Why a collapseable stock AR?

Status
Not open for further replies.

doubleg

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
1,232
So I was trained using a full size M16A4, with the vest on it was pretty darn uncomfortable to shoot. But 95% of the people who rant and rave about the neccesity of having an m4 "clone" aren't wearing armour. The full size is really not that large, is cheaper, and easier (for at least me) to shoot. The weight is NOT that much different. The way I see it no matter what your carrying its going to be heavy after long enough. So why sacrifice accuracy for that cool looking tactical stock?
 
Because form is more important than function for the great majority of owners. In the eyes of a Walter Mitty, "cool-looking" and "tactical" are paramount virtues.

In a strange way that makes sense, given that most people will never use such firearms for their designed purpose anyway.
 
I have a full size 20" w/ a fixed stock, I find it slightly more comfortable, plus it has the "classic" look.
 
A simple answer, really.

Two shooters in the family, both of vastly different heights. One rifle fits both of them.

I don't have a tactical bone in my body, but I like the telescoping stock for the above reason.

And I don't have to buy two rifles. Well, unless I wanted to. LOL
 
I prefer the A1 length stock or the Cavalry Arms C1 stock.

I bought two adjustable stocks for my carbines when the AWB ended in Fall '04. I pretty much bought them out of spite because I was denied the right to own them for ten years previously. But honestly, they don't offer me any additional functionality. In fact, I lost the ability to carry a basic cleaning kit and multi-tool in the buttstock. They are on there pretty much for cosmetic reasons.

I do like folding stocks. They offer a much more compact profile for storage or transport. However, that is not an option with an AR unfortunately (except for some 22LR guns).
 
Adjustable length of pull is a good thing. It allows each user to set it to the length that works for them. It also allows an individual user to change their LOP if needed for different field positions, different clothes etc. If you don't like the cheek weld of the CAR or M4 stock, then get a VLTOR, SOPMOD, MAGPUL etc. all of which offer an improved cheek weld and adjustable LOP.
 
I am not johnnny law, nor AF or a weekend warrior waiting for dooms day, just a simple rancher that likes the compactness of a collapsable stock on an AR . Used 99.9 percent for hog eradication, they make it easy to stow in anything from a quad to a helicopter.
 
I carry a Colt AR-15 A2 in my cruiser with a collapseable stock.

Generally I keep it fully extended. I like the "full size" feel of the rifle at that point. I will generally deploy it this way for most situations that I use it, esp. if I'm outdoors in the woods, field, etc.

However, if the woods are particularly thick where I am I will reduce it down. I will also reduce it down for building searches, when I'm wearing heavier winter clothing or tac. gear.

I also reduce it for situations if I ever have to shoot from INSIDE my cruiser while seated (luckily only in training so far). This is one reason I'm kind of turned on by the Bushmater "Carbon" series due to being so short.

I really like and appreciate the full stock look and feel too, but for me, anyway, it's just not as functional. My Ssgt., on the other hand, has a full size stock and bbl. on his. Personal preferance really.
 
My old Colt SP-1 has the factory collapsible stock, but it only has two positions.
Closed, and Open.

So, for me, it was never about fit.
It was about SO handy getting in & out of vehicles quickly, SO not snagging in the brush when coyote hunting, SO fitting in a very compact carry case, etc.

rc
 
I don't have, or want, a collapsable stock on my AK, although they are widely available. Perhaps some folks like the look only, but I can see that there are some functional advantages: different sized people can use the same rifle, and I suppose it could help with storage somewhat.
However, I just don't see the "advantages" of a folding stock outweighing the stability of a good wood or polymer stock. Unless you happen to be a paratrooper.
 
1. You don't sacrifice any accuracy by using a telestock. As long as you can achieve a good, repeatable cheek weld, you are good to go - and many of the telestocks out there now are better in this regard than the fixed stock.

2. For years, shooters have modified their stocks to get a length of pull that suited them, so why would you not want a stock that can be individually adjusted to provide a perfect length of pull for shooters pf vastly different sizes? I can bring an AR w/ telestock out for a shooting session with the family and everybody from small children to my mutant behemoth cousins can shoot it comfortably.

3. Different positions - Shooting 3-gun, I pretty much have to use a squared-off position to be competitive, especially if movement is involved. This requires a short stock (like a telestock on first position or closed or a fixed entry stock). However, if I want to sling up and shoot standing at 200, that is a different position and requires a different length to be comfortable. If I am prone, then the comfortable length changes again. You can do all this without an adjustable stock of course; but it is nice to have the option - and comfort helps a lot with shot to shot consistency.

Telestocks serve lots of useful purposes above and beyond using a rifle with armor or heavy clothing.
 
The rifle fits in a smaller case with the stock collapsed.

I can shoot it, and my wife can shoot it, and my nephew and niece can shoot it, all at different lengths. Expensive bolt actions often are set up for adjustable lengths and such. Why not have this option on an AR?

I don't find the collapsible stock to be uncomfortable. I don't think I lose any accuracy with the collapsible stock.

Although it may not be a sound practice, I can set my stock to a different length depending on if I have the suppressor on it. Hanging a pound off the end of the barrel changes the balance. This can be somewhat corrected by moving the stock a notch or two.

I've owned fixed stocks before. I don't see what is gained by them, and I see several pluses to an adjustable one.
 
But 95% of the people who rant and rave about the neccesity of having an m4 "clone" aren't wearing armour.

Are people really ranting or raving about the collaspable stock, or the 16" barrel? 95% may not be wearing armor. But maybe they are wearing bulky clothing? As others have pointed out, it allows multiple people to use the same gun, and get comfortable with it. I've never seen any better accuracy out of a fixed stock. Its all up to the shooter.

Perhaps the best reason is because they can. They don't need any other reason than that.
 
+ When I taught my ex-girlfriend to shoot, the M4-style collapsible stock on my AK came in handy. It was the first centerfire rifle she had ever shot. I am 6'5". She was 5'5". With any other rifle, this could have presented a problem. As it was, I just clicked the stock in a couple positions and she was good to go, and she did okay.

+ Sometimes when I am walking around the woods with a rifle on those hot summer days, I wear a Camelbak with a 3-liter blatter and some small essentials. The strap isn't really thick, but it is nice to be able to just click in the stock one position.

+ Some optics have specific eye-relief. Depending on the mounting options available on your rifle, it can come in handy to be able to adjust LOP to achieve proper eye relief for your optics. This becomes especially convenient when you do more shooting from field positions than the bench.

I was trained with the A4 as well and did okay with it. Even though I don't do much shooting with body armor anymore, I still find the advantages of the collapsible stock far outweigh any classic appearance advantage of the fixed stock. And it has nothing to do with being a mall ninja--the advantages are purely functional.
 
Because form is more important than function for the great majority of owners. In the eyes of a Walter Mitty, "cool-looking" and "tactical" are paramount virtues.
You know, these threads would be more helpful were it not for ignorant flamebait such as this.

In a strange way that makes sense, given that most people will never use such firearms for their designed purpose anyway.
And, pray tell, what is the "designed purpose" of a 16" barreled, midlength-gas-system, non-automatic civilian AR-15?

Just for the record, when I shoot an AR, I shoot it one notch from the fully collapsed position. The standard fixed-length stock is way too long unless you have long arms and/or shoot from a fully bladed stance. FWIW, I find the AK stock length to be just about perfect.
 
Last edited:
I'll tell you, having an M4 stock with body armor and a 14.5" barrel for entry work is a given, must, absolutely imperative. I'd prefer an 11.5" barrel myself, but they are LOUD and not as effective at longer ranges. Plus the muzzle flash is a bit intrusive. Basically, you've got a little flash-bang going off in your face at a cyclic rate of 900rpm... not cool.
 
Portability, use with winter clothes or LBV in 3 gun, use in tight quarters... all good reasons.
 
I'm a bigger guy and prefer the full length fixed stock and for me feels a lot more solid platform when aiming. Went with the ACE ARFX skeleton style. Was only a $35 upgrade on my Del-ton Mid length kit. I am not a fan of the asthetics of an A2 stock on a 16 inch rifle but did select the A2 stock on the 20 inch rifle I just ordered.
 
One word: versatility.


Versatility: limited to none.
purstda2.gif



Versatility: high to overkill.
pupselite.gif
 
Quote:
"In a strange way that makes sense, given that most people will never use such firearms for their designed purpose anyway."

And, pray tell, what is the "designed purpose" of a 16" barreled, midlength-gas-system, non-automatic civilian AR-15?
I took that to mean they were designed to be "weapons of war".

I'll acknowledge that Stoner designed the original (select fire) AR-15 to be a weapon of war with the intent of obtaining a lucrative government contract.

I'll also acknowledge that I tend to romanticize weapons, as many of us do (like many of us romanticize fast cars, motorcycles, boats, ships, aircraft and other such things), it is my sincerest wish that I never need to fire a shot in anger.

Just because one collects guns that resemble or imitate military weapons does not necessarily mean that they wish for war.
 
If my stock wasn't adjustable the gun wouldn't fit in it's case. Then I would have to buy a new case :)
 
I use the second position of my collapsible stock exclusively. If it could permanently lock in that position I would be happy. With that in mind the second position might not fit the next guy as well. So you know the saying "different strokes for different folks" I think that applies here.
 
Because (I feel,) that a full-size M-16 is too big anyway. It's an intermediate-powered cartridge, I don't like it as much in full-size layout.

The effective range difference is negligible. If I wanted to touch something past 300 yards, I would be using something else anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top