Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/16/2003 10:04:19 AM EDT
Any one have an update on the Mystery manufacturer of the Crane Copy stock? Beside the Vtor or Magpull or even the AirSoft versions?

Just looking for options and info.

Thanks
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 1:56:26 PM EDT
My understanding is that they are made by Crane NSWC, not through a third party. Ed
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 2:11:58 PM EDT
Last I heard there were two companys that were going to produce the Crane stock under license, then one was supposed to but the price would still be $300+. I`ve been holding off buying a Vltor hoping someone will produce the Crane.
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 2:50:33 PM EDT
Don't know of a copy manufacturer, but ARMS has a license to produce it. Whether or not they will is another story. Hope so, though.
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 4:08:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SULACO2: Don't know of a copy manufacturer, but ARMS has a license to produce it. Whether or not they will is another story. Hope so, though.
View Quote
My understanding is that Dickie Swan of ARMS did not step up to the plate and there has been no word if he will in the near future. Where's 3rdtk? The other mystery company is Lewis Machine and Tool. From what I heard, they're not close to finishing the mold yet and the stock will be $300+. ls
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 8:37:48 PM EDT
Okay, someone explain this to me. Why does it cost $300+ to make and sell the Crane but Vltor can do it for $115? To me the Crane is a simpler design vs. the Vltor. Where does the extra $200 come from?
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 8:45:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 8:51:18 PM EDT
ARMS and LMT are the two with the contract to build the stock. ARMS is backing out of the deal since the mold would cost too much. LMT will have all the military order to deal with before you will see any for the civilian market. I did not like the Vltor's look, at least not until I shot a carbine this last weekend with the Vltor ACM stock on it. I was in love. I promptly order one for my gun this morning.
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 9:39:11 PM EDT
SMG, I agree man, I didnt like the look of the VLTOR either, but I got one to install on a gun I was building for someone. Once I tried it, I really liked it. I was going to hold out to put a Crane stock on my Knights gun, but I am getting closer and closer to making it a VLTOR.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 9:04:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 9:04:39 AM EDT by SMGLee]
Originally Posted By new-arguy: SMG, I agree man, I didnt like the look of the VLTOR either, but I got one to install on a gun I was building for someone. Once I tried it, I really liked it. I was going to hold out to put a Crane stock on my Knights gun, but I am getting closer and closer to making it a VLTOR.
View Quote
Maybe you should, then you can do a comparson test between your MSS and the Vltor. that would be pretty cool to read.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 9:24:40 AM EDT
I liked my Vltor from day one [nana]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 9:48:48 AM EDT
TREETOP Who Has VLTORs for $85.00???? IPCS_GUY sends
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 10:09:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 10:10:11 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
new-arguy and SMGLee, Which Vltor stock did you guys like best? I'll be picking one up soon and I can't seem to decide between the regular carbine or the clubfoot. I'm kind of leaning towards the clubfoot version since it looks like it may have more versatility. What do you guys think?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:58:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By IPSC_GUY: TREETOP Who Has VLTORs for $85.00???? IPCS_GUY sends
View Quote
Yeah! Really, who's gotta for $85?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:02:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 223Rem:
Originally Posted By IPSC_GUY: TREETOP Who Has VLTORs for $85.00???? IPCS_GUY sends
View Quote
Yeah! Really, who's gotta for $85?
View Quote
Thats the LE price. Id be glad to know where to pay THAT as retail for another one.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:43:41 PM EDT
I saw it on Shotgun news one day, I can't really remember the place which had it. YoJimbo, I like the ACM standard with butterfly latch.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 3:16:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 3:18:53 PM EDT by TREETOP]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 3:59:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 4:02:14 PM EDT by ASNixon]
I would like to get a VLTOR also, but doesn't it require a specific buffer tube? Which one can I use? Will the DPMS carbine buffer tube work? Can you name some brand names that will work with this stock?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:05:44 PM EDT
I like my VLTOR a lot. Do a search on Joeken before you buy, and make sure you compare apples to apples (shipping, is everything included, etc).
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:17:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 5:37:12 PM EDT
The price diff between the VLTOR and Crane is not *unreasonably* huge... in fact, there is no price difference, since no one can *buy* the Crane! (that I know of). From the looks of it, if someone were to produce the Crane, it would be in the neighborhood of Magpul's MSS M93 (~$300). If people have been willing to pay the Magpul's price, then the Crane should be able to compete on its technical merits (if it has any, that is!), if someone were to produce it commercially. In my mind, it comes down to this: unless (or until) the AW ban goes away, the potential market for any of these products (Crane, VLTOR, Magpul) is limited to LEO/Mil contracts, and the limited # of civies who own pre-ban ARs. With the ban gone, current post-ban owners will join the market, along with new rifle buyers, which will encourage new product development, increase sales volume and decrease cost for everyone involved. Basic economics.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 6:24:07 PM EDT
Despite my urging him to get the clubfoot, he got the standard carbine stock. I cant imagine how the clubfoot would feel any differently on the cheek than the carbine. ASNixon, no, the VLTOR will not fit on a DPMS. You need a Colt tube and only a Colt tube. If you need a VLTOR and dont have a Colt tube, get in touch with Wes at MSTN. He sells the stocks with or without the Colt tube. However you need it. I havent used the VLTOR nearly as much as the Magpul, but I can say this much so far. The VLTOR feels more comfortable to me, but the Magpul is WAY more solid and WAY more modular. Despite liking the way the VLTOR feels a little better than the Magpul, the Magpul, without question, remains my favorite. I love the 110% solid feel of the Magpul, I love the preset position stops on the Magpul, I love the fact that I'll be bale to use many stocks on one tube with the Magpul and last, I like the looks of the Magpul a lot more.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:50:50 PM EDT
Got the chance to play around with the Vltor. I have my concern over the "Swiss cheesed" lower portion. It is also not as long as the ribbed colt stock. If I have the choice, I will still go for the Crane. The Magpul is a bit overly complicated for my taste. THe standard extension tube system is still easier to maintain and replace.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:00:17 PM EDT
And whats your concern over the "swiss cheese" portion of the stock? If you're going to imply fragility, Im going to disagree whole heartedly. Its a non-stressed point on the stock.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:32:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 9:34:08 PM EDT by militarymoron]
hey lumpy, i'll also have to respectfully disagree with ya on that one :-) the 'swiss cheesed' rib portion is definitely a stressed and important portion of the stock. 1. it is the only supporting structure for the buttplate below the buffer tube. without it, the buttplate would bend forward when pressure is put on it (like when shouldering the stock). 2. the rib also takes part of the shear and bending load on the latch pin, which is the only thing keeping the stock from collapsing when the weapon is fired or dropped on the butt(a LOT of g's there). 3. if the rear QD sling mount is used, there is additional stress on the rib/web as the part of the weight of the weapon is supported from this attach point (it's a side load in tension on the web/rib). cheers! MM
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:45:53 PM EDT
The only part of the Vltor I would be concerned with giving way would be the edge of the butt-plate. It would be possible for it to bend in on a very hard hit. This most likely why Colt beefed up that area on the M4 Type II stocks, just because military weapons see a lot harder use than police or civilian weapons. Rifle butts tend to get used for a lot of tool purposes in military applications. The Vltor has horizontal stability lines along with either the cheek pieces or storage tubes attached to it. Any lateral movement of the latch area would be resisted by the bolted sections of the accessory segments at the bottom as well as the tongue and groove portion that locks into the top of the stock. The bolt holes being filled in would add zero to stability when it came to lateral bending along the bottom of the buffer tube. Moral of the story. Dont buttstroke with any CAR stock. Muzzle strikes are more effective on an M4/AR Carbine.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 4:51:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196: And whats your concern over the "swiss cheese" portion of the stock? If you're going to imply fragility, Im going to disagree whole heartedly. Its a non-stressed point on the stock.
View Quote
I have no hard data from actual experiments to back up my concern. The only way to find out is to drop the carbine from 1.5m onto concrete floor with the butt landing first for X many times. Personally, I would have more comfort with the Colt stock until experimental data proved the otherwise at this point.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 6:10:23 AM EDT
I saw this in the local paper two days ago, as I live just 5 minutes from NSWC-Crane and 20 minutes from the inventor's hometown. [:D] [b]"United States Patent 6,543,172 was issued to the United States Navy, citing Dave Armstrong of Bloomington, IN as the inventor. Armstrong is an employee of NSWC-Crane. His invention, the Crane "Buttstock assembly with removable and sealable storage tubes," improves M4 Carbine ergonomics by providing a good-sloped cheekweld area for improved eye-to-sight system alignment, as well as additional length and a snap-on rubberized buttpad. The design has multi-position length adjustment allowing for use of body armor and gas masks as well as storage in vehicles. It also provides for waterproof storage of batteries and other small items along with versatile sling attachment points. This device has been deployed to special forces personnel. Additionally, the design is being commercialized through license agreements under the Navy Technology Transfer program."[/b] Nothing that you guys didn't already know though. [;)]
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 9:00:46 AM EDT
I called ARMS and they said that they aren't going to produce the CRANE stock because... Their licensing agreement with CRANE involves a massive royalty fee that would make the stock a $300 item. No the stock doesn't cost more to make just more to comply with the aggreements and royalties as the VLTOR is a no royalty item.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 4:22:21 PM EDT
I have the standard carbine VLTOR and LOVE IT! I installed both battery compartments, all the way forward, and the cheekweld is PERFECT!!!
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 4:34:52 PM EDT
hey lumpy, i reread my post and i should have clarified that the only part i disagreed with was your statement that it is a 'non-stressed' point on the stock, NOT that it is a concern. i just wanted to point out that the ribbed portion DOES see loads. FWIW, i don't think that the swiss cheese takes away from the structural integrity of the stock, either. cheers, MM
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 4:37:04 PM EDT
Gotcha. It's all good.
Link Posted: 6/22/2003 2:43:03 PM EDT
Anyone knows what Vltor has been working on? Last thing I heard he was developing more modular accessories for the stock.
Link Posted: 6/22/2003 3:47:36 PM EDT
Anyone have a pic they can post of the Crane stock? TIA -TriggerFish
Link Posted: 6/22/2003 5:08:07 PM EDT
I can't imagine a huge royalty payment that would make the stocks 300.00 bucks. It would be contrary to why the gov't wants the stock to be made by private companies. I'm sure ARMS and the Lewis Machine & Tool company didn't enter such an agreement that took away the ability to sell a lot of them, by being to high priced. It will be intertesting if Crane now file for patent infringment on the other battery type stock makers, they could have a problem since they don't have a patent that has shown up yet, and the gov't just got theirs. Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:17:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:51:47 PM EDT
Rich, No flame, but your stock is covered better here than on the Magpul site. I only mention this because I've visited the ite and didn't realize any of the things you pointed out here. I can appreciate and understand the design, a lot, more now, seriously. My .02c, worth less than that to everyone but me. SUL2
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 5:24:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 7:00:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 7:02:46 PM EDT by TriggerFish]
Richard, Thanks for the pix. That is an awesome piece of gear. As an industrial designer (Art Center College of Design - 1971) I appreciate the engineering & design that went into your product. -TriggerFish
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 8:55:18 AM EDT
United States Patent 6,543,172 was issued to the United States Navy, citing Dave Armstrong of Bloomington, IN as the inventor. The 6,543,172 patent can be reviewed here: http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6543172.WKU.&OS=PN/6543172&RS=PN/6543172 It is a somewhat narrow patent. The claims define the scope of the patent. Independent claim 1, the broadest claim, reads as follows: 1. A buttstock assembly for attachment to a rifle, comprising: a buttstock having i) a butt plate, ii) an elongated body extending perpendicularly away from said butt plate, said elongated body defining a central cavity for receiving therein a portion of said rifle and further defining an elongated cavity on either side of and parallel to said central cavity, and iii) a structural web coupled to said butt plate and said elongated body; a tube open on one end thereof and forming a sliding fit with each said elongated cavity; and a cap for sealing said one end of each said tube. Please note that claim 1 and all the independent claims require: a buttstock having ….an elongated cavity on either side of and parallel to said central cavity; and a tube open on one end thereof and forming a sliding fit with each said elongated cavity. Thus, as the MAGPULL and VLTOR do not include these features, the MAGPULL and VLTOR stocks do not infringe United States Patent 6,543,172 for at least these reasons. Please note that this was an extremely brief review of United States Patent 6,543,172. Best Regards, David L. Wisz Intellectual Property Attorney CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 W. Maple Road, Suite 350 Birmingham MI 48009 dwisz@carlsongaskeyolds.com
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:05:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 10:08:19 AM EDT by LordStoner]
WOW, a professional opinion. My Vltor stocks are marked "patent pending", is there a way to look at Vltor's patent? ls
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 1:50:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 4:07:52 PM EDT by Magpul]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 5:51:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Magpul: .... In hindsight, probably not the wisest of moves, as now I couldn't even get an interview for a job as an industrial designer due to my incomplete UK education. ....
View Quote
My bet is that after the MSS, they'd be beating down your door. Just wait until the first pics hit the web of milspec guys using the MSS. Instant legitimacy, just like we're seeing in the Vltor. From what I see on this board, you're an honest guy with a great product. It's nice to see that those qualities, along with the drive to make it happen, can still be a recipe for success. [beer]
Top Top