Magpul CTR vs MOE (maybe vs ACR) stock

[TechBrute]

-NOT as sturdy as a solid stock. Hate to say it but there is no collapsable stock on the market that will be.

The UBR is rock solid. Not relatively solid, not comparatively solid, not metaphorically solid. Completely solid.

Last off... that ergo stock that was brought up towards the end of this thread. The reason magpul discontinued it was because the stock was literally shearing in half during impact. It was a defective design SO BEWARE. Rather than magpul eat the cost of the R&D and failure of a stock, they sold it to another company that didn't care about the many flaws it had. Sooo in other words your basically buying something magpul noted as an utter failure and pawned off on some other company (reminds me of all the "Lemon" vehicles around which people sell the problem off to someone else).

Richard Fitzpatrick's words to me about the M93 at SHOT 2007 (I think) was, "that was back when we didn't know what we were doing." If I recall, Magpul was testing the M93 with some go-fast unit and they were breaking the tails off during clearing drills. That led to the M93B, which featured a reinforced tail. I didn't hear of the same problem with rev B, but there was certainly some reason they completely scrapped the design.

Regarding your Zero's assessment of the Falcon deal, unless someone has information to the contrary, I think it's safe to consider that Falcon approached Magpul for the design and was willing to overlook the shortcomings of a design that didn't meet Magpul's stringent expectations, not that Magpul went out looking to sell a design that they knew was defective.

 

[TechBrute]

Oh, and welcome to THR!

 

[.zerocool.]

Hehe ty. Ya'll def seem like some good folk.

And yea, either way, if falcon approached magpul or not, I doubt magpul would have sold the design knowing it was defunct, and knowing people would realize it was originally a magpul design if they didn't want the quick cash. I know magpul has been buying injection molders and machinery like candy, so I'm betting things like selling that stock design helped fund some of it or help pay ARMS off with the patent lawsuit they were battling with. I think it was only magpul that came to an agreement with ARMS and the MBUIS sight they basically cough *stole* the spring design to. If I'm not mistaken it involved some good money and a slight design change of the lock. Something Troy arms said eff that to. (haha Troy was a former employee of ARMS, and either got fired from ARMS before he made the Troy sights / company, or got fired after starting troy while working for ARMS).

Seems as Magpul has been playing some good cards lately. I for sure dig the makeup of my ctr stock. QC is excellent for injection & rotational molded stuff.

I wonder how the UBR compares to the ACE hammer stock. I know the ACE hammer is supposedly the strongest AR stock made, but is hampered by the way it mounts to the receiver.

 

[spartan00054]

The UBR is rock solid. Not relatively solid, not comparatively solid, not metaphorically solid. Completely solid.

Agree, and love my UBR, but I don't think it has a place on a short AR-15, due to balance issues, as other posters have stated. This is why it lives on my AR-10.

 

[.zerocool.]

With how many accessories some people run up front it might just work

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Last off... that ergo stock that was brought up towards the end of this thread. The reason magpul discontinued it was because the stock was literally shearing in half during impact. It was a defective design SO BEWARE. Rather than magpul eat the cost of the R&D and failure of a stock, they sold it to another company that didn't care about the many flaws it had. Sooo in other words your basically buying something magpul noted as an utter failure and pawned off

I own a Magpul M93 (the unreinforced first production version) and I've done mortar clearances with it. As I said earlier, it can be broken but it isn't dainty. The Falcon version appears to be a copy of the 93B which has the reinforcement bracket.