AR stocks on AK's...sacrilege or useful modification?

[lloydkristmas]

A buddy of mine gave me an AK buffer tube style stock adapter, VLTOR manufacture, free of charge. Research shows that this is a 60-75 dollar part, and got me thinking about the real world practicality of the "AR stock on an AK" thing. I dont own an AR stock to put on the buffer tube adapter yet, but I might just pick one up if this is a viable stock option.

Lots of guys knock it, but I also see plenty of pictures of serious-use AK's with this sort of setup.

My AK is a standard fixed stock trunnion, so I cant affordably get into a 100-series folder (ideal setup, in my opinion) but I have considered an ACE, Romanian folder, standard solid stock.

Anyone with personal experience on an AK/AR stock setup? I dont care if it looks silly, if it offers advantages, I'll consider it. On the other hand, if its more of a novelty configuration, I wont screw with it.

Thanks

ETA- Im not referring to TAPCO or cheap shit offerings

[oef24]

The Vltor stock adapter for the AK is rock solid and a great upgrade over the Warsaw stock on the AK. I would recommend going with a Magpul CTR stock because you could get factory cheek risers if you plan on going with some optics and want to get a good cheek weld. Some people are running a Texas Weapon Systems top rail to mount magnified optics on their AK's. When you do that, no AK stock is going to give you a proper cheek weld. If you are not going with a magnified optic, then any AR stock will do. I would definitely not discount the Vltor AK stock tube.

O

[darr3239]

I personally think any thing other than one of the standard AK stocks looks goofy as hell. But, function out performs looks every time.

[Alaskapopo]

A buddy of mine gave me an AK buffer tube style stock adapter, VLTOR manufacture, free of charge. Research shows that this is a 60-75 dollar part, and got me thinking about the real world practicality of the "AR stock on an AK" thing. I dont own an AR stock to put on the buffer tube adapter yet, but I might just pick one up if this is a viable stock option.

Lots of guys knock it, but I also see plenty of pictures of serious-use AK's with this sort of setup.

My AK is a standard fixed stock trunnion, so I cant affordably get into a 100-series folder (ideal setup, in my opinion) but I have considered an ACE, Romanian folder, standard solid stock.

Anyone with personal experience on an AK/AR stock setup? I dont care if it looks silly, if it offers advantages, I'll consider it. On the other hand, if its more of a novelty configuration, I wont screw with it.

Thanks

ETA- Im not referring to TAPCO or cheap shit offerings

I like mine on both of my AK variants.

[Moose-Knuckle]

I cannot stand the looks of AR furniture on anything other than an AR this includes AK, SCARS, shotguns, etc.

The telescoping stock of an AR is kind of an accidental benefit. Back in the 50's nobody was sporing plate carriers and all the other battle rattle that is worn today. Eugene Stoner had no idea what all his little black rifle had in store for it. The telescoping stock was needed on CARs in Nam to reduce overall size for SOF. That damn tube was always in the way! Fast forward to today and that stock is a huge benefit yes even on AKs for nothing other than reduced LOP while wearing armor.

"The mission drives the gear train".

[Alaskapopo]

AR stocks are more comfortable and allow for more adjustment and are far better than purpose built AK stocks.
Pat

[BaronFitz]

Yes they have their place. I have an Vltor adaptor on my SLR-105 with a CTR. It was installed by the previous owner who had apparently never heard of loctite for the mounting screws. The LOP on the 100 series folder on my SLR106 is a little long without armor and definitely too long with armor.

I get a much more satisfying cheek weld and LOP with the bastardized AR stock in pretty much any clothing or kit load out. However I can't fold the stock and fit it inside a hotel room drawer either.

[KalashniKEV]

Unless you cut the tang, the length of an M4 type buttstock + tang/mounting block is almost exactly the same as the standard stock.

Most of the mounting blocks don't offer any drop... which has it's advantages and disadvantages. For me, it makes harder to use the original sight plane. A very slight drop to mirror the original profile would be beneficial, IMO.

I don't like sky high optics, and would strive to achieve co-witness with the original sights on any optics set up I might put together. Any recoil management advantage the straight stock has is lost on me- I honestly do not feel the difference.

The adjustability advantage to go beyond the standard LOP might be an advantage to some, but I don't need an extra 6" in a T-shirt. The LOP pictured on Alaskapopo's SL-21 would be undesirable for me- both my body type and my purposes.

In short, I believe unless you have really long arms or a setup to slide that stock right up to the rear trunnion, this is a purely cosmetic modification.

[Canonshooter]

AR stocks are more comfortable and allow for more adjustment and are far better than purpose built AK stocks.
Pat

This has been my experience as well.

I’m not an AK Tradionalist but I’m certainly not a member of the AK TactiCool group either. When I purchased my Saiga conversion from Krebs, my goal was for a quality, reliable rifle with a few modern improvements where needed.

Disclaimer – I am not LE, a veteran, an “operator” or anything else. I’m just a recreational shooter and unless the Zombie Apocalypse actually happens, the most serious use my rifle gets are the carbine matches with the local IDPA club. That said, I made the decision to drop some coin on the Krebs rifle so I know I’d have something I could depend on regardless of the circumstances. I have never regretted doing so.

I had no problem whatsoever with the aesthetics of the stock that came on the rifle. But, no matter how much I tried to get used to it, I never could. Since I’m only 5’7” (and have small hands), I prefer a shorter stock. Also, the shape of the original stock did not work for me either. I found the size and configuration of the small butt uncomfortable, and the metal butt plate didn’t help. Though it definitely wasn’t painful to shoot, it certainly diminished my enjoyment of shooting the rifle.

I wasn’t chomping at the bit to take a hacksaw and file to the receiver tang of a Krebs rifle, but after a lot of research, I made the decision to proceed with an ACE stock conversion. I used their internal block to get the length of pull down to where I like it and their FSM-AR folding mechanism. A Magpul CTR stock and mil-spec tube were used to complete the conversion.

Captions below photos;



Photo 1 – a close-up of the finished conversion. The buffer tube was cut so that when the CTR is fully collapsed, there is very little gap between stock and folding mechanism. Not only did this keep the length to absolute minimum with the stock collapsed, but IMO created a clean look too. Due to my short stature and little girly mitts, I do the vast majority of shooting with the stock in this position.





Photo 2 – Top view. The top of the CTR is wider and more rounded, providing a comfortable cheek weld.





Photo 3 – Stock folded, which works out fine with no optic attached to the rail.





Photo 4 – Close-up, right side.





Photo 5 – Left Side. When I cut the buffer tube, I finished it with a file, taking a little off at a time. My goal was to get the threads to bottom out with the tube properly indexed. Once I got it to that point, the tube was secured to the folding mechanism with Locktite and a roll pin.





Photo 6 – Close-up, top.

The next series of photos show the difference between the original and ACE/Magpul conversion. I zip-tied the original stock to the CTR and tried to position it as close as possible to where it would actually sit installed.



Photo 7. This photo illustrates a few reasons for my decision to do the conversion; (1) I attained a shorter pull, even with the Magpul recoil pad installed; (2) the height of the CTR stock is better suited for the optics I use; (3) I found the way the original stock protrudes on the bottom of the butt end was very uncomfortable. In comparison, the CTR tapers forward at the bottom, which I find far more comfortable.





Photo 8. Seen from the other side. The way the butt on the CTR stock angles forward on the bottom, in combination with its much larger contact area with the shoulder and recoil pad made a HUGE difference to me. The rifle is now truly a pleasure to shoot!





Photo 9. The difference in butt size between the two stocks.





Photo 10. There is considerable adjustment for height where the folding mechanism bolts up to the internal block.

In the final analysis, I am extremely happy with this conversion. It folds, it collapses, is FAR more comfortable to shoot and IMO looks like it belongs on the rifle. The only downside is that the combination of internal block, folding mechanism, buffer tube and CTR weigh 21 ounces vs. 12 ounces for the original stock. But for all benefits gained, I can live with the extra 9 ounces.

Installing the internal block is not difficult, but is time-consuming to fit it perfectly. Along with some filing on the block extensions, I ended up using brass shim stock (bonded to the ACE block with epoxy) to make the block fit snugly in the receiver and prevent it from shifting when tightening the screws that hold it in place.

Below are a few photos of how the rifle is set up and used 99% of the time with an Aimpoint CompC3 in a MI AK 30mm rail mount (bottom 1/3 co-witness). I hope some will find this long-winded, photo-laden response useful.

[helothar]

I hope this is not getting too off topic here, but has anyone put a beryl stock on their AK? It seems you could get a beryl folding stock setup together for just under $200 without having to spend any costs on AK smithing.