Law Tactical Folder vs Sylvan Arms Folding Hinge

[Longshot85]

I'm interested in getting a folder and want to know if anyone has experience with preferably both but any feedback is welcome.

This is going on a pistol .300 BO build with 10.5 inch barrel that will be the gun I grab to defend myself and family.

It will be rocking a 6 inch titanium Form1 and a surefire.

 

[Anb618]

Had a Sylvan for a bit. Removed it and sold it when ATF changed their rules regarding AR pistol OAL with a vertical grip. Never had an issue, but I will say it didn’t lock in the folded position very well and would flop open.

 

[jasonfaz]

I tried out the Law Tactical (both generations) and also sold them. My objective was to have a very compact weapon. As it turned out, based on the added length the adapter itself had on the rifle, I wasnt accomplishing much by a folding adapter and was better off just using a stock that collapsed deeper. The Law Tactical was also ridiculously heavy (cant speak to the Sylvan). I ended up just going to the LWRC UCIW and calling it good. I dont regret it either...

 

[Longshot85]

Good feedback keep it coming gents

Also open to PDW feedback too vs folder

 

[Steel+Killer]

I have the LAW and the quality seems second to none it locks up tight in the folded and non folded positions. I have no experience with Sylvan.

Edit.......Correction it does not lock in the non folded position, but does stay put.

 

[Ravenworks]

I also have the LAW unit, I have mine on a rifle and needed the extra length it afforded

 

[Longshot85]

Remind me, does Law lock open?

I know SA doesn't open and fold Flat ......does Law?

 

[Steel+Killer]

Remind me, does Law lock open?

I know SA doesn't open and fold Flat ......does Law?

It does not lock open.

It does fold pretty flat though.

 

[MPDS13]

You may want to look at the Shield Arms SA-15 receivers. I am waiting on the Shield Arms SA-15 receivers to get back in stock. They have the folding mechanism forged into the lower receiver as one solid piece.

SA-15 Stripped Folding Lower Receiver

Billet AR-15 folding lower receiver.

shieldarms.com

 

[Frank_Castle]

I don't have experience with any but had considered them. I liked how Dead Foot Arms side folder system allowed it to fire.

 

[db2000]

I have Law Tactical G3-M and it’s tight when locked. I never realized the added weight until it was mentioned in an earlier post. Had to look that up. 10oz total. Wouldn’t have guessed. Should speak to it’s integrity then.
Anyway, badass. Highly recommend. Can’t comment on Sylvan unfortunately but sounds like it may not lock tight. That’s a deal breaker. Like others have said, it doesn’t lock open but is tight hinged and stays open. Folds flat minus the width of the stock.

 

[Longshot85]

You may want to look at the Shield Arms SA-15 receivers. I am waiting on the Shield Arms SA-15 receivers to get back in stock. They have the folding mechanism forged into the lower receiver as one solid piece.

SA-15 Stripped Folding Lower Receiver

Billet AR-15 folding lower receiver.

shieldarms.com

Wow that looks nice.......and i didn't know those existed but I do now

Anyone have experience with the Shield Arms with forged in lower ?

 

[Yondering]

As it turned out, based on the added length the adapter itself had on the rifle, I wasnt accomplishing much by a folding adapter and was better off just using a stock that collapsed deeper.

Yeah I don't think so. There are no AR stocks that collapse anywhere near as deep as a folded LAW setup; even the most compact are a few inches longer.

OP - I don't have any experience with Sylvan, but use the second gen LAW folder (made of aluminum rather than steel, so it's not very heavy), and as others said they do not lock open but have a friction mechanism in the hinge that holds them in place pretty well. I wish LAW had kept making them from aluminum, but they got too much feedback from silly people insisting they needed to be able to fire a shot with it folded, so they beefed the mechanism up a lot and made it out of steel. I like the light weight aluminum original versions better.

I use mine to put my 9" 300 Blk or 12.5" 6.5 Grendel in a backpack. It works really well for that, and with some practice it can be unfolded as it's pulled out of the pack. (One advantage of having it NOT lock in the folded position; it's much faster/easier to deploy.)

 

[Yondering]

Just some thoughts from looking at the Sylvan folding hinge - it looks like a pretty close copy of the earlier aluminum LAW folders, except that it sticks out behind the receiver another 1/2" or so rather than being mounted flush like the LAW. Maybe that was to get around a patent issue, but it sure looks dumb IMO. I do like that it's lighter weight though.

The Sylvan https://sylvanarms.com/product/arh300/

vs the LAW folder: (note the early Pmag and aluminum LAW folder - I've been beating on this gun for a long time)

 

[346ci]

I ended up just going to the LWRC UCIW and calling it good. I dont regret it either...

Here is your answer, forget the folder. Top is a EFX A1 length, bottom is my 6.8 deer rifle with the UCIW.

 

[strikeeagle1]

On some of my carbines I use the Law Tactical Gen3's. Storage / transport in smaller configuration backpack style options were well worth the cost. As mentioned there is a tensioning screw to control force required to open / close the adapter hinge. They are very well machined with nice fitment.

No experience with the Sylvan.

 

[Longshot85]

Keep it coming!!

Very nice setups and thanks for sharing gents

After some searching it appears there's A LOT more civ and mil/LE running law folders than i would have ever thought.

I got some things in the works, hopefully be able to snag a Law Gen 3 soon.

Anybody have a friend or dealer that has?

-FDE in stock
-good price even on a black one
*good price on FDE


I try to support local and small businesses when I can.

Anybody have a used one they want to sell?

 

[z77280]

Don’t know if you ever got an answer comparing both. I have installed both for people and the Law is hands down nicer. They both lockup in the open position solid. The SA adds about another 1/2” in length compared to the Law. The main difference however is that when in the open position, the Law captures the bolt extension so it cannot be removed without pushing in the “fold” button and the SA does not. This opens up the chances of the bolt extension coming out and you losing it or worse firing with 2” of free space between your buffer and bolt.

 

[Yondering]

Don’t know if you ever got an answer comparing both. I have installed both for people and the Law is hands down nicer. They both lockup in the open position solid. The SA adds about another 1/2” in length compared to the Law. The main difference however is that when in the open position, the Law captures the bolt extension so it cannot be removed without pushing in the “fold” button and the SA does not. This opens up the chances of the bolt extension coming out and you losing it or worse firing with 2” of free space between your buffer and bolt.

Fully agree that the LAW is hands down the better choice.

Recently though I bought one of the 17 Design folding lowers, which IMO is even better than the LAW folder. It's a definite step forward from the LAW, being about 1"-1.5" shorter in the folded position, tighter lockup, about 6-8 oz lighter, and generally a nice lower as well. Also at my price of ~$240 it was about the same price as buying a LAW without a lower to put it on.

I can try to post some pics if anybody is interested.

 

[z77280]

Fully agree that the LAW is hands down the better choice.

Recently though I bought one of the 17 Design folding lowers, which IMO is even better than the LAW folder. It's a definite step forward from the LAW, being about 1"-1.5" shorter in the folded position, tighter lockup, about 6-8 oz lighter, and generally a nice lower as well. Also at my price of ~$240 it was about the same price as buying a LAW without a lower to put it on.

I can try to post some pics if anybody is interested.

Didn’t know those were a thing, but should have known. There is someone who makes everything for these.

 

[strikeeagle1]

A few recent personal builds using the Law folder.
IF there is a better one, post it up and I will give a go.

 

[Yondering]

Didn’t know those were a thing, but should have known. There is someone who makes everything for these.

They are pretty new, haven't been out for very long. IMO the first real step forward since the original LAW folder was released. I normally avoid being an early adopter, but this seemed worth the gamble, and it paid off. Although I've heard these were being sold as part of a complete rifle by some other company for the past year or so, but forget who.

17 Design top, old gen II LAW below

 

[Longshot85]

They are pretty new, haven't been out for very long. IMO the first real step forward since the original LAW folder was released. I normally avoid being an early adopter, but this seemed worth the gamble, and it paid off. Although I've heard these were being sold as part of a complete rifle by some other company for the past year or so, but forget who.

17 Design top, old gen II LAW below

I only have experience with the Law Gen3 I ended up picking up.

However a friend has some knock off folders, a legit Law Gen3 and snagged a lower just like seen in this pic. The lower with the folder already built in really impresses him. It's very similar to Law Gen3 but the price is way better. He has not found downside yet when comparing the built in folding lower to Law Gen3 on an AR-15.

 

[Yondering]

I only have experience with the Law Gen3 I ended up picking up.

However a friend has some knock off folders, a legit Law Gen3 and snagged a lower just like seen in this pic. The lower with the folder already built in really impresses him. It's very similar to Law Gen3 but the price is way better. He has not found downside yet when comparing the built in folding lower to Law Gen3 on an AR-15.

Agreed, I haven't seen any downsides either.

While I do like my older (Gen II, which was actually the first gen available for sale) aluminum LAW folder, they changed from aluminum to steel after that and approximately double the weight of a forged lower. This 17D folding lower on the other hand is barely any heavier than an ordinary lower, and I think some of that difference is because it's machined billet rather than forged.

The only thing I don't like about the 17D folding lower is some of the sharp edges in the machining; not saying it's bad quality or rough machining, just that I wish they'd rounded some of it off better. But that's a really minor complaint.

 

[bfoosh006]

Not a fan of the Sylvan Folder not fitting flush on the lower.

Pic from here... https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/12/27/sylvan-arms-gen-3-ar-hinge-folding-stock-adapter/

 

[Safety_3rd]

Anyone mess with these? It was an instagram add. Obviously some Chinese thing... Look exactly like a law Wtf...

 

[Yondering]

Anyone mess with these? It was an instagram add. Obviously some Chinese thing... Look exactly like a law Wtf...
View attachment 7598395

Yeah they are a cheap commie knockoff of the LAW. I ended up with one myself and the are a copy of the aluminum gen2 LAW. Tolerances are very loose and I’d guess it’s made of weak low quality aluminum too.

 

[Safety_3rd]

Yeah they are a cheap commie knockoff of the LAW. I ended up with one myself and the are a copy of the aluminum gen2 LAW. Tolerances are very loose and I’d guess it’s made of weak low quality aluminum too.

I mean aluminum isn't always bad. Its lighter, and our lowers and uppers are made of it. Probably not the best wearing part for a folding mechanism though.

 

[Yondering]

I mean aluminum isn't always bad. Its lighter, and our lowers and uppers are made of it. Probably not the best wearing part for a folding mechanism though.

Nothing at all wrong with high quality aluminum, like the second gen LAW folder is made from; mine is still working great and as a machinist I use a lot of aluminum when it makes sense.

But a lot of these Chinese knockoff products are made from aluminum that is cheap low quality material that doesn’t have the strength of better aluminum grades.

 

[Morgan3]

LAW Gen 3 runs flawless for me. The only issue you might have is lightening your buffer if you’re currently running a heavier one to tone down recoil. The “spacer” you install to take up the space added within the hinge adds weight to your buffer. One rifle I had running an H3 needed an H2 to cycle reliably once installing the LAW.

 

[sheepdog697]

You may want to look at the Shield Arms SA-15 receivers. I am waiting on the Shield Arms SA-15 receivers to get back in stock. They have the folding mechanism forged into the lower receiver as one solid piece.

SA-15 Stripped Folding Lower Receiver

Billet AR-15 folding lower receiver.

shieldarms.com

Ooo I like that.

 

[z77280]

Ooo I like that.

Same as the 17designs. 17’s website says it was a joint collaboration.

 

[Yondering]

Same as the 17designs. 17’s website says it was a joint collaboration.

Yup, same thing. I’m pretty happy with the one I have.

 

[Longshot85]

Yup, same thing. I’m pretty happy with the one I have.

Yeah my buddy who has one is continuing to like it more and more

 

[Morgan3]

Agreed, I haven't seen any downsides either.

While I do like my older (Gen II, which was actually the first gen available for sale) aluminum LAW folder, they changed from aluminum to steel after that and approximately double the weight of a forged lower. This 17D folding lower on the other hand is barely any heavier than an ordinary lower, and I think some of that difference is because it's machined billet rather than forged.

The only thing I don't like about the 17D folding lower is some of the sharp edges in the machining; not saying it's bad quality or rough machining, just that I wish they'd rounded some of it off better. But that's a really minor complaint.

The reason LAW switched from aluminum to steel was customers wanting to be able to fire the rifle folded without damage. Even though LAW states it should be fired from the closed position, that’s is why the change was made. Is there any issue with firing the 17 Design lower in the folded position?
LAW states that you might need to replace the O-rings after firing folded, but I haven’t found that to be the case.

 

[Safety_3rd]

The reason LAW switched from aluminum to steel was customers wanting to be able to fire the rifle folded without damage. Even though LAW states it should be fired from the closed position, that’s is why the change was made. Is there any issue with firing the 17 Design lower in the folded position?
LAW states that you might need to replace the O-rings after firing folded, but I haven’t found that to be the case.

Sounds like the potential for some damage... Off to YouTube I go...

 

[Safety_3rd]

Fuck it can be done lol

 

[Yondering]

The reason LAW switched from aluminum to steel was customers wanting to be able to fire the rifle folded without damage. Even though LAW states it should be fired from the closed position, that’s is why the change was made. Is there any issue with firing the 17 Design lower in the folded position?
LAW states that you might need to replace the O-rings after firing folded, but I haven’t found that to be the case.

Yes, I know the reason, and it was always a stupid reason. Sometimes the customer isn’t right, and this is a prime example; they more than doubled the weight of a good product to please stupid customers who were convinced of some mall-ninja need to fire one shot folded.

I have no idea if the 17D lower would be damaged by doing that, and see no reason to find out.

 

[elham]

Apologies - kind of late to the conversation.

So I had been considering the LAW folder, but excluding a somewhat faster deployment, the AR upper/lower are separable by two pins, and with a 10.5" upper I reckon the upper with ASR break to be about 19.72" OAL and the lower with brace collapsed to be about 14.50". Pinned together and collapsed about 27" OAL.

Assuming a 1" mechanism, add the folder, collapsed and deployed that becomes about 28". Folded maybe 20.25" (still longer than either the separated upper or lower). So for compactness in transport it seems an expensive addition, albeit having somewhat faster deployment, where if proper planning becomes precluded could be a determining factor, but the given odds of that kind of occurrence, deployment speed becomes somewhat less significant.

Any thoughts or opinions on simply separating the upper/lower for compact transport other than speed of deployment?
Am I missing something here?

 

[Holliday]

LAW Gen 3 runs flawless for me. The only issue you might have is lightening your buffer if you’re currently running a heavier one to tone down recoil. The “spacer” you install to take up the space added within the hinge adds weight to your buffer. One rifle I had running an H3 needed an H2 to cycle reliably once installing the LAW.

Yea I had this issue went from H2 to H1. Freakin love the law folder though! Functional and really brings the “sexy” to my .300 BO pistol.......

 

[gyz77]

I run the LAW’s on SR25’s and have zero complaints. Awesome product.

 

[strikeeagle1]

The only issue you might have is lightening your buffer if you’re currently running a heavier one to tone down recoil. The “spacer” you install to take up the space added within the hinge adds weight to your buffer.

The "adapter" is installed into the rear of the bolt, it does not add weight to the buffer. It adds 2.1 ounces of weight to most reciprocating bolts however some 9 mm carbines have bolts with pinned weights to slow the bolt speed down, in theses circumstances, the total change in bolt weight, if any, is the difference between the removed bolt weight and the installed adapter.

 

[Morgan3]

The "adapter" is installed into the rear of the bolt, it does not add weight to the buffer. It adds 2.1 ounces of weight to most reciprocating bolts however some 9 mm carbines have bolts with pinned weights to slow the bolt speed down, in theses circumstances, the total change in bolt weight, if any, is the difference between the removed bolt weight and the installed adapter.
View attachment 7669725View attachment 7669726
View attachment 7669727

View attachment 7669728

Yeah should have said bolt not buffer, but I’ve had to lighten the buffer in two rifles now to account for the change. No big deal but something to keep in mind

 

[Crews]

deployment speed becomes somewhat less significant.

Any thoughts or opinions on simply separating the upper/lower for compact transport other than speed of deployment?
Am I missing something here?

seems like what you’re missing is that everyone else in this thread is more interested in deployment speed than you are.

 

[elham]

seems like what you’re missing is that everyone else in this thread is more interested in deployment speed than you are.

Yup! There is that. Not to mention the ability to fire one shot folded, which in a frantic moment may add some additional value, but would then likely slow any subsequent effort of deployment and return to function. That and it definitely has the "wow"/"cool" factor to it (if that's what your into). It's still pricy, adds weight, length, and additional point of failure opportunities. My thoughts at present are that I can't at this point see the value in it . . . but there may come a day when my last thought was "boy was I wrong about that". However, like "Naked and Afraid", if I find myself in that situation, something has gone very horribly wrong in my life.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

Does anybody know if a lower with the Law folder will work with a BRN-180 upper?