[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What was Colt thinking? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/30/2011 8:29:19 AM EDT
| The Rogers Super-Stoc is a super piece of crap. I certainly appreciate their moves of late back towards the commercial market but leave the LE guns alone. |
|
Quoted:
i been reading some pretty good reviews on it I will not pass judgment on it based on how it looks How about passing judgment after you drag it over 3 miles of swamp and then have to clean it to factory new condition? Infantry weapons should not have nooks and crannies on them. The stock is a joke. Colt needs to hire a fanboy. Or an educated grunt. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i been reading some pretty good reviews on it I will not pass judgment on it based on how it looks How about passing judgment after you drag it over 3 miles of swamp and then have to clean it to factory new condition? Infantry weapons should not have nooks and crannies on them. The stock is a joke. Colt needs to hire a fanboy. Or an educated grunt. blah blah blah I am sure we are all very impressed with how hardcore you are but putting them on the LE line and the sproters are a far cry from military issue M4s. seen new gov contracts changed to have colt ship the rogers stock on all new M4A1s have you 
get over your self |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm always amazed at how much Arfcommers can tell about a product from nothing more than a picture. I'm always amazed how quickly some people here forget the actual intended purpose of these rifles. I know where you're coming from, but I've done my time humping an M16 around and I have taken a hot shower with them many times. Your concern is grossly exaggerated not to mention this stock is no worse than the current M4 stock. Have you actually T&E'd one yet? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm always amazed at how much Arfcommers can tell about a product from nothing more than a picture. I'm always amazed how quickly some people here forget the actual intended purpose of these rifles. I know where you're coming from, but I've done my time humping an M16 around and I have taken a hot shower with them many times. Your concern is grossly exaggerated not to mention this stock is no worse than the current M4 stock. Have you actually T&E'd one yet? of course he has. didnt you read he drug it through the mud adn cleaned it and all that stuff? obviously he did or he wouldnt have chided me for not passing judgement on it because I chose not to comment on its use until I had performed an equal test to is |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm always amazed at how much Arfcommers can tell about a product from nothing more than a picture. I'm always amazed how quickly some people here forget the actual intended purpose of these rifles. Which is not to be cleaned for parades... If the stock is more functional for the warfighter, it's more functional, that simple. Whether or not it's harder for some troop to clean for an inspection isn't relevant. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not going to pass judgment until I try it myself. Looks like it only adds function to the gun though... Have any of you guys used the stock? Use of the stock was not necessary to come to my knee jerk decision that its poorly built. Holding it in my hand was enough. The design and operation of the reversible cam lock lever is suspect in my book. When you have the opportunity to put your hands on one I think you will come tot he same conclusion. The stylized Colt logo on the butt plate and Colt Defense on the right side of the stock are the answer to why Colt got in bed with Rogers. It appears that an "off the shelf" solution was not possible because the Colt branding was put ahead of form and function. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to pass judgment until I try it myself. Looks like it only adds function to the gun though... Have any of you guys used the stock? Use of the stock was not necessary to come to my knee jerk decision that its poorly built. Holding it in my hand was enough. The design and operation of the reversible cam lock lever is suspect in my book. When you have the opportunity to put your hands on one I think you will come tot he same conclusion. The stylized Colt logo on the butt plate and Colt Defense on the right side of the stock are the answer to why Colt got in bed with Rogers. It appears that an "off the shelf" solution was not possible because the Colt branding was put ahead of form and function. So, the cam lock doesn't give you the warm and fuzzies and that makes the stock a POS? Have you actually used one on a rifle yet? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So how is it a piece of shit? It gets dirty apparently. Its not just that. It has thin plastic parts. It looks fragile as fuck. It also looks like a magpul copy. It also looks like it would snag like fuck on my gear. That's a whole lot of "it looks like" (read: speculation). Buy one, run it hard, then bitch about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to pass judgment until I try it myself. Looks like it only adds function to the gun though... Have any of you guys used the stock? Use of the stock was not necessary to come to my knee jerk decision that its poorly built. Holding it in my hand was enough. The design and operation of the reversible cam lock lever is suspect in my book. When you have the opportunity to put your hands on one I think you will come tot he same conclusion. The stylized Colt logo on the butt plate and Colt Defense on the right side of the stock are the answer to why Colt got in bed with Rogers. It appears that an "off the shelf" solution was not possible because the Colt branding was put ahead of form and function. You gotta be kidding me. You know Magpul would run with the mold colt wanted to if they were given the contract. |
|
Quoted:
I wonder if the universal tube size means that Colt will be using non mil-spec tubes on some guns? I doubt it. The stock was created before this, and is sold by a others, including Wilson as just a stock. That's one of it's selling points, that regardless of your tube type, you can get one of these and just stick it on. |
|
When the Magpul CTR was first released I thought the thing was butt-ugly (and still do) but I liked the features it offered over OEM: friction lock, ambi QD swivel socket etc.
Looking back, I'm glad that I held on passing judgement until after installing one for myself. It's now one of my favorite carbine stocks 
This Rogers stock looks like it "borrowed heavily" as the euphemism goes, from the Magpul design. Pic from the link posted above: 
My CTR on a Sig: 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So how is it a piece of shit? It gets dirty apparently. Its not just that. It has thin plastic parts. It looks fragile as fuck. It also looks like a magpul copy. It also looks like it would snag like fuck on my gear. are you fucking kidding me? your post looks like someone who does know shit about the product just bitching to me, of course I could be wrong, but it looks that way |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to pass judgment until I try it myself. Looks like it only adds function to the gun though... Have any of you guys used the stock? Use of the stock was not necessary to come to my knee jerk decision that its poorly built. Holding it in my hand was enough. The design and operation of the reversible cam lock lever is suspect in my book. When you have the opportunity to put your hands on one I think you will come tot he same conclusion. The stylized Colt logo on the butt plate and Colt Defense on the right side of the stock are the answer to why Colt got in bed with Rogers. It appears that an "off the shelf" solution was not possible because the Colt branding was put ahead of form and function. You gotta be kidding me. You know Magpul would run with the mold colt wanted to if they were given the contract. I see that you're a Magpul fan. You realize there's also Magpul Colt's coming out... right? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to pass judgment until I try it myself. Looks like it only adds function to the gun though... Have any of you guys used the stock? Use of the stock was not necessary to come to my knee jerk decision that its poorly built. Holding it in my hand was enough. The design and operation of the reversible cam lock lever is suspect in my book. When you have the opportunity to put your hands on one I think you will come tot he same conclusion. The stylized Colt logo on the butt plate and Colt Defense on the right side of the stock are the answer to why Colt got in bed with Rogers. It appears that an "off the shelf" solution was not possible because the Colt branding was put ahead of form and function. You gotta be kidding me. You know Magpul would run with the mold colt wanted to if they were given the contract. I see that you're a Magpul fan. You realize there's also Magpul Colt's coming out... right? I think he is agreeing with you, His statement was directed at CACA1s dumb post or its how I see it after reflection |
|
If you are going to make a skeletonized stock how many designs can there really be? Should they have made it a square shape or some shit?
The CTR to me looks like a skeletonized M4 stock and the Rogers looks kind of like a skeletonized version of the old 4 position stock. There are many products out there that are similar in design and function and often for good reason. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to pass judgment until I try it myself. Looks like it only adds function to the gun though... Have any of you guys used the stock? Use of the stock was not necessary to come to my knee jerk decision that its poorly built. Holding it in my hand was enough. The design and operation of the reversible cam lock lever is suspect in my book. When you have the opportunity to put your hands on one I think you will come tot he same conclusion. The stylized Colt logo on the butt plate and Colt Defense on the right side of the stock are the answer to why Colt got in bed with Rogers. It appears that an "off the shelf" solution was not possible because the Colt branding was put ahead of form and function. You gotta be kidding me. You know Magpul would run with the mold colt wanted to if they were given the contract. I see that you're a Magpul fan. You realize there's also Magpul Colt's coming out... right? I think he is agreeing with you, His statement was directed at CACA1s dumb post or its how I see it after reflection You never fail to live down to my expectation. The Colt forum wouldn't be the same without you turning just about every thread into your own little 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to pass judgment until I try it myself. Looks like it only adds function to the gun though... Have any of you guys used the stock? Use of the stock was not necessary to come to my knee jerk decision that its poorly built. Holding it in my hand was enough. The design and operation of the reversible cam lock lever is suspect in my book. When you have the opportunity to put your hands on one I think you will come tot he same conclusion. The stylized Colt logo on the butt plate and Colt Defense on the right side of the stock are the answer to why Colt got in bed with Rogers. It appears that an "off the shelf" solution was not possible because the Colt branding was put ahead of form and function. You gotta be kidding me. You know Magpul would run with the mold colt wanted to if they were given the contract. I see that you're a Magpul fan. You realize there's also Magpul Colt's coming out... right? I do dig my Magpul in moderation, although I think some people go overboard. But that's not my point. My point was that Colt could put whatever they wanted to on their rifle, and parts manufactures would jump at the opportunity to supply whatever Colt wanted. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So how is it a piece of shit? It gets dirty apparently. Its not just that. It has thin plastic parts. It looks fragile as fuck. It also looks like a magpul copy. It also looks like it would snag like fuck on my gear. are you fucking kidding me? your post looks like someone who does know shit about the product just bitching to me, of course I could be wrong, but it looks that way It was a poor attempt at humor. Carry on. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So how is it a piece of shit? It gets dirty apparently. Its not just that. It has thin plastic parts. It looks fragile as fuck. It also looks like a magpul copy. It also looks like it would snag like fuck on my gear. That's a whole lot of "it looks like" (read: speculation). Buy one, run it hard, then bitch about it. I don't need to buy one to tell it's a cheap rip off of a magpul product. I've been issued enough weapons to know when I'm about to be given something shitty. Anyone with the least bit experience can spot a clusterfuck from 10m away. Side note: I've been watching what Wilson has been doing in the ar15 market. I'm not impressed with what they have released. They have gone with the tacticrap route. Whatever sells I guess. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So how is it a piece of shit? It gets dirty apparently. Its not just that. It has thin plastic parts. It looks fragile as fuck. It also looks like a magpul copy. It also looks like it would snag like fuck on my gear. are you fucking kidding me? your post looks like someone who does know shit about the product just bitching to me, of course I could be wrong, but it looks that way It was a poor attempt at humor. Carry on. uh huh |
Jesus Christ. Could there be any more whiny bitching? 
My dick is 18 inches long and has the girth of a pop can.* So STFU and listen to what I say. Grrrr. 
Anyway, the Rogers stock may be OK. Or it may suck. I don't know as I've never handled one. However, it seems to me that all it REALLY offers over the current Colt stock is that it has a friction lock and the ability to be attached to either mil-spec or commercial tubes. Well, my Colt stock fits a mil-spec tube just fine (of course), so unless Colt is going to start using commercial tubes (doubtful to say the least), that little feature coming on a Colt rifle is neither here nor there. My take on friction locks is that they're unnecessary on a carbine. I've owned a Magpul CTR. Yeah, the friction lock works OK, but you know what? When I pull my Colt stock into my shoulder, the (minimal) wobble goes away! The friction lock adds some complexity while providing no practical benefit. Either way, I'm sure that the Rogers stock costs more than the Colt stock (if only due to its increased complexity)... and I'm sure that the increased cost to Colt will be passed along to the customer. Considering that it provides me with no better function, in my opinion, I'd rather not pay extra for it. And yes, I got all that from photos and the product description. I'm a friggin' genius! 
* Claim void in the western hemisphere, eastern hemisphere, northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere, and the rest of the known universe. And possibly in the unknown universe as well. I don't know because it's "unknown". |
|
Quoted:
Jesus Christ. Could there be any more whiny bitching?
My dick is 18 inches long and has the girth of a pop can.* So STFU and listen to what I say. Grrrr.
Anyway, the Rogers stock may be OK. Or it may suck. I don't know as I've never handled one. this is the only thing that should have been said about the new stock from the start until someone actually uses it and reviews it for a few weeks of real use |
|
Quoted:
Jesus Christ. Could there be any more whiny bitching?
My dick is 18 inches long and has the girth of a pop can.* So STFU and listen to what I say. Grrrr.
Anyway, the Rogers stock may be OK. Or it may suck. I don't know as I've never handled one. However, it seems to me that all it REALLY offers over the current Colt stock is that it has a friction lock and the ability to be attached to either mil-spec or commercial tubes. Well, my Colt stock fits a mil-spec tube just fine (of course), so unless Colt is going to start using commercial tubes (doubtful to say the least), that little feature coming on a Colt rifle is neither here nor there. My take on friction locks is that they're unnecessary on a carbine. I've owned a Magpul CTR. Yeah, the friction lock works OK, but you know what? When I pull my Colt stock into my shoulder, the (minimal) wobble goes away! The friction lock adds some complexity while providing no practical benefit. Either way, I'm sure that the Rogers stock costs more than the Colt stock (if only due to its increased complexity)... and I'm sure that the increased cost to Colt will be passed along to the customer. Considering that it provides me with no better function, in my opinion, I'd rather not pay extra for it. And yes, I got all that from photos and the product description. I'm a friggin' genius!
* Claim void in the western hemisphere, eastern hemisphere, northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere, and the rest of the known universe. And possibly in the unknown universe as well. I don't know because it's "unknown". It doesn't cost any more- and it also has a QD sling swivel. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus Christ. Could there be any more whiny bitching?
My dick is 18 inches long and has the girth of a pop can.* So STFU and listen to what I say. Grrrr.
Anyway, the Rogers stock may be OK. Or it may suck. I don't know as I've never handled one. this is the only thing that should have been said about the new stock from the start until someone actually uses it and reviews it for a few weeks of real use Nonsense, good sir! It's just a freaking buttstock. It isn't something magical and mysterious. Its functions and attributes are obvious. I most certainly can assess whether its traits are an asset (to me , at least). The only question is the robustness of its construction.... which, as you have pointed out (and I certainly agree with you), will be answered through actual use. Cheerio! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It doesn't cost any more- and it also has a QD sling swivel. I neither require nor desire a QD sling swivel on the butt stock.
However, for those who do, this is a good thing and I concede the point. You are being entirely too civil about all this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It doesn't cost any more- and it also has a QD sling swivel. I neither require nor desire a QD sling swivel on the butt stock.
However, for those who do, this is a good thing and I concede the point. You are being entirely too civil about all this. I fucking hate this stock!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus Christ. Could there be any more whiny bitching?
My dick is 18 inches long and has the girth of a pop can.* So STFU and listen to what I say. Grrrr.
Anyway, the Rogers stock may be OK. Or it may suck. I don't know as I've never handled one. However, it seems to me that all it REALLY offers over the current Colt stock is that it has a friction lock and the ability to be attached to either mil-spec or commercial tubes. Well, my Colt stock fits a mil-spec tube just fine (of course), so unless Colt is going to start using commercial tubes (doubtful to say the least), that little feature coming on a Colt rifle is neither here nor there. My take on friction locks is that they're unnecessary on a carbine. I've owned a Magpul CTR. Yeah, the friction lock works OK, but you know what? When I pull my Colt stock into my shoulder, the (minimal) wobble goes away! The friction lock adds some complexity while providing no practical benefit. Either way, I'm sure that the Rogers stock costs more than the Colt stock (if only due to its increased complexity)... and I'm sure that the increased cost to Colt will be passed along to the customer. Considering that it provides me with no better function, in my opinion, I'd rather not pay extra for it. And yes, I got all that from photos and the product description. I'm a friggin' genius!
* Claim void in the western hemisphere, eastern hemisphere, northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere, and the rest of the known universe. And possibly in the unknown universe as well. I don't know because it's "unknown". It doesn't cost any more- and it also has a QD sling swivel. Yea but why in the world would you put it way down there? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yea but why in the world would you put it way down there? Beats the hell out of me. Probably because they essentially ripped off the Magpul CTR and Magpul put theirs at the top.  Copy. Well in their defense maybe the designer never carried a carbine using a QD mount
|
|
News of this has hit arfcom GD and the dogpile is already starting.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1239740_looking_for_pics_of_Colt_s_new_collapsible_stock___.html |
