User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 8:29:25 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:00:24 PM EDT
[#1]
Kind of expensive when you can buy a Vltor EMOD for about $20 USD more, that holds more batteries, has extra storage compartments, uses a Mil-Spec extension tube
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:04:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Interesting!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:04:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Kind of expensive when you can buy a Vltor EMOD for about $20 USD more, that holds more batteries, has extra storage compartments, uses a Mil-Spec extension tube I have a feeling this might show up on some factory rifles at competitive prices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:10:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Saw them at the fun show last weekend.
Positives: •good cheekweld •good rubber buttplate •adjustable buttplate Negatives: •rattled - like a typical M4 stock •seemed heavy I wasn't all that impressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:12:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Saw them at the fun show last weekend. Positives: •good cheekweld •good rubber buttplate •adjustable buttplate Negatives: •rattled - like a typical M4 stock •seemed heavy I wasn't all that impressed. Heavy rearward of the grip does wonders for AR15 balance (to me). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:27:34 PM EDT
[#6]
For that kind of money I'll just get a LMT SOPMOD.
Or... a MOE, like I prefer. Oh, and I am not putting anything that says "RRA" plainly on it on a rifle of mine. I prefer no markings... But if they've gotta be there, at least markings of a higher-end company. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:37:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Looks interesting, but a little on the high end price wise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:38:17 PM EDT
[#8]
They should of made it Mil-Spec.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:39:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
I prefer no markings... But if they've gotta be there, at least markings of a higher-end company. While I also prefer no markings, I think of RRA (as others do as well) as a "higher-end company". Sure beats a "Vulcan" marked stock. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:50:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Looks interesting. If it was cheaper and fit a milspec tube, I would be feeling bad about paying for my LMT SOPMOD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 10:13:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: I prefer no markings... But if they've gotta be there, at least markings of a higher-end company. While I also prefer no markings, I think of RRA (as others do as well) as a "higher-end company". Sure beats a "Vulcan" marked stock. Colt, Noveske, BCM, LMT, and CMMG... Those are the logos I want. Nothing else really qualifies in my book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 10:16:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I prefer no markings... But if they've gotta be there, at least markings of a higher-end company. While I also prefer no markings, I think of RRA (as others do as well) as a "higher-end company". Sure beats a "Vulcan" marked stock.
+1 RRA makes good stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 10:20:22 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
They should of made it Mil-Spec. This. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2009 11:14:49 PM EDT
[#14]
I should add that I believe it very likely they'll make a version for milspec tubes. It only makes sense considering their market.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 7:07:49 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
I should add that I believe it very likely they'll make a version for milspec tubes. It only makes sense considering their market. Why? RRA doesn't do anything with milspec diameter tubes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 7:20:51 AM EDT
[#16]
I think they will be a little less from their distributors. Jus tlike most other products. Maybe this one will fit my face better than the others.
As far as Mil Spec goes. If they dont break it up so that you can just buy the stock and not the tube, I really dont care if it,s mil spec or not. I've never seen a commercial tube break. Just not an issue for me. I do like the functionality of it tho. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 8:01:37 AM EDT
[#17]
I hadn't seen one of those before. I'd like to handle one, but I'd think the Vltor would be a better choice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 8:11:43 AM EDT
[#18]
RRA makes good stuff, but like others said, why pay that much when you can have milspec?
I assume they leave out alot of steps when it comes to making ARs to keep cost low, but this is, shall I say, kinda retarded. If you've gotten this far, might aswell go for the whole enchilada. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 9:17:38 AM EDT
[#19]
Interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 3:24:10 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Interesting.
that is what i thought. i think when i come up with the money, i might have to get one and try it out. anyone have one that could give me the low down? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 3:43:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
RRA makes good stuff, but like others said, why pay that much when you can have milspec? I assume they leave out alot of steps when it comes to making ARs to keep cost low, but this is, shall I say, kinda retarded. If you've gotten this far, might aswell go for the whole enchilada. When it comes to M4 Carbine style stocks Mil-spec versus Commercial-spec only denotes which size Receiver Extension tube it will fit on. Mil-spec in this case does not denote 'better'. I assume RRA is making them to fit Commercial-spec tubes because that is the size tube they use on their guns. NOTE: Both Receiver Extension sizes mount the same to the receiver and use the same Buffer and Action Spring. It's just the outer dimensions where it they mate to the stock that are different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 3:54:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Some reason, I can see that back plate breaking if you decide to hit something or have a jammed round and need to slam it down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 4:27:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Looks like a cross between a SOPMOD and CTR stock
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 4:52:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
RRA makes good stuff, but like others said, why pay that much when you can have milspec? I assume they leave out alot of steps when it comes to making ARs to keep cost low, but this is, shall I say, kinda retarded. If you've gotten this far, might aswell go for the whole enchilada. When it comes to M4 Carbine style stocks Mil-spec versus Commercial-spec only denotes which size Receiver Extension tube it will fit on. Mil-spec in this case does not denote 'better'. I assume RRA is making them to fit Commercial-spec tubes because that is the size tube they use on their guns. NOTE: Both Receiver Extension sizes mount the same to the receiver and use the same Buffer and Action Spring. It's just the outer dimensions where it they mate to the stock that are different. +1 People get irrational over the word "milspec" and nowhere is it more apparent than here. Commercial size tubes are thicker (stronger) than milspec size tubes. Does it matter? Not in the least, since the failure point is at the jam nut on the threads which is the same on both. Personally I prefer milspec tubes because of the smoother area where the threads are exposed, other than that, the only difference to the end user is in compatibility with various replacement stocks. I guess the milspec tube would be lighter in weight by some minuscule amount due to the smaller external diameter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 4:57:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: RRA makes good stuff, but like others said, why pay that much when you can have milspec? I assume they leave out alot of steps when it comes to making ARs to keep cost low, but this is, shall I say, kinda retarded. If you've gotten this far, might aswell go for the whole enchilada. When it comes to M4 Carbine style stocks Mil-spec versus Commercial-spec only denotes which size Receiver Extension tube it will fit on. Mil-spec in this case does not denote 'better'. I assume RRA is making them to fit Commercial-spec tubes because that is the size tube they use on their guns. NOTE: Both Receiver Extension sizes mount the same to the receiver and use the same Buffer and Action Spring. It's just the outer dimensions where it they mate to the stock that are different. +1 People get irrational over the word "milspec" and nowhere is it more apparent than here. Commercial size tubes are thicker (stronger) than milspec size tubes. Does it matter? Not in the least, since the failure point is at the jam nut on the threads which is the same on both. Personally I prefer milspec tubes because of the smoother area where the threads are exposed, other than that, the only difference to the end user is in compatibility with various replacement stocks. I guess the milspec tube would be lighter in weight by some minuscule amount due to the smaller external diameter.  This is all kinds of stupid. Mil-Spec tubes are stronger. They're forged. Commercial tubes are weaker. They're extruded. Most of the time it doesn't matter... But the general consensus seems to be that a Mil-Spec tube isn't as likely to cant if you smack it on something/drop it/fall on it/etc. Canting will bind the action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 5:12:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Welcome to 3yrs ago RRA.
WTF good is this now? The market is saturated with enhanced cheekweld stocks. Magpul and LMT have a long headstart. While I like that they have 2 sockets for QD swivels the fact that they use a commercial reciever extension ensures the failure of this product. Good job RRA, you made a nice stock no one wants. If they make one for mil=spec buffer tubes I will probably try one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 5:18:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Welcome to 3yrs ago RRA. WTF good is this now? The market is saturated with enhanced cheekweld stocks. Magpul and LMT have a long headstart. While I like that they have 2 sockets for QD swivels the fact that they use a commercial reciever extension ensures the failure of this product. Good job RRA, you made a nice stock no one wants. If they make one for mil=spec buffer tubes I will probably try one. Why?... the market is already saturated with others that have a long start....  I can picture RRA selling this to Police and Agencies as they will not have to go 'milspec' and 3rd party... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 5:29:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Looks like the HK416 stock to me. What a waste of plastic....given the other options out there.
Maj |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2009 10:35:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
RRA makes good stuff, but like others said, why pay that much when you can have milspec? I assume they leave out alot of steps when it comes to making ARs to keep cost low, but this is, shall I say, kinda retarded. If you've gotten this far, might aswell go for the whole enchilada. When it comes to M4 Carbine style stocks Mil-spec versus Commercial-spec only denotes which size Receiver Extension tube it will fit on. Mil-spec in this case does not denote 'better'. I assume RRA is making them to fit Commercial-spec tubes because that is the size tube they use on their guns. NOTE: Both Receiver Extension sizes mount the same to the receiver and use the same Buffer and Action Spring. It's just the outer dimensions where it they mate to the stock that are different. +1 People get irrational over the word "milspec" and nowhere is it more apparent than here. Commercial size tubes are thicker (stronger) than milspec size tubes. Does it matter? Not in the least, since the failure point is at the jam nut on the threads which is the same on both. Personally I prefer milspec tubes because of the smoother area where the threads are exposed, other than that, the only difference to the end user is in compatibility with various replacement stocks. I guess the milspec tube would be lighter in weight by some minuscule amount due to the smaller external diameter. This is all kinds of stupid.
Mil-Spec tubes are stronger. They're forged. Commercial tubes are weaker. They're extruded. Most of the time it doesn't matter... But the general consensus seems to be that a Mil-Spec tube isn't as likely to cant if you smack it on something/drop it/fall on it/etc. Canting will bind the action. This is all kinds of stupid.The SIZE of the tube ("milspec" size vs "commercial" size) does not equal the METHOD OF MANUFACTURE of the tube, or the materials it is made of. Extrusion is a type of forging by the way. IIRC the actual "mil specs" allow for drop forged or extruded tubes, there was discussion of this a while back. My SWAG is that the actual strength of the tube is almost entirely dependent on the strength of the alloy and hardening, since as I previously mentioned the common failure point is in the threaded section right behind the nut (thinnest part of the tube an a high stress point) which is the same on both styles of tubes. In short, a tube made out of quality material will be strong, and one made out of lesser material will be not as strong, regardless of the diameter of the stock attachment area on the tube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:45:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I should add that I believe it very likely they'll make a version for milspec tubes. It only makes sense considering their market. Why? RRA doesn't do anything with milspec diameter tubes. Since they don't manufacture the individual parts, the only thing I can think of is that they have some sort of long-term lock in contract with a supplier of commercial tubes. And the only thing bad I can say about my own RRA tube is that it's not a MIL-Spec diameter tube so I can't just swap out the outer portion of the stock with a MIL-Spec stock... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:47:22 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Welcome to 3yrs ago RRA. WTF good is this now? The market is saturated with enhanced cheekweld stocks. Magpul and LMT have a long headstart. While I like that they have 2 sockets for QD swivels the fact that they use a commercial reciever extension ensures the failure of this product. Good job RRA, you made a nice stock no one wants. If they make one for mil=spec buffer tubes I will probably try one. Considering how overstretched RRA has been since...at least 4 or 5 years ago, I think their getting into a new product line like this is just "when they could manage to get it to market," not "gee, everyone else has a fancy stock, let's jump on the bandwagon with one nobody will want." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 6:21:05 AM EDT
[#32]
If it were tight on the tube... I'd buy it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 7:07:04 AM EDT
[#33]
You want mil spec, you get flamed for it.
You want non mil spec, you get flamed for it. This is worst than being with a preggo wife or a wife on PMS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 7:32:16 AM EDT
[#34]
FYI
A Receiver Extension MANUFACTURED to military specs (either Mil-spec or Commercial-spec SIZED) will be hogged out from a solid bar (versus just having the end welded on an extruded tube) and will have rolled threads (versus cut threads). From a practical standpoint you'd be hard pressed to find any functional differences but, technically, the above manufacturing methods would provide a 'better' tube. BTW The majority of OEM manufacturers use Commercial-spec tubes from what we've seen, but there are still quite a number who use Mil-spec... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:04:39 AM EDT
[#35]
If they make a mil-spec I will buy it. But considering all ov my rifles have mil-spec tubes, I see no reason in buying a stock that only one rifle can use. I will stay happy with my LMT and wait for the ACS :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:15:51 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Welcome to 3yrs ago RRA. WTF good is this now? The market is saturated with enhanced cheekweld stocks. Magpul and LMT have a long headstart. While I like that they have 2 sockets for QD swivels the fact that they use a commercial reciever extension ensures the failure of this product. Good job RRA, you made a nice stock no one wants. If they make one for mil=spec buffer tubes I will probably try one. Actually the Magpul ACS isn't even out yet so beside the Vltor and LMT, there isn't a ton of competition. I say the more the merrier anyway. It's always good for consumers when there are plenty of choices out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:19:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Welcome to 3yrs ago RRA. WTF good is this now? The market is saturated with enhanced cheekweld stocks. Magpul and LMT have a long headstart. While I like that they have 2 sockets for QD swivels the fact that they use a commercial reciever extension ensures the failure of this product. Good job RRA, you made a nice stock no one wants. If they make one for mil=spec buffer tubes I will probably try one. Actually the Magpul ACS isn't even out yet so beside the Vltor and LMT, there isn't a ton of competition. I say the more the merrier anyway. It's always good for consumers when there are plenty of choices out there. Theres also a Choate stock. But I have never used one |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 11:39:10 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
FYI A Receiver Extension MANUFACTURED to military specs (either Mil-spec or Commercial-spec SIZED) will be hogged out from a solid bar (versus just having the end welded on an extruded tube) and will have rolled threads (versus cut threads). From a practical standpoint you'd be hard pressed to find any functional differences but, technically, the above manufacturing methods would provide a 'better' tube. BTW The majority of OEM manufacturers use Commercial-spec tubes from what we've seen, but there are still quite a number who use Mil-spec... I can see how the manufacturing process would make a more robust "mil-spec" tube. But in practice, aside from the outside diameter issue, is there a difference a shooter could see or detect in any way? Just curious... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:20:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
FYI A Receiver Extension MANUFACTURED to military specs (either Mil-spec or Commercial-spec SIZED) will be hogged out from a solid bar (versus just having the end welded on an extruded tube) and will have rolled threads (versus cut threads). From a practical standpoint you'd be hard pressed to find any functional differences but, technically, the above manufacturing methods would provide a 'better' tube. BTW The majority of OEM manufacturers use Commercial-spec tubes from what we've seen, but there are still quite a number who use Mil-spec... great info. i always wandered this. whether it was just a size difference or a constructed difference. incoming stupid question––- know anyone that makes a Commercial-spec size stock tube with mill-spec manufacturing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:41:13 PM EDT
[#40]
It looks like a copy of the LMT SOPMOD. Its kind of a shitty thing to do that would be expected of a Chinese corporation. Except the Chinese company doesnt have the balls to charge nearly as much as the original maker of said copied product. Here we are about 30. bucks from buying the real thing. What a kick in the ass.
Switching the access to the battery compartment from front to back doesnt count as "innovation".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:44:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Some reason, I can see that back plate breaking if you decide to hit something or have a jammed round and need to slam it down. I was thinking that too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:54:01 PM EDT
[#42]
I'll stick with my Magpuls.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 5:53:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
If it were tight on the tube... I'd buy it. +1 I once dropped my com. tube Rocky butt down from a 5' rail when I was getting ready to photograph it and it bounced straight up 4", passing the zombie skull crush test. Mil spec vs. commercial, it ain't an issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 6:31:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Welcome to 3yrs ago RRA. WTF good is this now? The market is saturated with enhanced cheekweld stocks. Magpul and LMT have a long headstart. While I like that they have 2 sockets for QD swivels the fact that they use a commercial reciever extension ensures the failure of this product. Good job RRA, you made a nice stock no one wants. If they make one for mil=spec buffer tubes I will probably try one. Actually the Magpul ACS isn't even out yet so beside the Vltor and LMT, there isn't a ton of competition. I say the more the merrier anyway. It's always good for consumers when there are plenty of choices out there. Don't forget the CAA stock saddle. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 6:36:25 PM EDT
[#45]
Gay
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:41:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Gay Thanks for your well thought out response...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 9:19:41 PM EDT
[#47]
I think it looks like a great option for those who can't get a sopmod because they dont have a milspec tube.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2009 10:44:43 PM EDT
[#48]
oooooooh its says Operator, must be used by E- light company.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2009 4:08:00 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I think it looks like a great option for those who can't get a sopmod because they dont have a milspec tube. Looks like it comes with a tube... So if you're going to be getting a new tube anyway, why not buy the right tube for the SOPMOD and go with that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2009 8:29:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Kind of expensive when you can buy a Vltor EMOD for about $20 USD more, that holds more batteries, has extra storage compartments, uses a Mil-Spec extension tube to be fair they cost about the same..... oh, wait...they dont. you can spend 120 on an emod+20-30 for an extension tube+10-15 for a buffer+a few for a spring+5 for a castle nut+whatever for an endplate..... so you can spend 165-175 for an emod/complete or...only 120 for the RRA/complete. Ill be sticking with the ACS. |
|
|
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.
