AR collapsable stocks- the good, bad and ugly?


john l
September 19, 2004, 11:36 AM
So I would like to get a collapsable stock for my ar15. I could get the old school one that has been around for a long time. they are about a 100 bucks.
But in the last year or so, I have seen some new generation collapse stocks from a few makers and wonder if they are better. I know, just because it is new doesn't make it better, but maybe some are.

I DON'T want a shorty stock, I want a collapsable. Also, if it is convenient, then give me the prices of the stocks you like, to give me an idea of how many pieces of eight I'll be spending.

learn me, will ya?

john l

If you enjoyed reading about "AR collapsable stocks- the good, bad and ugly?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Dave Markowitz
September 19, 2004, 11:50 AM
Sticky on

4v50 Gary
September 19, 2004, 12:31 PM
Thanks Dave for the link. That was one fine thread.:)

September 19, 2004, 01:21 PM
they are about a 100 bucks

You should be able to find a decent CAR or M4 style stock for $50-$70. Check Tapco, Adco, etc.

Keep in mind those high-end collapsible stocks are heavy. They're tough as nails, but heavy. :)

September 19, 2004, 02:45 PM

I went with a CAR stock. Light, functional, wont break the bank, and I like the classic look.

September 19, 2004, 04:24 PM
tapco is selling them right now for about $45 I think.

September 19, 2004, 04:30 PM
I have owned a number of them over the years. Most of them were of the "cheap" variety. At some point I decided to buy a genuine Colt collaspable stock for my M4 clone. I didn't think this was the best option, but I wanted it to look like an M4 clone. Anyway, the Colt stock cost me something like $160 and as far as I can tell, it is no better than the same design no name stocks that look just like it and cost 1/4 as much (like the ones mentioned above). There was a thread about a week ago entitled something like: lessons learned at Gunsite 223. In that thread, Pat Rogers gave his recommendations for ARs including collapsable stocks. You would be wise to take his advice, especially if you arn't looking for the classic military look.

Harry Tuttle
September 19, 2004, 04:56 PM

Barry in IN
September 19, 2004, 07:07 PM
I know this is well covered by the link Mr. Markowitz gave you, but here's another thing or two....

MagPul is supposedly coming out with an "improved" version of their M93A soon (M93B?). It's going to have some metal reinforcement on the sides near the butt, and some aluminum in or on the butt itself. This is to give it some more strength for clearance drills where the stock is pounded on the deck/floor/ground/bad guy's head, etc.
It's supposedly going to have either different, or more sling attachments, also.

I'm shopping myself. I found the above link a couple of weeks ago, and found it very helpful. So far, I'm leaning toward MagPul. The new one may decide it. But, I haven't looked at an LMT Crane yet.
To me, the big advantages over the older types is- more adjustments; better feeling cheek weld; and mostly, with a correctly dimensioned tube to go on, are less "rattly".

Zak Smith
September 19, 2004, 07:38 PM
Here's some pictures of a Magpul M93A. The new M93B tail pieces will fit over the existing M93 & M93A receiver extensions, and I think there will be an upgrade program. [ link to larger image ] ( [ link to larger image ] (

September 19, 2004, 08:50 PM
While VLTOR does not have the same consistant cheeckweld as MAGPUL, I must say it is a fine stock. No rattle and it feels like a hydrolic tube when you slide it down. Tightest fitting stock around. I also like the battery compartments.

September 19, 2004, 09:20 PM
I like the VLTOR too. The battery compartments give your cheek better support than the regular M4 stocks. They fit on milspec receiver tubes too, so you can save a few bucks if you already have an in spec tube.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 20, 2004, 10:01 AM
Keep in mind those high-end collapsible stocks are heavy.

A Magpul or VLTOR stock full of batteries is going to be heavier than the plain-jane telestock; but that can be a plus in some cases. If you have a 2.2lb barrel (16" M4) and a rail system with bipod, flashlight or laser the carbine can start to get pretty nose heavy and a little weight in the back end can help give it a balance that makes for much nicer handling.

September 20, 2004, 10:42 AM
They also have a bigger toe to put against your shoulder. the Teeny one on the standard collapsing stock sucks.

September 20, 2004, 12:36 PM

Let me know when you pull your A2 stock off. I'll buy it off of you. I need one for something.


September 20, 2004, 12:49 PM
"Ergonomic Carbine Stocks", SWAT Magazine, Dec 2003

September 20, 2004, 01:23 PM
don't know if that is what you are looking for though.


If you enjoyed reading about "AR collapsable stocks- the good, bad and ugly?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!