User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/29/2017 8:54:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Old school.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2017 9:02:33 PM EDT
[#2]
They seem more minimalist/low drag than most today...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2017 7:57:41 AM EDT
[#3]
I have one on my carbine along with an old school quad rail. Both are heavy. At some point i'll probably swap the quad rail out for something with mlok but for now it does the job. The Ace is very comfortable but as others have pointed out it is bulky and heavy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2017 8:18:52 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Why aren't more people running the ACE m4 socom stocks? Too expensive? I love the look! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2017 9:40:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Heavy. I have one that pairs well with a 16in HBar upper because it balances the weight pretty well; kinda sucks on lighter weight uppers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2017 11:00:57 AM EDT
[#6]
Not everyone likes the looks of those, and there are options out there that are both better - more comfortable, better cheek weld etc - and cheaper.
Why pay more for something when it offers no distinct advantages, unless you really like the looks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2017 12:26:56 AM EDT
[#7]
I thought they would be heavy but I want to pair with my .458 build and though it would counter the thick heavy barrel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2017 1:42:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Because 1992 has come, and gone.
..and there is nothing 'SOCOM'-ish about it, so it's really pretending to something it's not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2017 6:41:47 AM EDT
[#9]
Heavy?
Great stock, does what its intended to do and helps balance the firearm more than other stocks. Never listen to anyone that thinks the stock is too heavy, they're probably the same fit and finish crowd When comparing firearms. You actually want a little bit of weight back behind the action. Nothing heavy about it, is it heavier than other stocks sure but Jesus Christ people, we're talking about seven to eight pound ARS |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2017 7:02:15 AM EDT
[#10]
Because mine was a piece of shit I was happy to sell. Two tiny grub screws used to secure the stock to the tube, which more often than not failed and the stock would spin around the tube. Heavy for what it was. Latching mechanism sucked and adjustments weren't as easy as they should've been.
For being called the "SOCOM", it couldn't stand up to range use much less any serious work. I understand they made some revisions later on. Somehow I doubt they fixed everything that was wrong with the first one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2017 7:03:19 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought they would be heavy but I want to pair with my .458 build and though it would counter the thick heavy barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2017 7:47:37 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never listen to anyone that thinks the stock is too heavy, they're probably the same fit and finish crowd When comparing firearms. do you run them, or just heavy stocks? some people put the weigh in places that actually matter vs a useless stock |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 9:49:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt it would stand up to the recoil. If you want a stock to balance out a front heavy rifle, take a look at the UBR. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought they would be heavy but I want to pair with my .458 build and though it would counter the thick heavy barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 9:54:02 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt it would stand up to the recoil. If you want a stock to balance out a front heavy rifle, take a look at the UBR. I'd wager it'd hold up great against a big bore. BUT - that's just my wager, I really have no fricken clue |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:50:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This has me a little nervous now!!!! $200 for a stock that may not hold up to a big bore AR? I would be pretty disappointed! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they would be heavy but I want to pair with my .458 build and though it would counter the thick heavy barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 12:08:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dunno 'bout this^, man. That's kind of their whole selling point is that it's so much beefy-er and stronger. From product description: "The ACE Gen 4 M4 SOCOM Stock features an integral buffer tube, which allows adjustable length of pull in five 1/2" increments, and is approximately 6 times stronger than the original AR-15 collapsible stock/buffer tube design." I'd wager it'd hold up great against a big bore. BUT - that's just my wager, I really have no fricken clue If the latching mechanism wasn't redesigned, there's no way I'd use this POS on a heavy recoiling rifle. No doubt the buffer tube is stronger than stock units...that doesn't save the stock by a long shot. The stock has seen a resurgence due to its use on a mil SPR of some type (briefly). When it was introduced, it came with much fanfare...looked cool, 6x stronger, beefy tube, looked cool. I bought one and it sucked in all ways. First and foremost, the two grub screws on top of the stock engaged two channels running down the top of the buffer tube. By design, they were supposed to provide tension between the stock and tube to prevent the stock from rotating around the tube and reduce slop. The scallops on the underside of the tube where the latching mech engaged were so shallow that without the grub screws, adjustments would slip all the time. The grub screws wore their way through the anodizing of the buffer tube in short order which required them to be tightened, which wore the grooves (deepened them) more, which required more tightening, etc. It was also heavy (for being so fragile). All in all, it's the worst collapsible stocks I've ever used. Heavy. Poor design, Fragile, limited adjustment range. There are significantly better alternatives for the money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 2:22:34 PM EDT
[#17]
its funny! I was stoked when I placed the order but I have so much buyers remorse right now and I haven't even received it yet....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 2:58:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the latching mechanism wasn't redesigned, there's no way I'd use this POS on a heavy recoiling rifle. No doubt the buffer tube is stronger than stock units...that doesn't save the stock by a long shot. The stock has seen a resurgence due to its use on a mil SPR of some type (briefly). When it was introduced, it came with much fanfare...looked cool, 6x stronger, beefy tube, looked cool. I bought one and it sucked in all ways. First and foremost, the two grub screws on top of the stock engaged two channels running down the top of the buffer tube. By design, they were supposed to provide tension between the stock and tube to prevent the stock from rotating around the tube and reduce slop. The scallops on the underside of the tube where the latching mech engaged were so shallow that without the grub screws, adjustments would slip all the time. The grub screws wore their way through the anodizing of the buffer tube in short order which required them to be tightened, which wore the grooves (deepened them) more, which required more tightening, etc. It was also heavy (for being so fragile). All in all, it's the worst collapsible stocks I've ever used. Heavy. Poor design, Fragile, limited adjustment range. There are significantly better alternatives for the money. Again, I understand that is not consistent with your experience. Just pointing out for OP, that the current models do not appear to suffer the same problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 3:26:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, I know you had the gen1. It's in it's 4th gen now. The one I have (dunno what gen, I think 3 based on the receiver end plate that came with it) has a really robust adjustment mechanism, FWIW. Not my favorite stock, for the reasons you mentioned, but based on my usage of it, I'd feel great with it on a big bore. Again, I understand that is not consistent with your experience. Just pointing out for OP, that the current models do not appear to suffer the same problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 4:27:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MacManus, is the endplate replaceable on yours or is it built in? I always run the Magpul endplate and was hoping I still could with the ACE *if that doesn't make sense, let me know and I can find pics/links ETA: I forgot to mention before, in the current versions, the stock adjustment button can also be swapped out for a permanent/pinned situation. Mine came with hardware for either |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 4:51:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
its funny! I was stoked when I placed the order but I have so much buyers remorse right now and I haven't even received it yet.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 4:52:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not integral or "built-in" however it IS proprietary, due to larger outside diameter of the ACE Socom receiver extension. Magpul ASAP will not work. The endplate that came with mine has a loop built-in for like a HK clip to attach. A quick adjust two point sling with HK clips will certainly give you a rough equivalent of the Magpul ASAP/1 point sling arrangement. *if that doesn't make sense, let me know and I can find pics/links ETA: I forgot to mention before, in the current versions, the stock adjustment button can also be swapped out for a permanent/pinned situation. Mine came with hardware for either |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2017 2:11:06 AM EDT
[#23]
I never noticed mind being very heavy. Not when you compare it to a complete stock kit (stock, receiver extension) not just the stock itself. Sure it's heavier than the MFT, but not much more if at all than a CTR and mil-spec tube. It's also strong as hell with the possible exception of smashing the butt on the older models. The older models had issues with coming loose and wiggling in the receiver, but the latest generations have fixed that.
The only thing I don't like about them is the cost. I wouldn't, and didn't, pay the $200 for one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2017 2:28:37 AM EDT
[#24]
The gen 1's notches would wear out from general use. I've never considered them heavy though.
Still, I love my holland  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2017 11:18:41 AM EDT
[#25]
Ahh very sweet lookin rifle
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2017 4:23:53 PM EDT
[#26]
I've used the longer version for years and really like it on my varmint rig.
My only bitch is I wish it had a quick detach for a sling. Stupid oversight on their part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2017 2:08:21 PM EDT
[#27]
I have several Ace M4 SOCOM stocks in both long and short. They all now sit in the spare parts box.
As others said, heavy and will not take the recoil of anything larger than the 6.8, their words. I had one on my .458 and while they are great at absorbing recoil, especially with the 1" pad, the locking mechanism sheared and collapsed, sticking my beard firmly to the stock with no scissors, knife, or help. The only solution to free myself from the stock, firm up my jaw and pull. Yes, it hurt like a mother******. That said, if you lock the stock into position it is fantastic on the .458 SOSOM even if it is heavy. Leave it adjustable, especially if you have a beard, you've been warned. I now use Magpul CRTs on all my SOCOMs, .458 and wildcats if I want an adjustable stock, MOE rifle if I want fixed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2017 10:13:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have several Ace M4 SOCOM stocks in both long and short. They all now sit in the spare parts box. As others said, heavy and will not take the recoil of anything larger than the 6.8, their words. I had one on my .458 and while they are great at absorbing recoil, especially with the 1" pad, the locking mechanism sheared and collapsed, sticking my beard firmly to the stock with no scissors, knife, or help. The only solution to free myself from the stock, firm up my jaw and pull. Yes, it hurt like a mother******. That said, if you lock the stock into position it is fantastic on the .458 SOSOM even if it is heavy. Leave it adjustable, especially if you have a beard, you've been warned. I now use Magpul CRTs on all my SOCOMs, .458 and wildcats if I want an adjustable stock, MOE rifle if I want fixed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2017 10:23:39 PM EDT
[#29]
2 reasons the magpul SRT offers the look & storage for 70% less & the Sopmod is a heavy beast.
the fascination to mimic SOCOM is lessening as wr realize we are not actual operators & the recce Lightweight becomes the more common build. be cause it better fits the shooting most civilians do |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
