User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 1:56:26 PM EDT
[#1]
My understanding is that they are made by Crane NSWC, not through a third party.
Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 2:11:58 PM EDT
[#2]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 2:50:33 PM EDT
[#3]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 4:08:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: 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. 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 8:37:48 PM EDT
[#5]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 8:45:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: 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? The extra $200 comes from customer demand. The VLTOR stock is available to the public through one source for $85 right now, it's looking better and better... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 8:51:18 PM EDT
[#7]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 9:39:11 PM EDT
[#8]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 9:04:12 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: 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. Maybe you should, then you can do a comparson test between your MSS and the Vltor. that would be pretty cool to read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 9:24:40 AM EDT
[#10]
I liked my Vltor from day one [nana]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 9:48:48 AM EDT
[#11]
TREETOP
Who Has VLTORs for $85.00???? IPCS_GUY sends |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 10:09:37 AM EDT
[#12]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 11:58:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: TREETOP Who Has VLTORs for $85.00???? IPCS_GUY sends Yeah! Really, who's gotta for $85? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 2:02:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: TREETOP Who Has VLTORs for $85.00???? IPCS_GUY sends Yeah! Really, who's gotta for $85? Thats the LE price. Id be glad to know where to pay THAT as retail for another one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 2:43:41 PM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 3:16:18 PM EDT
[#16]
JoeKen has them in Shotgun News for $85, they've got them on their site for $99:
[url]http://www.joeken.net/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=97&cat=Vltor+AR15+Stocks[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 3:59:35 PM EDT
[#17]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 4:05:44 PM EDT
[#18]
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).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 4:17:02 PM EDT
[#19]
I'd prefer to give my hard earned $$ to Wes at MSTN than to any of their "competitors", I was just stating that the price difference between the VLTOR and the Crane is unreasonably huge.
MSTN has them for $119 and they also have the appropriate tubes for them: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=22&t=158594[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 5:37:12 PM EDT
[#20]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 6:24:07 PM EDT
[#21]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 8:50:50 PM EDT
[#22]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:00:17 PM EDT
[#23]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:32:35 PM EDT
[#24]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 10:45:53 PM EDT
[#25]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2003 4:51:55 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2003 6:10:23 AM EDT
[#27]
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. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2003 9:00:46 AM EDT
[#28]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2003 4:22:21 PM EDT
[#29]
I have the standard carbine VLTOR and LOVE IT! I installed both battery compartments, all the way forward, and the cheekweld is PERFECT!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2003 4:34:52 PM EDT
[#30]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2003 4:37:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Gotcha.
It's all good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2003 2:43:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Anyone knows what Vltor has been working on? Last thing I heard he was developing more modular accessories for the stock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2003 3:47:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Anyone have a pic they can post of the Crane stock? TIA
-TriggerFish |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2003 5:08:07 PM EDT
[#34]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2003 4:17:06 PM EDT
[#35]
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 The VLTOR feels more comfortable to me, but the Magpul is WAY more solid and WAY more modular. NewARGuy you might want to try swapping stocks and use the MSS on the Knight's system. The MSS gives correct cheek weld for standard sights but the SIR system raises optics up too high. This is where the side parts of the Crane Stock help a little more as it is more like chin weld and you can adjust better. United States Patent 6,543,172 was issued to the United States Navy, citing Dave Armstrong of Bloomington, IN as the inventor Must not be a very good patent if Vltor can produce basically an improved version of the same thing. I asked my patent lawyer to look this up and see what claims were granted. Anyone have a pic they can post of the Crane stock? TIA Here are some pics I assembled for another post [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-2.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-3.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-4.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-5.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-6.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-7.jpg[/img] 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!) [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-1.jpg[/img] A couple of things to point out here as it relates to price- 1. The M93 is not "mass produced" and still has six (6) CNC machined parts in every stock (7 if you count the sling loop). 2. It is not just a stock body upgrade but a complete redesign of the back end of the reciever. Everything to mount it including the tube is included. The quoted $300 in the case of the Crane Stock was just for the body unit. The Magpul is a bit overly complicated for my taste. THe standard extension tube system is still easier to maintain and replace. I won't disagree with you on that but the existing buffer tube unit has been known to fail (bend) or come loose if not staked down in several places on the castle nut. The MSS M9 tube uses the claw locks to counter rotate and index the tube in place. It's design allows the swiching of reciever sling mounts without removing the buffer tube. [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-9.jpg[/img] It also is cold and hot weather compatible in any position as your face never touches bare metal In additon to that it allows the force of recoil to be transfered more effectively through the stock. [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-a.gif[/img] The M9 Buffer unit is also designed with a removable backplate which will allow the installation of a user adjustable buffer unit and/or round counter. Remember I have said from the begining the whole MSS concept was designed to push the current bounderies of M16 Stock design, not to fit in with the current standards. [img]http://www.magpul.com/mss/m93c-8.jpg[/img] Thanks bunches to AR15.com member JC who let me borrow his Crane stock for the photos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2003 4:51:47 PM EDT
[#36]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2003 5:24:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: 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 No SULACO2, please flame away -your are 100% correct in that statement. I love to design but hate the selling/marketing part of the business (especially this business). As time permits I shall fix the information void. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2003 7:00:39 PM EDT
[#38]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2003 8:55:18 AM EDT
[#39]
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 [email protected] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2003 10:05:10 AM EDT
[#40]
WOW, a professional opinion.
My Vltor stocks are marked "patent pending", is there a way to look at Vltor's patent? ls |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2003 1:50:15 PM EDT
[#41]
As an industrial designer (Art Center College of Design - 1971) I appreciate the engineering & design that went into your product. Thanks triggerfish - I was set to go to Central School of Art in London where I would have had the choice between a BA in Graphic Art or Industrial Design. I was actually leaning towards Graphic Design but in the end I needed to get out of England and enlisted in the Marine Corps instead. 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. It is a somewhat narrow patent. The claims define the scope of the patent. Independent claim 1, the broadest claim, reads as follows: Being a cheap bastard at heart I looked into doing my own patents. After studying several books for a week I came to the following conclusions- 1. A Patent is next to worthless if it is not written broad enough. 2. The reason these guys go to school for 4 years and pass the Bar is to write good, broad patents. I have since used a Patent Lawyer even though it is like having a kid in collage- "They only call when they need money" My Vltor stocks are marked "patent pending", is there a way to look at Vltor's patent? Not that I know. When something is marked "patent pending" you don't even know if it is a design or utility patent or even if they have filed for a patent at all in some cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2003 5:51:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: .... 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. .... 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] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
