Minor Rant Re AR collapso stocks


PDA






geekWithA.45
September 19, 2004, 11:27 PM
I've always considered the AR collapsing stock to be an aesthetic nightmare, which I forgave due to the necessities created by the need to put the buffer and spring assembly somewhere, and to give bolt carrier somewhere to go.


So....I really, really, really freaking wish they'd not ugly up some otherwise reasonably graceful guns that DON'T pose the design challenges the AR has with these pieces of dreck.

aaaaagh! Avert your eyes!

http://www.law483.com/photos/550/TroyExtendedRight.jpg

I can't find any images online, but I saw a couple of shotguns with these things bolted onto the back.


Ugh.

As an engineer, I just hate it when folks start using what it clearly a kludge to begin with as a stock bolt on part.

I doubt I'm the only one.

If you enjoyed reading about "Minor Rant Re AR collapso stocks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zak Smith
September 19, 2004, 11:37 PM
The telescoping stock is actually a lot more usable than folding stocks. Folders generally provide very poor cheek weld and are either folded and unusable or full length. An AR15 telestock can be used short for squared-off CQB type stuff, or long for shooting prone.

Pinned&Recessed
September 19, 2004, 11:39 PM
I LIKE the AR Collapsing stock. If I still had my Winny 1300, I would fit one of those aluminum adapters and stick one on it.

Yeah, it only collapses 4 inches, but as you said, it's a compromise due to the design of the rifle.

Mulliga
September 19, 2004, 11:44 PM
Since I was raised on a steady diet of Counter-Strike, I think the M4 stock looks pretty cool. I also like the carry handle. :cool:

Zak Smith
September 19, 2004, 11:51 PM
There are more choices than just the M4 stock. VLTOR, LMT/Crane, Magpul, etc.

Matt Sutton
September 19, 2004, 11:56 PM
Having the ability to adjust the stock's length to match winter coats and other heavy clothing is a real plus in my book. Folders store well, but that's about it. The folding doesn't buy you anything when you're actually shooting. Unless your into A-Team style shooting that is.

geekWithA.45
September 20, 2004, 12:01 AM
Hey, gang!

I don't have a beef with collapsing stocks per se, I guess I oughta make that clear.

My thinking is that the AR collapser is a design compromise that accomodates the AR's specific needs. As a result, it's not particularly good at being an adjustable stock, and IMO ugly to boot. Given that, why use it? Why not put something on that's really, really good at being a collapser, and is more pleasing to they eye?

Zak Smith
September 20, 2004, 12:07 AM
Magpul M93A, superior:
http://www.demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/6.8SPC/small/137_3790_img.jpg [ link to larger image ] (http://www.demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/6.8SPC/?medium=137_3790_img.jpg)

Andrew Wyatt
September 20, 2004, 12:10 AM
The reaon why the colt AR stock is shown in most of those pictures is because it's cheap.

Not every person who makes one of these adaptors can afford a magpul which is the stock that all others are judged by.


If i could afford it, i'd put a magpul on every rifle I own.

gigmike
September 20, 2004, 12:18 AM
Does the Magpul collapsable stock rattle like the standard AR collapsable?

Zak Smith
September 20, 2004, 12:19 AM
No, it's completely solid. No play whatsoever when locked.

By the way, Magpul Corporation is basically Richard Fitzpatrick, a former Marine, who seems to be systematically redesigning parts of the M16/M14 weapons system which were liabilities in the field. Great guy, lives about 45 minutes away.

-z

swingset
September 20, 2004, 12:19 AM
My thinking is that the AR collapser is a design compromise that accomodates the AR's specific needs. As a result, it's not particularly good at being an adjustable stock, and IMO ugly to boot.

I'll bet I can get from short to long faster with a std. 4 position telescopic sight before you can get from folded to unfolded with any battle rifle. It does what it's supposed to do, and does it quickly, easily, and with little effort. As an engineer, how can one not see the complete beauty in that. And that leads me to my next point - I don't care what it looks like if it works. 99.9% of battle and military arms are designed with purpose, not aesthetics in mind. Why would it possibly be the converse?

fistful
September 20, 2004, 12:43 AM
GeekWith,

This M1Abortion you have in your post, is that real? If so, I'm pretty sure the Old Testament considers it an abomination. A stoning is in order.

One of the Major Players is making a shotgun with the AR collapsible as standard. I don't think that's a sin, but if they start making those M1Abortions...we're gonna need a lot of rocks.

steelhead
September 20, 2004, 01:35 AM
I don't like them either......:D
http://www.hunt101.com/img/156879.JPG http://www.hunt101.com/img/156880.JPG

Billy Sparks
September 20, 2004, 06:23 AM
Regardless of the merits of the AR15 collapsable stock that first picture makes my light headed but not in a good way.:barf:

CleverName
September 20, 2004, 07:17 AM
Only thing I can legally put a collapsable/folding stock on in my state is a pump-action shotgun or a bolt/lever/pump-action, rimfire, or single shot rifle. Not that I could ever see putting a Magpul stock on a Winchester 94. Maybe I should, though, to make myself more tatcticool. You think the M1A/M4 stock looks bad? You ain't seen nothing yet 'til you see my new Black Ultra Tactical Super Grade Sharps rifle with the 18.5" barrel, folding stock, and 300V Surefire forend!

If you enjoyed reading about "Minor Rant Re AR collapso stocks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!