Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/19/2006 6:32:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 5:09:04 PM EDT by eddiein1984]
\
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:35:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:38:07 PM EDT
60$ per rifle ends up being alot. Especially when were spending 3 billion this year alone on ied education/safety/equipment.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:41:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 6:49:44 PM EDT by eddiein1984]
What are the cons? Sturdiness? $60/rifle seems like an economical enhancement. You could convert the entire inventory of M16's for less than the cost of one useless-against-terrorists JSF.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:52:03 PM EDT
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:54:35 PM EDT
I just switched out the stock on my own when I had an M16 in train-up.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:55:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:57:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:03:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 7:09:00 PM EDT by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor. Plus, it uses existing off the shelf components, so there is zero R&D or tooling cost.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:09:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:16:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 7:17:26 PM EDT by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



Here is a concept for you: expedient solution. Have you ever looked at a PPS43 or a STEN? Neither could be considered the best tool for the job, just the best available tool. Besides, the M4/A1 conversion is a $500 solution that eliminates many of the advantages of the A2/A4 series.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:17:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



+1

Also, the Marines have already trained their asses off with a full length rifle so converting to a collapsible stock would be a little awkward to them at first which could lead to casualties because of the unfamiliarty.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:21:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



Here is a concept for you: expedient solution. Have you ever looked at a PPS43 or a STEN? Neither could be considered the best tool for the job, just the best available tool. Besides, the M4/A1 conversion is a $500 solution that eliminates many of the advantages of the A2/A4 series.



Ok, junior.

All of that may well be the case, but a 20" A2 upper with a telestock is STILL a lopsided POS.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:30:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



Here is a concept for you: expedient solution. Have you ever looked at a PPS43 or a STEN? Neither could be considered the best tool for the job, just the best available tool. Besides, the M4/A1 conversion is a $500 solution that eliminates many of the advantages of the A2/A4 series.



Ok, junior.

All of that may well be the case, but a 20" A2 upper with a telestock is STILL a lopsided POS.



I beg to differ on the lopsidedness issue.

I put a telestock on my M16A4 DMR because the A2 stock was way too long for me (almost too long even when NOT wearing body armor). I certainly wouldn't want to lose inches off the barrel in the DM role, so an M4 would not be the way to go, but at the same time I can't use a long stock while standing and wearing armor. I have no problems hitting a target offhand with this config. What is lopsided about it? The telestock doesn't really change the weight balance as far as I can tell.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:12:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



Here is a concept for you: expedient solution. Have you ever looked at a PPS43 or a STEN? Neither could be considered the best tool for the job, just the best available tool. Besides, the M4/A1 conversion is a $500 solution that eliminates many of the advantages of the A2/A4 series.



Ok, junior.

All of that may well be the case, but a 20" A2 upper with a telestock is STILL a lopsided POS.



I beg to differ on the lopsidedness issue.

I put a telestock on my M16A4 DMR because the A2 stock was way too long for me (almost too long even when NOT wearing body armor). I certainly wouldn't want to lose inches off the barrel in the DM role, so an M4 would not be the way to go, but at the same time I can't use a long stock while standing and wearing armor. I have no problems hitting a target offhand with this config. What is lopsided about it? The telestock doesn't really change the weight balance as far as I can tell.



What are you.......Canadian?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:13:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 8:14:13 PM EDT by M4A1OwnsYou]

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Amen. But the gov't can blow money on other useless shit.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:24:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4A1OwnsYou:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Amen. But the gov't can blow money on other useless shit.



When I think of the money the government squanders on lazy dead beats alone it almost makes my head explode. The military should want for nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:39:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



Here is a concept for you: expedient solution. Have you ever looked at a PPS43 or a STEN? Neither could be considered the best tool for the job, just the best available tool. Besides, the M4/A1 conversion is a $500 solution that eliminates many of the advantages of the A2/A4 series.



Ok, junior.

All of that may well be the case, but a 20" A2 upper with a telestock is STILL a lopsided POS.



I beg to differ on the lopsidedness issue.

I put a telestock on my M16A4 DMR because the A2 stock was way too long for me (almost too long even when NOT wearing body armor). I certainly wouldn't want to lose inches off the barrel in the DM role, so an M4 would not be the way to go, but at the same time I can't use a long stock while standing and wearing armor. I have no problems hitting a target offhand with this config. What is lopsided about it? The telestock doesn't really change the weight balance as far as I can tell.



What are you.......Canadian?



LOL, Nope, Texan...eh?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:41:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



Here is a concept for you: expedient solution. Have you ever looked at a PPS43 or a STEN? Neither could be considered the best tool for the job, just the best available tool. Besides, the M4/A1 conversion is a $500 solution that eliminates many of the advantages of the A2/A4 series.



Ok, junior.

All of that may well be the case, but a 20" A2 upper with a telestock is STILL a lopsided POS.



I beg to differ on the lopsidedness issue.

I put a telestock on my M16A4 DMR because the A2 stock was way too long for me (almost too long even when NOT wearing body armor). I certainly wouldn't want to lose inches off the barrel in the DM role, so an M4 would not be the way to go, but at the same time I can't use a long stock while standing and wearing armor. I have no problems hitting a target offhand with this config. What is lopsided about it? The telestock doesn't really change the weight balance as far as I can tell.



What are you.......Canadian?



LOL, Nope, Texan...eh?



:)

And so no one thinks I am making fun of P, I was implying that he carried a rifle like the Canadians use.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:44:47 PM EDT
Evening all

IMHO I think that putting a tele stock on a M16A4 would be going against the current trend in Marine Corps new "Warrior" spirit doctrine. After all the Jarheads went and had new bayonets made so that they could take an inch more steel against the enemy.

Not that I can think of the last time the US used a bayonet charge. But going with this current thought process I don't think you are going to convince them that a tele stock is going to be just as durable as a fixed stock for butt strokes.

Personally, unless the stock is as rigid as the fixed stock , ie Magpul M93B stock, then their would probably be a balance problem with the rifle.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:46:26 PM EDT
I am curious. Don't they store cleaning equipment in the A2 buttstocks? Is there any telestock that can carry cleaning supplies like the A2 can?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:49:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



Here is a concept for you: expedient solution. Have you ever looked at a PPS43 or a STEN? Neither could be considered the best tool for the job, just the best available tool. Besides, the M4/A1 conversion is a $500 solution that eliminates many of the advantages of the A2/A4 series.



Ok, junior.

All of that may well be the case, but a 20" A2 upper with a telestock is STILL a lopsided POS.



I beg to differ on the lopsidedness issue.

I put a telestock on my M16A4 DMR because the A2 stock was way too long for me (almost too long even when NOT wearing body armor). I certainly wouldn't want to lose inches off the barrel in the DM role, so an M4 would not be the way to go, but at the same time I can't use a long stock while standing and wearing armor. I have no problems hitting a target offhand with this config. What is lopsided about it? The telestock doesn't really change the weight balance as far as I can tell.



What are you.......Canadian?



LOL, Nope, Texan...eh?



:)

And so no one thinks I am making fun of P, I was implying that he carried a rifle like the Canadians use.

img70.imageshack.us/img70/9979/c7a234xg.jpg



love the quotes
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:52:18 PM EDT
Gotta be honest here..................I hate them telescoping stocks. All my ARs have solid buttstocks, I prefer them with or without body armor. Maybe solid stocks don't say "cool", but who really cares about that. I like that rock solid feel and don't need to collapse the stock for transport or any other reason.........................
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:02:03 PM EDT
I liked my stock M16A2 I had in Iraq. To be honest, we had problems with insurgents taking potshots at us when we were on the IP station roofs. The full length 20 inch barrel was a plus shooting 200 plus yards across Iraqi rooftops. I never missed the M4s they told us we'd get.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:09:34 PM EDT
the DOD is too busy buying all the 7.62 x 39 ammo so we can't have some cheap fun at the sand pit.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:14:30 PM EDT
Can you guys in the military do anything to the rifles you are issued? Also do you always have the same gun, i mean when you are deployed till when you get back is that gun basicaly yours. What about when you are in Basic? Also when you get out of the military are you considerd a civilian again and cant own M16s.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:24:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 9:25:21 PM EDT by Phoebus]

Originally Posted By drider77:
Can you guys in the military do anything to the rifles you are issued? Also do you always have the same gun, i mean when you are deployed till when you get back is that gun basicaly yours. What about when you are in Basic? Also when you get out of the military are you considerd a civilian again and cant own M16s.



My unit lets me do just about anything to my rifles. Of course, the armorers know that I know what I'm doing, so YMMV. When you are in basic you are in a completely controlled environment. There is no way that you could mod a rifle.
Also, AFAIK private ownership of M16s by military personnel is subject to the same restrictions as it is for everyone else, which is to say ATF forms, etc, if you are in an MG-legal state.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 7:07:36 AM EDT
We had a rifle that was 'ours' in basic mostly b/c sights zeroed for you aren't necessarily right for someone else.
Other than in a real war, the military likes to keep weapons under tightly controlled circumstances, and they don't like to issue ammo. There have been questions about the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the USS Cole for just those reasons. I even wonder if the guardsmen patrolling after 9-11 had even one bullet in their shirt pocket.

Personally, I think the A2 stock is too long; don't know how the guys in armor shoot 'em. Ever note the LOP on old Mausers? They were pretty short to allow for field gear.
Moon
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 7:13:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Not a day goes by when I don't see soldiers and Marines on the news carrying M16A2's and -A4's, forced to carry and fire in all sorts of awkward poses because of their body armor and the excessively long A2 buttstock. Why haven't the armed services converted all of these rifles with an M-4 buttstock/buffer assembly? This seems like a $60 solution to an obvious problem.


two words
butt stroke
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 7:56:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CTKurt:
butt stroke



Is this a Brokeback Mountain thread....?

Seriously though... Y'really think a fixed stock AR would survive a real "butt stroke incident"...
I mean... It's friggin' plastic.
Way back when I was in the Cdn. Forces we used the FN.... 11pounds of steel and wood. If you ran out of 7.62 you could beat the enemy to death with your rifle....
Shortly before I left the move to the C7 was being made(1985?)... I remember being introduced to the new weapon..... Compared to the our old FAL bang stick it seemed rather flimsy.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:10:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:22:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 8:24:06 AM EDT by Phoebus]

Originally Posted By KevinB:

Buttstroking is a fine training concept - but try it with a sling, a scope, a PEQ, SF light etc.

I run my telestock out one click (M4A1) out in armor it is the only way to effective use your weapon.






Amen to that. A real fighting M16/M4 today just isn't set up as a hand-to-hand weapon, with or without a collapsible stock. From experience, all those plain-jane A2s people see anyway mostly belong to FOB-dwellers, POGs, and unfortunate Marine units. Anyone using their rifle on foot will have at least a sling attached to his armor, a flashlight, and some kind of electro-optical sight. That sling is important for dropping the weapon to manipulate things during searches, vehicle stops, etc, and it pretty much precludes making effective "bayonet training" style moves with the rifle effectively. And honestly, if you need to be buttstroking people, what the hell is going on? I want to know the last time someone in the armed forces actually fought "hand to hand" using their weapon like that.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:28:20 AM EDT
Simple solution to the training issue...
Make telestocks and 14-16 barrels available to all soldiers who would like one. There seems to be a great variety of equipment in the sandbox now, I don't see two optional (armorer supported) stocks making things too complicated over there.

Regarding the funding...
Which manufacturer can ramp up production to a few hundred thousand units, and where do I send my contribution to the fund?
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:10:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 3:34:07 PM EDT
So what is the consensus here? Does it not seem reasonable to at least make the conversion available to those in the field who want it? It is not an ideal solution, but at least it is something.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 4:25:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By desertvet762:
I liked my stock M16A2 I had in Iraq. To be honest, we had problems with insurgents taking potshots at us when we were on the IP station roofs. The full length 20 inch barrel was a plus shooting 200 plus yards across Iraqi rooftops. I never missed the M4s they told us we'd get.



Thank you for your service and thank you for your comments.

I'm not going to argue because KevinB obviously has BTDT, but my only comment is, you don't have to shoot ntch. I do agree that they seem a little long for body armor. I personally like them but I don't have any body armor.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 5:13:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 5:13:58 PM EDT by RustedAce]
my comment on the matter.

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 5:26:34 PM EDT
I personally don't think it has anything to do about budget. For RFI I have ordered SOPMOD stocks for my M4's and RAS rails for every weapon I have (M14, M249, M240, M16 A2, A4, M4), MATECH BUIS, ACOGS, ELCANs, M68, etc.
I used to be 11B, now I'm an 88A in a FSC. We have just been stood up, and we are inheriting weapons from other units. TOP wanted to give all the leaders M4's, but I opened my big mouth suggested we should issue by mission/need. Well I shot myself in the foot and now I have an A4. Shooting the M16 in the prone with your IBA on sucks (I am of short stature). An adjustable stock would have helped. That's the reason I and one of my old SFC (now a 1SG), purchased Stubby stocks. We didn't want to stand out to much by alerting everyone of our unauthorized mods. They are to short. As stated in the PM magazine, you cannot change components without the proper MWO.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 5:46:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Girlieman:

Originally Posted By CTKurt:
butt stroke



Is this a Brokeback Mountain thread....?

Seriously though... Y'really think a fixed stock AR would survive a real "butt stroke incident"...
I mean... It's friggin' plastic.
Way back when I was in the Cdn. Forces we used the FN.... 11pounds of steel and wood. If you ran out of 7.62 you could beat the enemy to death with your rifle....
Shortly before I left the move to the C7 was being made(1985?)... I remember being introduced to the new weapon..... Compared to the our old FAL bang stick it seemed rather flimsy.


Why would the Army train (or let recruits get away with), in bayonet training, to stab and then hit the dummy with the buttstock if it would break? I'm sure if you grabbed your M16 by the barrel and used it as a club, you'd probably break the stock. But I kinda doubt that if you buttstock-ed someone in the face with it that it'd break. Does anyone know for sure?
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:02:41 PM EDT
I think a Sully Stock is a great alternative for those who are concerned with the durability of a collabsible stock.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:23:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JL7:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



Prove a collapsible stock will win the war against evil and I am sure the military will be happy to buy every soldier one.



+1

I fail to see how a tele-stock is the be all, end all of small arms enhancements.



No shit it's not the be all, end all. But at least it would make the existing rifles more compact for urban fighting and more compatible with body armor.





Here's a concept for you.

"Use the right tool for the right job"

Why use a full size M16A2 for urban warfare?

If you want a telestock, why not go for the whole M4/A1 system?

Have you ever actually shouldered a 20" A2 upper with a telestock? It's a lop sided POS, just a little FYI.



Here is a concept for you: expedient solution. Have you ever looked at a PPS43 or a STEN? Neither could be considered the best tool for the job, just the best available tool. Besides, the M4/A1 conversion is a $500 solution that eliminates many of the advantages of the A2/A4 series.



Ok, junior.

All of that may well be the case, but a 20" A2 upper with a telestock is STILL a lopsided POS.



I beg to differ on the lopsidedness issue.

I put a telestock on my M16A4 DMR because the A2 stock was way too long for me (almost too long even when NOT wearing body armor). I certainly wouldn't want to lose inches off the barrel in the DM role, so an M4 would not be the way to go, but at the same time I can't use a long stock while standing and wearing armor. I have no problems hitting a target offhand with this config. What is lopsided about it? The telestock doesn't really change the weight balance as far as I can tell.



What are you.......Canadian?



LOL, Nope, Texan...eh?



:)

And so no one thinks I am making fun of P, I was implying that he carried a rifle like the Canadians use.

img70.imageshack.us/img70/9979/c7a234xg.jpg



love the quotes




For quotes sake.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:24:55 PM EDT
I like the Canadian C7A4. I built one just like it and I regret selling it off. It was the best of both worlds and I'll be making another one again.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:55:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Edbert:
Simple solution to the training issue...
Make telestocks and 14-16 barrels available to all soldiers who would like one.



I can see the military's response to that. It looks like this:
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 7:08:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 7:11:41 PM EDT by txgp17]










Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.










Then why is almost everything they have made by the lowest bidder?
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 7:27:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By txgp17:










Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.










Then why is almost everything they have made by the lowest bidder?



The lowest bidder is often just the most efficient one. What people forget is that it is the lowest bidder that meets the spec.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 4:09:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Screw the budget, our soldiers should have the most effective equipment.



ya..are you still gonna say that while standing in the soup line?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 5:32:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Girlieman:

Originally Posted By CTKurt:
butt stroke



Is this a Brokeback Mountain thread....?

Seriously though... Y'really think a fixed stock AR would survive a real "butt stroke incident"...
I mean... It's friggin' plastic.
Way back when I was in the Cdn. Forces we used the FN.... 11pounds of steel and wood. If you ran out of 7.62 you could beat the enemy to death with your rifle....
Shortly before I left the move to the C7 was being made(1985?)... I remember being introduced to the new weapon..... Compared to the our old FAL bang stick it seemed rather flimsy.



<---- trying to imagine the Canadian army being close enough to beat someone to death with their rifle
Top Top