We all have our opinions as to what type of collapsible stock we prefer.  But, my question is which one is really being used in the field and is preferred by the guys who really use them?

All of them....
And each guy who has it, preferr's it to all the other's

Well, the Colt M4 carbines leave the factory with the enhanced Colt telestocks, but many are switched out by the highspeed guys. I was thinking that most of the top-of-the-line stocks are being utilized by various members of our armed forces---Colt, LMT Crane (and original Crane), Vltor, and Magpul.

Our issue M4's have the new SOCOM stocks on them but they are 4 position and not 6... we had the old stocks on them but changed them after our first rotation in Iraq.

I've seen some pics with 'contractors' using vltors, but I'm sure they are all in use over there.

I really do not understand all the fuss over these collapsible stocks, i.e., CAR/XM177 type stocks. The only advantage I can see for them is when space limitations come into play. They may look cool, but really are inefficient compared to the regular buttstock with trapdoor and storage compartment. At least you can carry a cleaning kit and possibly a few spare parts in the regular buttstock - a very important feature to me. Plus if you ever had to use your collapsible stock as a club to someone's head I just do not think it would work too well. I think the regular buttstock would prove itself more efficient. Even the older aluminum collapsible stocks had  drawbacks especially in cold weather. Pull one up to your cheek on a cold morning and then try to peel it off!

Kevin

Quoted: I really do not understand all the fuss over these collapsible stocks, i.e., CAR/XM177 type stocks. The only advantage I can see for them is when space limitations come into play. They may look cool, but really are inefficient compared to the regular buttstock with trapdoor and storage compartment. At least you can carry a cleaning kit and possibly a few spare parts in the regular buttstock - a very important feature to me. Plus if you ever had to use your collapsible stock as a club to someone's head I just do not think it would work too well. I think the regular buttstock would prove itself more efficient. Even the older aluminum collapsible stocks had  drawbacks especially in cold weather. Pull one up to your cheek on a cold morning and then try to peel it off! Kevin

Kevin,

The collapsible stocks offer the ability to shorten the length of pull to get a proper combat mount.  The A2 stock is too long for almost everyone.  This is why you see people using them over the shoulder.  The length issue is also compounded by LB vests, body armor and other gear.  The ability to adjust the stock is a big advantage for shooter ergonomics.  A good weapon mount will allow you to aquire your target faster and give you better weapon control during rapid fire all these are good for you and bad for the enemy.

As far as butt stroking I think the AR/M16 series in general would be better served by using muzzle strikes.  It uses the same mechanics of a bayonet thrust, takes less space to execute, keeps the muzzle oriented towards the bad guy and reduces the chance of damaging the buffer tube, which would put your rifle/carbine out of comission.

A full power muzzle strike, delivered with your weight behind it, to the sternum or head/neck area will put anyone down.  Believe me they won't want another one if they're even alive or consious after the first one...

As far as the difference from a standard CAR/Ribbed stock, I've looked at the Vltor. It's a really nice cheekeld compared to the regular collapsible stocks.  The cost is the only thing holding me back from buying one.

I posted a while ago a picture thread about the Navy SEALs practicing at my local range. They all had Crane stocks.

Yojimbo,

You make some good points, but for me personally, always preferred the A2 buttstock. Length of pull worked well with my if-ever-the-balloon-goes-up gear. Always spent considerable time in the boonies trying things out for myself under different circumstances until I was satisfied with what worked well and what did not. To each their own, just always use logic and the KISS principle (same thing I suppose).

Kevin

Well, we've veered off-topic, but it's interesting that the Canadians manufacture buttstocks with different pull lengths.  We have the A2, and while it works for some, others prefer the shorter A1.  Required LOP varies partly as a function of shooting stance.  The more you square toward the target the shorter LOP required.  Squaring toward the target helps make the gun more controllable in FA.

Maybe the biggest advantage of collapsibles is their LOP adjustability.  I haven't been too excited about them, but I haven't tried any of the newer versions that give a better cheek weld.  Also, higher ROF doesn't appeal to me, but I'm waiting for a chance to try the MGI buffer.

Sam