Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/26/2005 6:39:29 AM EDT
I was just surfing around and came across this:

McMillan MFS-14

I have a wood folding stock on my SOCOM now and am mostly happy with it except for the lack of rails, the weight of the wood and the the folding stock does not give great cheek weld.

I like the concept of a synthetic stock and would like to keep the folding stock, but adding a SOCOM 5 position buttstock would really be super. And the rails are kind of a bonus.

Any technical problems with bedding or accuracy? Anyone have one or an opinion?

I bet they cost an arm and two legs.

Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:17:40 AM EDT
Get the SAGE EBR chassis and be done with it.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:54:08 AM EDT
That rifle, scout barrel, stock with pistol grip, small rails, and folder is EXACTLY what I want to build.

I was going to start with a surplus synthetic and go from there, but that sure does look nice.

IMO, that is about the most functional setup I have seen.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 1:44:09 PM EDT
How much is that stock?
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 3:06:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By toyotaman:
How much is that stock?


It lists on that website as $485 and says it needs bedding. The total cost may be slightly less than a SAGE, but the McMillian will have the more delicate bedding. Interesting concept, but I'm not sure it offers any benefits over the SAGE in cost, durability and possibly weight.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 5:44:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Southern_Raider:

Originally Posted By toyotaman:
How much is that stock?


It lists on that website as $485 and says it needs bedding. The total cost may be slightly less than a SAGE, but the McMillian will have the more delicate bedding. Interesting concept, but I'm not sure it offers any benefits over the SAGE in cost, durability and possibly weight.


-

My thoughts exactly. Also, from a purely military perspective, the requirement for bedding is a non-starter. For a builder, this also drives up the unit costs to the consumer, not to mention the extra time required in cosntruction, which again costs $$$.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:06:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 8:11:29 AM EDT by FlameRed]
But the Sage is not a folder - it is collapsable. I was looking for a folder. But yes, $485 + at least another $100 for the SOCOM adjustable stock is a good chunk of change
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:41:44 AM EDT
What I want to know is, if government contractors forty years ago could make tight fitting synthetic M14 stocks that did not need bedded, why can't McMillan?Variances in commercial receivers so large that an LRB or Chinky wouldn't fit in a stock molded for a Springer,or vice versa? Or is McMillan's match grade nose stuck so high in the air they think everything must be bedded to be worth a damn, and build accordingly?

I actually like the pictured stock, looks highly useful while still being recognizable as an M14.Glass bedded or not, I don't think I like it $485 worth, but that's another matter.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:32:26 AM EDT
That stock is exactly what I am looking for, but again, not at that price.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 12:22:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By toyotaman:
That stock is exactly what I am looking for, but again, not at that price.


I think LAW483 or someone like him was modifying standard USGI fiberglass stocks to take AR15 buffer tubes. Even those were in the low $300 range, so there is evidently a bit of work plus some profit motive involved (not a bad thing!).
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:32:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 4:19:01 AM EDT by H2O_MAN]

Originally Posted By FlameRed:
I was just surfing around and came across this:



Anyone have one or an opinion?



I just can't warm up to a folder, but it is pretty cool looking.

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:18:33 PM EDT
As far as the Mcmillian stocks go, they say they need "bedding", well that is not actually true at all. They do and will drop right in the rifle just like a regular military G.I. synthetic and will lockup probably better than your current stock. this is stated with real world experience with those and other M1A/ M-14 stocks from them. Sure they could be bedded if you had a super match -ultra cool tactical "sniper" rifle worth $3500. + and yes that is sarcasm. Well then it might be worth the trouble to bed them then to achieve the rifles potential. Otherwise, all other rifles will be perfectly fine with a mcmillian that is put right on and the shooter will be perfectly happy and content with the acuracy and improved quality of the stocks. And to not beat a dead horse with all the stock/ bedding experts, I stated you COULD but do not need NEED to bed A M1A McMillian Stock. Bed stocks when it's needed.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:41:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bishopm14:
What I want to know is, if government contractors forty years ago could make tight fitting synthetic M14 stocks that did not need bedded, why can't McMillan?Variances in commercial receivers so large that an LRB or Chinky wouldn't fit in a stock molded for a Springer,or vice versa? Or is McMillan's match grade nose stuck so high in the air they think everything must be bedded to be worth a damn, and build accordingly?

I think the problem is the receivers, not the stocks. I've read where most commercial M14-SA receivers are not within "mil-spec", even thought all the parts funtion as they should.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:45:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HC4:
As far as the Mcmillian stocks go, they say they need "bedding", well that is not actually true at all. They do and will drop right in the rifle just like a regular military G.I. synthetic and will lockup probably better than your current stock. this is stated with real world experience with those and other M1A/ M-14 stocks from them. Sure they could be bedded if you had a super match -ultra cool tactical "sniper" rifle worth $3500. + and yes that is sarcasm. Well then it might be worth the trouble to bed them then to achieve the rifles potential. Otherwise, all other rifles will be perfectly fine with a mcmillian that is put right on and the shooter will be perfectly happy and content with the acuracy and improved quality of the stocks. And to not beat a dead horse with all the stock/ bedding experts, I stated you COULD but do not need NEED to bed A M1A McMillian Stock. Bed stocks when it's needed.



If that's true, (and it is good news if true) why does the maker always claim they need bedded? I can't think of any McMillan M14 stocks they don't claim need bedded. I don't think "Must be bedded" is a real strong selling point,more of a negative in my mind. I know personally for my needs, I want whatever accuracy I can get up to the point of glass bedding as I don't need the maintenance issues bedding brings.And in the current M14 clone world, pushers of a stock we all know are using the bolt in bedding concept to sell their stuff. Color me puzzled.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:30:56 AM EDT
Hmmm... me likey!!! Kind of...

I'd like to get the McMillan, pass on any accessory rails (unless I needed one for a bipod), mount a regular A2 AR buttstock on there with a Delta cheekpeice, and then add SEI mount and a 10X scope. I'm getting a Standard SA M1A and I think this setup would be pretty cool. I love the looks of the basic Standard M1A, but I'd like to see a pistol grip on there. The McMillan would accomplish that and adding the A2 stock with Delta cheek peice would be perfect for cheek weld. To bad that the cost of all that crap would add at least $1,000 to the gun (without scope).
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 11:20:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bishopm14:
If that's true, (and it is good news if true) why does the maker always claim they need bedded?


Because it's McMillan, a company that's associated with highly accurate stocks, that require bedding. It's either a mindset on their part, or they don't want people bashing them for producing a stock that isn't accuracy enhancing.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 6:33:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 6:34:33 PM EDT by ghost_rider]
sorry for the dumb question but, can this stock be made to use the metal stock liner ?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 11:00:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HC4:
As far as the Mcmillian stocks go, they say they need "bedding", well that is not actually true at all. They do and will drop right in the rifle just like a regular military G.I. synthetic and will lockup probably better than your current stock. this is stated with real world experience with those and other M1A/ M-14 stocks from them. Sure they could be bedded if you had a super match -ultra cool tactical "sniper" rifle worth $3500. + and yes that is sarcasm. Well then it might be worth the trouble to bed them then to achieve the rifles potential. Otherwise, all other rifles will be perfectly fine with a mcmillian that is put right on and the shooter will be perfectly happy and content with the acuracy and improved quality of the stocks. And to not beat a dead horse with all the stock/ bedding experts, I stated you COULD but do not need NEED to bed A M1A McMillian Stock. Bed stocks when it's needed.



I agree with HC4 I put a M2A stock on and did not bed it at all. you can use it just like a GI stock if you want.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 11:26:27 AM EDT
Does anyone know the weight on this stock?

I've been toying with a SAGE stock, but all the 14's I've handled that were in a sage were heavier than I'd like and this might be an option if its lighter...

Top Top