AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/6/2026 1:30:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Scrapple][Edited]
| I'm considering one of these stocks, anyone have experience with them? Quality, weight, any other comments? Thanks |
|
Originally Posted By Scrapple: Well, besides H&R. Although I'm sure that these are nicer quality, but I would like opinions on that I believe the H&R stocks are supplied by Ordnance Research as well. It seems to be a fine product, I’m just grumpy from a price vs accuracy standpoint. For the asking price, whether from H&R or OR directly, I feel like it could be more visually accurate for little to no additional cost. Build quality seems to be top notch though, I’ve never seen a complaint and people are running them with FRTs. |
|
Originally Posted By mike_nds: Yes, we use them on our 607 lower. Doing a “true” 607 stock interface was never an option for us. Very understandably so. There's no way you'd hand fit the lock assembly to each lower. It probably wasn't even feasible at scale in '65. My complaint has always been with the cosmetics. Perhaps adjusting the geometry and adding bevels and radii to the CAD files would increase their machine time and cost. Fine, I could understand that. But I will never understand the use of slotted head fasteners (which are usually more expensive) over cheap and accurate socket heads. |
|
Originally Posted By 57Octane: I believe the H&R stocks are supplied by Ordnance Research as well. It seems to be a fine product, I’m just grumpy from a price vs accuracy standpoint. For the asking price, whether from H&R or OR directly, I feel like it could be more visually accurate for little to no additional cost. Build quality seems to be top notch though, I’ve never seen a complaint and people are running them with FRTs. People treated Edwin at TSI the same way 400$ and people were freaking the f out like the world was ending. Turns out it’s was worth the money. Then braceman was 750. Same amount of work just add inflation maybe. People like me and themjust trying to get by. And all the end user can see is the cost. Yet if you had to build it yourself you would be spending 10000 times this amount or more. I’m glad they didn’t cut corners like they did their the “drop in” 607 hgs. Those things look like piles of shit but the public saved 66% in production costs so no one cares. No one cares. It looks similar and they saved 20$. |
It's not paranoia if there really is somebody after you
Don't forget to brush your teeth.
Don't forget to brush your teeth.
|
Originally Posted By 57Octane: Very understandably so. There's no way you'd hand fit the lock assembly to each lower. It probably wasn't even feasible at scale in '65. My complaint has always been with the cosmetics. Perhaps adjusting the geometry and adding bevels and radii to the CAD files would increase their machine time and cost. Fine, I could understand that. But I will never understand the use of slotted head fasteners (which are usually more expensive) over cheap and accurate socket heads. The Ordnance Research website pictures must be old. It looks like they have since added engraving and a some roundovers. Overall, it's a pretty simplistic interpretation of what was done 60 plus years ago and it's time for a redo at that price point. Making the locking rod assembly and fitting these to old stocks takes time, so the overall price is not out of line. I scaled mine from numerous pictures and it only takes two "grabs" in order to do all the exterior features in the most correct way. If they have someone machining them manually, then it's quite the challenge. CNC, not so much after you nail down the programming. I use software that hasn't really changed in 20 or so years, so it's not like it can't be done. Attached File |
AR Sponsor