companies that sell LE vehicles either? I don’t now how to articulate it any better, and this is the best analogy I can come up with in a hurry, but I hope my point is clear. We should commend companies for trying to still get arms to law abiding citizens, instead if them just leaving a void and making people in those states unarmed.

    • My Lying Eyes says:

      I know your analogy was off the cuff, but at least one flaw with it is that I am unable to find the right to drive in the Constitution. I believe the point is that if these guns are so dangerous that politicians cannot allow a “civilian” to carry one (cops are civilians too) then surely the police should not have hem either. They face the same threats as a civilian after all. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Reap the whirlwind and then perhaps they will see the error in Their ways and liberalize gun laws for all civilians.

      • orly? says:

        So SWAT will never have to face organized terrorists or work together as a well disciplined squad with intel and comms coming from a chain of command?

    • KP says:

      I don’t begrudge LEOs of the tools of their trade and I initially didn’t like the idea of restricting LEAs to the same sales as other civilians, and I don’t support it now for reasons of vindictiveness, but I do support the motion because it would be constitutionally unethical for companies to support unequal protection between de facto classes of the citizenry. The situation sucks either way and we all have to fight it out to where it’s no longer an issue.

      And to reiterate Lying Eyes’ point, disobeying traffic laws and the like in the course of duty is a privilege granted to law enforcement to enforce the law. Keeping and bearing arms that are modern enough to combat tyranny is an enumerated right.

  6. Eric says:

    I think its innovation regardless of how you feel.

    I like it because i travel a lot and this is a rifle i can take anywhere, i like the convenience.There are states that have strict regulations, i think this rifle allows people within those states to still enjoy the comfort of an AR type rifle. I don’t look at as bending to the will of legislation, i look at as a company providing for the individuals in strict states.

  7. Frogman says:

    I think it’s an impressive design. I work in technology development and therefore I appreciate engineering that is clever, usable and in front of the crowd. I applaud LWRCI for attempting to bring a novel design to a consumer group who are “behind the wire”.


  8. Chuck says:

    pretty sure it STILL wouldn’t fly in New York.

  9. Jim says:

    Very neat idea. Reminds me of loading a Krag for some reason.

    As a Californian this would be another alternative to our limited options.

    I remember when the first lowers with sealed magazine wells came out in California – there were those that thought it was capitulation to. But it gave Californians the chance to own semi-auto ARs. It was huge, and the demand was great. And people wanted more. From there innovation took hold and we started seeing bullet buttons, pistol-grip stocks, and pistol grip wraps. Thanks to those options, and the efforts of those who worked to effect legal change, unsealed AR lowers are now extremely popular in CA.

    This is not capitulation – it’s defiance.

  10. Blehtastic says:

    Getting people into shooting is the best way to get them to vote for gun rights. Kind of hard to get them into shooting if there’s no gun for them to buy.

  11. Dan says:

    Wonder if they can make a detachable magazine like that for bullet button folks; no tool needed to reload the magazine.

  12. P.L. Smith says:

    Good post. Extreme points of view do need some moderation, the ability to introduce a reality check, and a voice that doesn’t kowtow to their desires. Its one of the reasons I enjoy your site.

  13. Kaos-1 says:

    Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

    • Bill says:

      Anti gunners have been loosing solid ground for over a decade, at least. Rifles like this one insure that the important parts get to more people, those being the sights, action and trigger.

      • orly? says:

        So the inexpensive Mosin Nagant, 10/22s, and the venerable Garand were outlawed?

        Please, tell me more.

  14. average dude says:

    Being a California resident, I see this as another option for those in my regulatory boat, which is never a bad thing.

  15. SShink says:

    Maybe 49 state legal…it ain’t legal in NY with that evil flash hider.

    • SSD says:

      Stock and flash hider are easy fixes. That’s the firearms equivalent to a Guy not wanting to buy a pack because the sample is MARPAT and he wants OCP.

      • SShink says:

        obviously, it could be sold with a brake and non-collapsible butt…it could also be sold with a myriad of other options. If the point of the excersize is that it’s 50 state legal, why not go the distance and show a fully complaint gun? I believe that all or most states where this gun would be appealing also have outlawed collapsible butts and flash hinders.

        • SSD says:

          Why? Because it’s a demonstrator and most people have the mental acuity to imagine it with a brake and fixed stock.

          • SShink says:

            Don’t give the average NY’er so much credit. We don’t have the mental acuity to vote lib-tards out of office, to rebuke our 4% property tax or realize that 3 months of nice weather per year just plain sucks.

  16. Mike B says:

    Evil Collapsible stock no good in PRNJ

  17. eddi says:

    If you can’t beat them, outsmart them.

  18. Joel says:

    There will be some interesting speedloader designs made for this.. though if a notch was cut in the right place, you could just use a regular 10 round stripper clip. I can’t explain why, but even though I live in a very gun-friendly state, I really want to try out one of these.. it looks almost fun to reload! I would widen that loading gate though..

    • Riceball says:

      I was thinking pretty much the same thing, loading this thing would be a breeze if it’s able to accept stripper clips or some kind of speed loader.

      • JayfromVA says:

        Yep, make a notch for stripper clips, then someone please make a YouTube video showing speed reloads…

    • orly? says:

      Everyone keeps saying the Garand is obsolete (its not outlawed anywhere in the US IIRC btw).

      I say: modernize it.

  19. PigmyPuncher says:

    IMO – another step towards a complete ban. This will be touted as the ‘reasonable compromise’ rifle for a short time as the anti gunners work toward making it the new baseline for what is allowed. Then, not far behind will be the next round of “reasonable gun laws” aka a one way compromise using the success of this abomination as a shining example. What a majority of supporters seem to keep forgetting is that the only “compromise” that occurs on the topic of gun control is the steady erosion of our 2nd amendment rights. I get that you guys/gals in left states see this as another option, but to the remainder of the states w/out restrictions it represents another opportunity toward more ‘compromise’ which will eventually result in a complete ban. YMMV.

    • Riceball says:

      I don’t see it that way, I see it more as thumb on the nose to the antis and the silly politicians that pass all of these stupid anti-gun laws, it says to them that they can try and pass all of the silly restrictive laws they want and we’ll keep on coming out with ways of getting around them.

      • SShink says:

        You mean free market, capitolist ingenuity? Same people who make the gun laws are working on un-doing that too, with equal vigor.

    • SSD says:

      By your argument, we’ve already lost and you’ve completely given up.

    • orly? says:

      “Reasonable compromise” to me is the “Modern militia” as long as their chain-of-command remains the same Nationwide.

      Most restrictions I can deal with on personal guns, as personally, I’ve seen worse.

  20. David says:

    Why can’t one just load their CA Compliant rifle by removing the rear takedown pin? I’m not unduly encumbered by CA gun regs but it seemed easy enough for me to do and didn’t require any “Rube Goldberg” engineering to accomplish.

    • SSD says:


    • Engineer says:

      That’s what California people were doing before the bullet button. Now say you have some condition that causes the bolt to interfere with opening the rifle and you can’t shake the rounds out of the ejection port… Ironically, California loves making shooters less safe.

  21. Snake says:

    There’s nothing defeatist, spoiled, or upside down about it. It’s very existence is a concession to laws like the SAFE Act. It makes those laws okay, because “at least you can have this,” vs a normal AR/mags/stock/foregrips/muzzle device like everyone else enjoys.

    I’m a huge LWRC fan. But that rifle tells people like Andrew Cuomo and Diane Feinstein, “You can get away with making such laws, it’s okay, because inevitably, we will bend to you.” Until we’re left with nothing compared to what we started with.

    I was upset the second I saw that rifle. That was my instinct reaction.

    • SSD says:

      No, those laws are reality. You can either be a defeatist about it and do nothing or you can put your mind to it and deal with it.

      Your alternative is the real accommodation.

      • Snake says:

        My alternative is non compliance, not your preferred method of just going with it cause it is what it is. THAT is defeatism. In accordance with this past holiday,

        “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

        If your next line of thought is to tell me a just law is one enacted by a democratically elected legislature, then the point is lost on you and you ought to reconsider where you stand on 2A issues and restrictions that result in this disgraced product you call an innovative compromise.

  22. BMO says:

    Smells like bowing down to gun-control freak states to me
    no moar LWRC, it’s dead to me now

    • z3ro says:

      It’s spelled “more”.

      They are not bowing down. LWRC has been extremely proactive in the fight. I know them well and work with them. This is all about providing rifles for people.

      They are located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland… right in the middle of the best waterfowl hunting in North America. If they capitulated, they would have retooled and started making shotguns along time ago.

      They haven’t conceded anything. They’ve maintained the fight this entire time and will continue to do so.

  23. Ed says:

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Notice that it does not say “the right to keep and bear arms that we do not find threatening shall not be infringed.”

    This infringement work-around is just sad on so many levels.