Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/9/2004 3:01:14 PM EST
I heard the A1 stock was made out of a less durable material than the A2. Is this true. If the A1 fits more people, why the change to the A2 length?
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:29:44 PM EST
orignial a1 stocks are less durable... but i have a cavalry arms a1 stock and it works well... i'm going to be replacing it with a better one but it gets the job done for now...

as for the change to a2... its a bogus study... when in BT so many soldiers wished the weapon had a shorter stock... i find myself much more comfortable with an a1 stock...
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 4:43:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 5:58:07 PM EST
Recently changed to C1 stock and I can shoot the rifle much more comfortably now. When I shoulder the rifle my nose naturally sits right next to charging handle. This was not possible when I had the A2. I had to move my head / neck assembly closer to the charging handle intentionally.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 8:37:32 PM EST
As a short person, I love the A1/C1. Having a C1 on my ARs has also made the ladies of small stature enjoy shooting the rifle more than their initial experience with "box stock" A2s that they have tried previously.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 9:59:04 PM EST
I've read that the Marines had a lot of input on the A2, and that they wanted a stock that was better suited for shooting prone, and thus the story of the A2 stock, but I may be wrong, I read this on AR15.com, there's a bunch of Know-it-alls there.
Top Top