So are they functionally different or are they not?
Do you have a cite saying that an adjustable stock counts for the assault weapon ban? I haven’t been able to find anything, but by a plain english reading, the fact that something is adjustable does not make it telescoping. The definition of telescoping I think of is this:
So unless that stock collapses in on itself, it’s not telescoping.
Where did I say the material of the stock made it functionally different?
Ironically, no, but your post sure is.
It does not have a grenade launcher mount. It has mounting rails that allow you to easily attach and remove telescopic sight, or a flashlight, or a bipod, etc. You can attach all the same things to the wooden stock, it just takes some additional tools.
It does not have a folding stock. It has a stock that adjusts in length a few inches to fit people of different sizes. This has nothing to do with concealability. As others have pointed out, the jutting pistol grip and other doodads actually make the top one harder to conceal.
There is no folding stock. The pistol grip is easier to carry one-handed, but most people find a conventional straight stock more accurate.
You really could not have gotten this any more wrong if you tried.
No, they are the same. You place the stock against your shoulder, you squeeze the trigger and a loud noise and a bit of metal comes out the other end.
And I said the stock telescopes.
Mechanically, they are identical. Ergonomically, some people might prefer one or the other. Is that a functional difference?
That is exactly how the adjustable stock works. There are two concentric tubes that slide on each other.
Minor nitpick, As far as function goes, the synthetic stock will be impervious to weather changes. Some wooden stocks, OTOH, may swell or contract depending on the humidity and temperature. Depending on how the action is bedded and whether the barrel is free-floating or not, this can change the point of impact. So that’s a functional difference between synthetic and wood. Never mind you can get a synthetic stock that looks just like the wooden one…
In California at least, a telescoping stock is one of the features that helps make a firearm be classified as an assault weapon. Cal. Penal Code § 12276.1 Despite it being a perfectly useful feature to allow two differently sized people the ability to fit to the same rifle.
You didn’t. I didn’t say you did. I asked you a question. How is a stock made from wood functionally different than one made from nylon/plastic?
Both rifles are Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifles. They are funcionally identical. Thsy both use the exact same ammunition. They are both equally accurate. They both have the same rate of fire.
This shouldn’t change the point of impact with respect to the sights, which will be mounted to the barrel and receiver and not to the stock. Now, if you want to talk impact of a possible change in barrel harmonics, all bets are off. 
Barrel length, the type of stock and handle, the cartridge, even the appearance, does not distinguish a hunting arm from other types of firearms. More relevant perhaps is applicability. You need a scoped rifle chambered for long-range bullets like the 7mm Rem or 264Win if you’re into prong horns or caribou. You need a varminter (anything from 22LR to 22-250) for squirrels to chuck. If you’re in bush country lookign for dear or boar, a 30-30 or .44mag in a lever action or pump gun will do.
All the above weapons have military/para-military potential.
I would think the difference is the target.
For some people, hunting weapons are justified because they serve the specific purpose of hunting, which is a means of obtaining food (at least for some). That makes them a tool in some peoples’ eyes, on par with a butcher knife or slow cooker, and distinct from a weapon intended for use against human beings.
Needless to say, this viewpoint is not universal.
I know some guys who were in Iraq and used the same weapons they used for combat to hunt wild boar. Were they hunting rifles? The boars thought so. 
“Wait… don’t take out the Barrett .50 caliber boys. It’s not an attack. He’s just hunting us.”
You have no idea how frustrating it is to see what politicians use to decide what should be allowed and what should be banned when it comes to firearms. What makes me so irritated is that it seems that the laws banning weapons are not made with any safety concerns in mind, but rather they’re based on how a weapon looks. What ends up happening is a law gets passed, but it does absolutely nothing to change anything.
One example I can make is concerning a weapon I own. It is a small caliber semi-automatic (.22) The rifle is based on a AR (M-16) platform, meaning it had a collapsible stock, flash suppressor and pistol type grip and A 25 round magazine. Under some proposed legislation this rifle would be banned because of the features I just listed. However, the rifle it if based on would not be. The rifle it is based on is exactly the same rifle, but it doesn’t have a plastic “shell” over it that makes it look like a M-16, nor does it have the pistol grip, disposable stock, etc… However, it fires exactly the same, fires at the same rate, but doesn’t look scary. So, because it doesn’t look scary it would be legal to buy. So how would banning the one that looks like an M-16 while leaving the same weapon that doesn’t legal to buy change anything?
Bottom line is, gun control in the US is based more in emotion than on fact. It’s very confusing. As far as your question about the differences, the posters above have pretty much nailed it. Hunting rifles are generally larger and heavier and designed to be accurate out to a hundred or more yards. Self defense weapons are generally smaller and have the ability to place a larger number of rounds on target quicker. Usually when defending one’s self you don’t need a weapon that can hit a small target at 100 yards.
Even if the rifle did have a mounting point for a grenade launcher (it doesn’t) why would that matter? I have never, not once ever seen a grenade launcher for saddle to the general public. Not in a gun shop, not at a gun show, nor even at Wally World.
As far as a folding (collapsible) stock. That type of stock isn’t designed do you can hide the rifle, it is designed do different users can adjust the length of the stock to make the rifle more comfortable to use. Even with the stock collapsed as far ass it can go you are still left with a rifle, meaning it would still be near impossible to hide under anything short of a trench coat. If someone is intent on wearing a long cost, nearly anything can be hidden under it, a rifle or even an axe.
As far as a pistol grip, I really fail to see why someone would get worked up over this. There is something that has a pistol grip on it AND is much easier to hide AND use in confined spaces, it’s called a pistol.
Would you describe a pistol grip and adjustable stock as cosmetic changes?
They are functional features, but they do not make the rifle any more “dangerous” or “evil”. They don’t change the basic functioning of the rifle, however.
Yes.
Yes. A pistol grip or an adjustable stock or a bayonet mount does not make a rifle any more accurate or lethal.
Look at a typical deer rifle, the Winchester 94. A lever action rifle originally designed in 1894. Over 7 million have been sold. Holding 6 to 8 rounds (depending on barrel and magazine length) of 30-30 WCF ammo in a tube magazine. It will fire a 150 grain bullet over 2200 fps. Capable of 1.5" groups at 100 yds and taking deer-sized game out to 200 yds. It can consistantly hit an average sized car door at 500 yds (assuming a bench mount and little to no wind).
According to the Democrat Party’s assault weapons ban, if you were to add a bayonet mount, this firearm would become much more dangerous and lethal. The DNC wants you to believe that adding a 9" knife blade to a 38" long metal and wood rifle (or metal and wood club if it’s out of ammo) is just too dangerous to allow the general public to own one. Pure horsepoop.
What’s the Democrat Party?
The party with registered Democrats, of course. Just as the Republican Party has registered Republicans.
But that’s not important right now. 