View Full Version : BCM vs Magpul SL stock?
BCM 7.5 oz
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-GUNFIGHTER-s-Stock-Mod-0-Black-p/bcm-gfs-mod-0-black.htm
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/04/bravo-companys-bcm-gunfighter-stock/
Magpul SL 9.6 oz
http://store.magpul.com/product/MAG347/MOE-SL
http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/magpul-moe-sl/
Until I can look at them side by side Id appreciate any info from those that have.
10mmSpringfield
11-12-14, 16:53
I have both. There's scant difference between the two, except that the Bravo seems to fit my Colt buffer tubes tighter. Weight isn't a big deal for me.
I've bought and sold different stocks and would go with
-B5 (And I prefer the Bravo to both the BCM and SL, and prefer the SOPMOD to the Bravo because I have a huge head and it has a huge cheek weld).
-BCM
-Magpul
In that order.
The BCM has an interesting cheek weld that I personally appreciate more. Preference is all that will make you feel otherwise. The BCM is clearly more thought out and a better deal.
Note: The BCM stock is a modular stock that will be adaptable with future products BCM plans to offer.
thanks for the input, I currently use an str but was thinking of trying the LWRC compact on my SBR until these came along
PatrioticDisorder
11-12-14, 18:14
I have neither yet but from what I've gathered, BCM for carbine buffer, Magpul SL for VLTOR A5 tube...
I have the Magpul SL and I really like it but the B5 is still my favorite, I don't have much time with the BCM but all of them have their good points. I'd probably go with the B5 everytime. Depends on your taste and needs I guess
BufordTJustice
11-12-14, 18:44
I have neither yet but from what I've gathered, BCM for carbine buffer, Magpul SL for VLTOR A5 tube...
I have the BCM and am running it on an A5 tube. It fits like it's made for it. It allows almost an inch less LOP over the B5 when collapsed all the way.
It has been tough to get answers about the bcm with a5...
Now about the lwrc, isn't it just like a mini B5? How does it fit on an A5?
I really want to get one of the BCM stocks to try. Been using STRs but I think the BCM stock might fit what I need a little better....
BufordTJustice
11-13-14, 12:04
I really want to get one of the BCM stocks to try. Been using STRs but I think the BCM stock might fit what I need a little better....
I left an STR for the BCM. I'm very happy so far.
I left an STR for the BCM. I'm very happy so far.
How does the cheekweld compare? I originally went with the STR because it was comfortable and easily consistent in that regard. If I can get close to it with the BCM without the added complexity of the STR storage I'm all in. I like to KISS with my rifles...
BufordTJustice
11-13-14, 13:48
How does the cheekweld compare? I originally went with the STR because it was comfortable and easily consistent in that regard. If I can get close to it with the BCM without the added complexity of the STR storage I'm all in. I like to KISS with my rifles...
First, I was honest with myself about how much cheekweld I wanted versus how much was needed to enable me to cheek the gun consistently. The BCM is still a good piece better than a stock with no cheekweld, it is lighter, and it locks up much tighter in the first two positions than the STR. The STR had just as much wobble on the RE as a std mil spec stock when fully collapsed. The BCM feels solid in every position. It's very LMT like with regard to RE fit (a good thing IMHO) without being so tight it can't be adjusted.
I will always prefer a larger cheekweld like the STR or SOPMOD, but the BCM is substantially lighter, has a better lock up in all positions, and its cheekweld is good enough. It's about on par with my wife's B5 bravo for cheekweld, which is also good enough.
I gain nothing in the cheekweld dept from any AR stocks. My head is too short... so I get a jaw weld... and am not picky on stock shapes for that.
A stock should cost $50 and be strong. That's it. ;) That's its job. Be strong and affordable.
The BCM has an interesting cheek weld that I personally appreciate more. Preference is all that will make you feel otherwise. The BCM is clearly more thought out and a better deal.
Note: The BCM stock is a modular stock that will be adaptable with future products BCM plans to offer.
That all depends on what is important to you. The MOE SL and BCM stock are built with different design priorities and the SL design is clearly thought out to meet the requirements we set out for it. In this post I will highlight the some of the SL differences and why we designed it as we did. I will also answer any questions on the SL design the best I can.
Length- The MOE SL is longer than both the B5 and BCM stocks. This is to allow it to fully collapse and lock on the longer A5 and AR10 receiver extensions.
Regular carbine stocks hit the rear of the longer tubes usually resulting in the stock being unable to lock in the last position. This position compresses the pin and floats the stock between positions in an unlocked state.
Release Lever- The MOE SL features a recessed release leaver that is shielded from the stock body from accidental release from a underside impact.
The B5 and BCM both release with conventional underside pressure.
Friction Lock- The MOE SL has two specially coated leaf springs that constantly take up any play between the receiver extension and the stock body.
Neither the B5 or BCM has a friction lock and both rely on conventional spring pressure to push the pin up and engage the buffer tube. In the case of the BCM stock the pin unit has stabilizing wings that will work better in this regards than the B5's conventional pin. For those who state that their conventional stock is nice a tight on their tube, remember The ALU of the tube and the polymer of the stock will expand and contract differently in various temperatures and humidity. The end result is a tube that fits right in wet and hot Louisiana will fit very differently in cold and dry Montana. The MOE SL Friction locks give consistent resistance in all climates.
Buttpads- The MOE SL and BCM stocks feature slanted rubber coated butt pads with an angled toe kick. The B5 is just angled and rubber coated.
Cheek Weld- The MOE SL has a cheek weld based upon the original Colt ACR prototype stock (the father of the SOMPOD). It is wider than a CTR but not as wide as the B5. The BCM is similar to the SL in width but the shape is different. This is the most subjective part of the stock so I will not attempt to claim one is better than another.
QD Sling Options- The MOE SL and B5 stocks have a machined QD sockets that are injection molded into the stock body and allow for all common QD sling set ups like offside vertical orientation. The B5 is rotation limited via the QD cup and the SL is rotation limited by the stock body.
The BCM stock uses two plates that are slid in to the rear of the stock body post injection molding to provide the QD hole and the body design will not allow for offside vertical orientation of the sling in the QD.
Material- The MOE SL uses our propriety resin used in the STR stock and other products. This material has a proven track record of consistent performance in wide range of temperatures and over time. The B5 stock appears to use conventional material similar (but not the same) as the proven SOPMOD stock. The BCM stock body uses a couple of different polymers that have been used in this application before but have less of a track record than the polymer used in the SOPMOD. (It could be better or worse, field testing in multiple environments will shake that out)
Weight- Material is the biggest effect on the weights of each of the stocks but they are within 2 oz of each other. MOE SL 9.6 oz, B5 8.25oz, BCM 7.5 oz
Price- The MOE SL and BCM stocks have an MSRP of $60 and the B5 is $62
Impact Strength- In our drop testing the MOE SL outperformed the STR which out preformed all others in the 2012 Military Times break test http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2012/02/01/buttstock-bashfest-gearscout-finds-out-just-how-far-tough-talk-goes/.
Now this test was unscientific and the biggest thing left out was drops in extreme environmental conditions such as sub zero and super hot temperatures. The MOE SL has been tested in these environments also. It should be noted that one of the stocks that tested well in the Military Times test literally exploded when we dropped at sub zero temps. In testing the MOE SL with it's geometry and hardened pin started to deform the buffer tube detents so the buffer tube is becoming the limiting factor of stock strength.
With the B5 being built around the SOPMOD geometry it should fair similar to the SOPMOD although the quality of the metal used in the pin quickly becomes a factor if the body material holds up.
From the video released by BCM, the stock appears to "self collapse" under extreme loading. While this is documented as a feature to protect the integrity of the stock it is a design philosophy we to not agree with. We might be wrong on this but it is not something we will be designing into our stocks.
Modularity- While this is a feature of BCM stock it comes at a price. I patented the one of the first modular AR15 Carbine stocks back in 1999 and what we came to discover is that the price of modularity will require a compromise of one or more of the following -Increase in Price, Reduction in Strength, and or Increase in Weight. At the $60 price range a user would be likely better buying a another single purpose stock with no compromises over a modular one. Again we have a different design philosophy but ours is based on our experience in designing both modular and non modular products.
Install and Removal- The MOE SL and the B5 both can be installed and removed without tools (I will say the B5 is a tad easier but not by much). The BCM stock requires a tool (firing pin, bullet tip, allen key) to be inserted to over drive the pin to allow the stock to be installed or removed from the buffer tube.
Just as a data point on weight. I have 3 samples of B5 Bravo stocks here and all of them weight north of 9oz and none of them weigh the same.
BufordTJustice
11-13-14, 16:27
That all depends on what is important to you. The MOE SL and BCM stock are built with different design priorities and the SL design is clearly thought out to meet the requirements we set out for it. In this post I will highlight the some of the SL differences and why we designed it as we did. I will also answer any questions on the SL design the best I can.
Length- The MOE SL is longer than both the B5 and BCM stocks. This is to allow it to fully collapse and lock on the longer A5 and AR10 receiver extensions.
Regular carbine stocks hit the rear of the longer tubes usually resulting in the stock being unable to lock in the last position. This position compresses the pin and floats the stock between positions in an unlocked state.
Release Lever- The MOE SL features a recessed release leaver that is shielded from the stock body from accidental release from a underside impact.
The B5 and BCM both release with conventional underside pressure.
Friction Lock- The MOE SL has two specially coated leaf springs that constantly take up any play between the receiver extension and the stock body.
Neither the B5 or BCM has a friction lock and both rely on conventional spring pressure to push the pin up and engage the buffer tube. In the case of the BCM stock the pin unit has stabilizing wings that will work better in this regards than the B5's conventional pin. For those who state that their conventional stock is nice a tight on their tube, remember The ALU of the tube and the polymer of the stock will expand and contract differently in various temperatures and humidity. The end result is a tube that fits right in wet and hot Louisiana will fit very differently in cold and dry Montana. The MOE SL Friction locks give consistent resistance in all climates.
Buttpads- The MOE SL and BCM stocks feature slanted rubber coated butt pads with an angled toe kick. The B5 is just angled and rubber coated.
Cheek Weld- The MOE SL has a cheek weld based upon the original Colt ACR prototype stock (the father of the SOMPOD). It is wider than a CTR but not as wide as the B5. The BCM is similar to the SL in width but the shape is different. This is the most subjective part of the stock so I will not attempt to claim one is better than another.
QD Sling Options- The MOE SL and B5 stocks have a machined QD sockets that are injection molded into the stock body and allow for all common QD sling set ups like offside vertical orientation. The B5 is rotation limited via the QD cup and the SL is rotation limited by the stock body.
The BCM stock uses two plates that are slid in to the rear of the stock body post injection molding to provide the QD hole and the body design will not allow for offside vertical orientation of the sling in the QD.
Material- The MOE SL uses our propriety resin used in the STR stock and other products. This material has a proven track record of consistent performance in wide range of temperatures and over time. The B5 stock appears to use conventional material similar (but not the same) as the proven SOPMOD stock. The BCM stock body uses a couple of different polymers that have been used in this application before but have less of a track record than the polymer used in the SOPMOD. (It could be better or worse, field testing in multiple environments will shake that out)
Weight- Material is the biggest effect on the weights of each of the stocks but they are within 2 oz of each other. MOE SL 9.6 oz, B5 8.25oz, BCM 7.5 oz
Price- The MOE SL and BCM stocks have an MSRP of $60 and the B5 is $62
Impact Strength- In our drop testing the MOE SL outperformed the STR which out preformed all others in the 2012 Military Times break test http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2012/02/01/buttstock-bashfest-gearscout-finds-out-just-how-far-tough-talk-goes/.
Now this test was unscientific and the biggest thing left out was drops in extreme environmental conditions such as sub zero and super hot temperatures. The MOE SL has been tested in these environments also. It should be noted that one of the stocks that tested well in the Military Times test literally exploded when we dropped at sub zero temps. In testing the MOE SL with it's geometry and hardened pin started to deform the buffer tube detents so the buffer tube is becoming the limiting factor of stock strength.
With the B5 being built around the SOPMOD geometry it should fair similar to the SOPMOD although the quality of the metal used in the pin quickly becomes a factor if the body material holds up.
From the video released by BCM, the stock appears to "self collapse" under extreme loading. While this is documented as a feature to protect the integrity of the stock it is a design philosophy we to not agree with. We might be wrong on this but it is not something we will be designing into our stocks.
Modularity- While this is a feature of BCM stock it comes at a price. I patented the one of the first modular AR15 Carbine stocks back in 1999 and what we came to discover is that the price of modularity will require a compromise of one or more of the following -Increase in Price, Reduction in Strength, and or Increase in Weight. At the $60 price range a user would be likely better buying a another single purpose stock with no compromises over a modular one. Again we have a different design philosophy but ours is based on our experience in designing both modular and non modular products.
Install and Removal- The MOE SL and the B5 both can be installed and removed without tools (I will say the B5 is a tad easier but not by much). The BCM stock requires a tool (firing pin, bullet tip, allen key) to be inserted to over drive the pin to allow the stock to be installed or removed from the buffer tube.
Rich, thanks for opining. Did you find that temperature or humidity played a bigger role in stock strength when temperatures were extreme?
vicious_cb
11-13-14, 19:35
YMMV, but I prefer a bit of extra weight on my stock to help balance out all the crap I add to front and the SL is perfect in this regard. I dont own a BCM stock to compare but the magpul SL locks up rock solid on an A5 tube and collapses down to almost the threads on a 7 pos. A5 buffer tube. Tried it on another A5 and regular carbine tube with the same result. However it does leave 2 streaks(shinier compared to matte finish) on the underside of the tube. I was told in another thread this was tested thoroughly and should not wear on the anodizing.
Voodoo_Man
11-13-14, 20:30
Just got the SL for my SBR, ill post pix and first impressions when I get a chance but it fits the pws tube well, no play and its finish is really good.
I swapped out an STR for the BCM, and went back to the STR. Just wasn't for me. Was worth a try though. Sold it and got most of my $ back.
The BCM was tight with no wobble at first but after using it a couple of times it started to loosen up. I took it appart to try and see if anything loosened up inside, but everything was fine. Went back to the STR. Always liked the cheek weld better anyways.
YMMV
Larry Vickers
11-13-14, 21:20
If you have not seen the video I did with the BCM crew on the new Gunfighter stock you should definitely check it out;
http://youtu.be/x3FPqoV8zJw
In the strength department it is strong as hell and when combined with its lightweight it puts it in a class by itself
Secretariat
11-13-14, 23:38
I have both. There's scant difference between the two, except that the Bravo seems to fit my Colt buffer tubes tighter. Weight isn't a big deal for me.
I've bought and sold different stocks and would go with
-B5 (And I prefer the Bravo to both the BCM and SL, and prefer the SOPMOD to the Bravo because I have a huge head and it has a huge cheek weld).
-BCM
-Magpul
In that order.
If I may ask , is the SOPMOD stock the one made by LMT ?
Thanks.
MountainRaven
11-14-14, 00:42
If I may ask , is the SOPMOD stock the one made by LMT ?
Thanks.
The SOPMOD is made by both LMT and B5. They are functionally identical, but the LMT is significantly more expensive.
ETA: And I just want to say that I do not find the BCM Gunfighter stock strength test video to be very useful: It lacks context. It's like Ford coming out with a new GT and boasting about how fast it goes around a track that's so obscure that even car nuts have no idea what a particularly fast (or slow) time is on that track. The video needs to show other stocks being tested. Even just a SOPMOD and a Colt mil-spec. Just as Ford would use a lap time of the Nürburgring, not the Ford test track.
Larry Vickers
11-14-14, 04:30
The SOPMOD is made by both LMT and B5. They are functionally identical, but the LMT is significantly more expensive.
ETA: And I just want to say that I do not find the BCM Gunfighter stock strength test video to be very useful: It lacks context. It's like Ford coming out with a new GT and boasting about how fast it goes around a track that's so obscure that even car nuts have no idea what a particularly fast (or slow) time is on that track. The video needs to show other stocks being tested. Even just a SOPMOD and a Colt mil-spec. Just as Ford would use a lap time of the Nürburgring, not the Ford test track.
That sounds great in theory until a competitors stock fails the same test ( which it did - dramatically so when we repeated the test immediately after with one of the most common stocks on the market ) - at that point we open a Hornets nest and become accused of all kinds of things as well as a potential lawsuit
Ain't gonna happen here - do a little research and you will find the fact the BCM stock survived that fall onto concrete and remained functional is far beyond the parameters of any drop test I have ever seen or heard of
The standard milspec drop test is a piece of cake compared to the test conducted on the video - the BCM stock is tough and lightweight ; a combo not seen until now in the marketplace
Eurodriver
11-14-14, 05:40
Does anyone else read LAVs posts in his voice??
I watch too much TacTV.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Does anyone else read LAVs posts in his voice??
Yes. You're supposed to. It's in the forum code of conduct.
Does anyone else read LAVs posts in his voice??
Yeah, with that Pittsburgh-ish accent.
I enjoy TacTv. Vickers YouTube channel is one of my favorites.
I cringed when the did the bcm stock test.
BufordTJustice
11-14-14, 19:56
I enjoy TacTv. Vickers YouTube channel is one of my favorites.
I cringed when the did the bcm stock test.
I love Larry Turns It Off. Gets me every time.
I end up laughing like a bum who's had too much malt liquor.
I like the variety of the you tube channel. Hanging with Ivan one episode, Larry torching off a javelin missile next, then mag dump on a blender.....what's not to like, right?
Rich, thanks for opining. Did you find that temperature or humidity played a bigger role in stock strength when temperatures were extreme?
As a policy we do not post anything but technical common knowledge in an open forum. So as detailed as I can get is the material type reacts differently to humidity as it relates to extreme temperatures.
On the subject of strength. In the late 1990's the M4 Carbine issued by Colt came with a ribbed plastic stock that was made with very low grade materials and could be broken relativity easily. In the early 2000s the Vltor, Magpul CTR and SOPMOD stocks were released using modern polymers, impact modifiers and modern processing techniques. These stocks represented a real leap forward in usable strength and set the bar for future designs based upon the standard carbine tube.
Since then over the last decade improvements continue to be made to the point that the CTR was in the middle of the pack of those drop tests in 2012 (see earlier post for link) and the STR was first. Now two year later, the MOE SL beats the STR, but in terms of how it affects the user it less important. We now have stocks so strong that we are elongating the holes in the buffer tube as we increase the load to ever more dramatic levels.
In the end, we cannot forget that a stock's primary purpose is to provide a critical point of contact for the shooter, not to be a hammer (although if you need a hammer there is always the UBR).
Few people today will ever break a modern stock in the normal course of use (even in combat and extreme conditions). That said, it is good to remember that the standard M4 ribbed stock, with all it's flaws has been on the shoulder of our servicemen in combat over the last decade and has successfully put down more bad guys that all the commercial stocks combined.
BufordTJustice
11-15-14, 17:24
As a policy we do not post anything but technical common knowledge in an open forum. So as detailed as I can get is the material type reacts differently to humidity as it relates to extreme temperatures.
On the subject of strength. In the late 1990's the M4 Carbine issued by Colt came with a ribbed plastic stock that was made with very low grade materials and could be broken relativity easily. In the early 2000s the Vltor, Magpul CTR and SOPMOD stocks were released using modern polymers, impact modifiers and modern processing techniques. These stocks represented a real leap forward in usable strength and set the bar for future designs based upon the standard carbine tube.
Since then over the last decade improvements continue to be made to the point that the CTR was in the middle of the pack of those drop tests in 2012 (see earlier post for link) and the STR was first. Now two year later, the MOE SL beats the STR, but in terms of how it affects the user it less important. We now have stocks so strong that we are elongating the holes in the buffer tube as we increase the load to ever more dramatic levels.
In the end, we cannot forget that a stock's primary purpose is to provide a critical point of contact for the shooter, not to be a hammer (although if you need a hammer there is always the UBR).
Few people today will ever break a modern stock in the normal course of use (even in combat and extreme conditions). That said, it is good to remember that the standard M4 ribbed stock, with all it's flaws has been on the shoulder of our servicemen in combat over the last decade and has successfully put down more bad guys that all the commercial stocks combined.
I understand your policy and find those results interesting. I've always characterized wood as being susceptible to changes in humidity in a radical way, not polymer.
It sounds like we're nearing a point of diminishing returns with regard to stock strength.
What's the next evolution? Weight reduction? Incorporation of recoil reduction features for bigger calibers? More radical overhauls to the concept of the RE interface itself? Modularity? All of the above?
I'm sure you won't be able to speak with any degree of specificity, but while I've got you on the phone I figured is give it a shot. ;)
Thanks again for taking the time.
The first time I saw the BCM stock I was interested in what it could do. The more I see the reviews on the stock, the more I want to purchase one. I have seen the Magpul SL stock reviews, I am more impressed with the BCM stock. It is light weight and tough stock.
I'm happy with my STR but have been following the SL and the BCM, I may eventually one or the other, but I want to see what other versions/mods BCM introduces first.
Hell, I have a BCM stock (black) if anyone wants to swap me and MOE SL stock. I'd be happy to do an even trade if you have the SL but want to try the BCM. I want to try the SL but have the BCM. For the cost of shipping, we could both be happy.
My opinion on the BCM was kindof "meh", and it made my 16" carbines a bit front-heavy feeling. Just my .02. If you have an SBR, though, it may really be the ticket.
I respect how tough the BCM stock is, how light it is, etc. but I agree with several others in this thread.
The main things that people are now using is aesthetics, balance, cheek-weld (ergonomics) specific to themselves, and price, to determine which stock to buy. They are almost all "tough enough".
That is where the BCM dropped the ball for me. Balance, mainly, followed by a very distant "ease of use" (need to wedge something in that hole to allow installation) and aesthetics. Both arguably unimportant, but once I disliked the balance, I began ruminating on those items as well.
For some, though, I think the BCM stock is going to rock. SBR owners, people who really like the looks, etc.
I recently put the new BCM stock on my new Colt carbine build. I actually like it. It's a very nice snug fit on the Vltor A5 tube, and sleek. Am I going to dump my other stocks for them? No probably not unless something breaks. I think the price point makes it competitive with similar stocks.
Im hoping to get my tax stamp any day and this sbr has an A5, earlier in the thread magpul (rep?) said they made it longer for an A5 so my thought was maybe SL for this and BCM on the next, carbine, sbr.
Does the BCM not completely close on your a5, and are there any potential issues with this?
thanks
RAM Engineer
11-18-14, 14:29
Can someone provide a the butt length, from heel to toe for the following stocks?
1. BCM
2. B5 Bravo
3. Standard M4
4. SOPMOD
Thanks,
Jason
I understand your policy and find those results interesting. I've always characterized wood as being susceptible to changes in humidity in a radical way, not polymer.
It sounds like we're nearing a point of diminishing returns with regard to stock strength.
What's the next evolution? Weight reduction? Incorporation of recoil reduction features for bigger calibers? More radical overhauls to the concept of the RE interface itself? Modularity? All of the above?
I'm sure you won't be able to speak with any degree of specificity, but while I've got you on the phone I figured is give it a shot. ;)
Thanks again for taking the time.
It is not that well known but some of the most utilized polymers such as Nylon derivatives are hygroscopic and can soak up water in their fibers. This is the reason that you can dye lighter colored plastic darker using common RIT dye (remember all those gray HK stocks that were dyed from primer gray to black back in the 90s?).
A quick look at some old Shotgun News ads show much has happened to the AR15 1960's design in just the last 20 years. As such I will not hazard a guess on where the AR15 design will go next as it continues to surprise me.
BufordTJustice
11-19-14, 11:01
It is not that well known but some of the most utilized polymers such as Nylon derivatives are hygroscopic and can soak up water in their fibers. This is the reason that you can dye lighter colored plastic darker using common RIT dye (remember all those gray HK stocks that were dyed from primer gray to black back in the 90s?).
A quick look at some old Shotgun News ads show much has happened to the AR15 1960's design in just the last 20 years. As such I will not hazard a guess on where the AR15 design will go next as it continues to surprise me.
I totally remember that! They came in what nearly amounted to battleship grey. Thank you for the knowledge dump.
BufordTJustice
11-19-14, 11:03
Can someone provide a the butt length, from heel to toe for the following stocks?
1. BCM
2. B5 Bravo
3. Standard M4
4. SOPMOD
Thanks,
Jason
Ask and ye shall receive.....well, 2 outta 3. Both on Vltor A5 extensions, collapsed to the first LOCKING position.
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/11/19/69ebe7b635edeee1db14a52370f403e5.jpg
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/11/19/95ef70adaa11616804c768328c185c21.jpg
BufordTJustice
11-19-14, 11:07
Edited for brightness and rotated:
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/11/19/692e5cb19cb864c24fba6f5f4695b218.jpg
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/11/19/46e1807898a9e31e074fb75c05554677.jpg
Ask and ye shall receive.....
Heel to Toe would be the length of the rubber buttplate. Not sure if that's what he meant, but that's what he is asking.
Here are some Pics of the Magpul SL stock in the first position on a VLTOR A5 RE .
http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss72/Biggy8/34b6bb80-142f-4148-a337-0f3706400668_zps5fdaf85b.jpg (http://s563.photobucket.com/user/Biggy8/media/34b6bb80-142f-4148-a337-0f3706400668_zps5fdaf85b.jpg.html)
http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss72/Biggy8/17f17f9c-5e56-4a07-9d10-15d9b6728377_zps5502c73a.jpg (http://s563.photobucket.com/user/Biggy8/media/17f17f9c-5e56-4a07-9d10-15d9b6728377_zps5502c73a.jpg.html)
RAM Engineer
11-19-14, 12:43
Heel to Toe would be the length of the rubber buttplate. Not sure if that's what he meant, but that's what he is asking.
Yes. What Markm said. However, thanks anyway, since I can probably scale off what you gave me and estimate the buttplate length.
RAM Engineer
11-19-14, 12:43
double tap
Can anyone turn me on to a supplier that that the SL in stock in FDE?
I'll be danged if I can find one.
Thanks.
Higher demand than expected has us a bit behind. Should have a bunch of these shipping imminently.
Thanks. I think I'll just pull the trigger on a backorder someplace. Good that you guys are selling as many as you can make.
Looks like some nice upgrades from my CTR stocks. I've been wanting a fatter stock for a better cheek weld for a while now and it looks like either of these will be GTG.
Tony.
After a few days of thinking it over I pulled the trigger on the Magpul SL. I've tried several different brands of stocks and Magpul has always felt the best to me. The BCM was uber tempting considering it would of been going on a BCM rifle.
The BCM has an interesting cheek weld that I personally appreciate more. Preference is all that will make you feel otherwise. The BCM is clearly more thought out and a better deal.
Note: The BCM stock is a modular stock that will be adaptable with future products BCM plans to offer.
I'm curious to see what modular accessories BCM comes up with
Not sure im my understanding is correct, but-
the 6 position A5 is made to match mil spec stocks, but the 7 position is not and is made for longer stocks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnrVJT4UU10
That all depends on what is important to you. The MOE SL and BCM stock are built with different design priorities and the SL design is clearly thought out to meet the requirements we set out for it. In this post I will highlight the some of the SL differences and why we designed it as we did. I will also answer any questions on the SL design the best I can.
Length- The MOE SL is longer than both the B5 and BCM stocks. This is to allow it to fully collapse and lock on the longer A5 and AR10 receiver extensions.
Regular carbine stocks hit the rear of the longer tubes usually resulting in the stock being unable to lock in the last position. This position compresses the pin and floats the stock between positions in an unlocked state.
.
Related, does it close differently on the 6 position vs 7 position?
Finally got hands on with both. Love my SL. BCM was sold. It felt shoddy and was annoying to install. The SL felt quality and was much better made/thought out.
Now..the above is an off the cuff tangible opinion. The BCM may well have the stronger and more robust lockup, I don't know, but for me, that is like saying the Ford 9" rear end under a pickup is stronger than the rear end under a BMW m3, so the pickup should handle better----completely irrelevant to the BMW customer.
Now, I respect the lockup and engineering and light weight of the BCM, I just didn't like it at all either in use or looks or how it rattled about or any other aspect of it.
Ymmv, try both!
vicious_cb
12-06-14, 03:41
One thing I would like to see on the SL stock is some texturing or stippling on the underside of the stock, at least on the toe area like the BCM has. Not a huge deal by any means but it would help with slippage when using a rear bag or rear rest.
http://cdn.magpul.com/images/uploads/263_1465_popup.jpg
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/03.jpg
Looks like the Magpul has a wider cheek rest
mebiuspower
12-06-14, 17:14
Went from LMT SOPMOD Gen2 to BCM... appreciate the weight loss and slimness.
30194
the Magpul stock is replacing all my CTR stocks, it locks up amazing Sleek and works very well with my armor
equilibrium
12-07-14, 16:02
I have the STR as well and love it. Helps me achieve a constant cheek weld which was always an issue of mine even in my military days.
Guess I misunderstood what fully collapse meant. The SL does lock on the a5 6 position in the closest position, but there is more space between it and the castle nut than with a standard bcm m4 stock
PatrioticDisorder
01-08-15, 18:34
Guess I misunderstood what fully collapse meant. The SL does lock on the a5 6 position in the closest position, but there is more space between it and the castle nut than with a standard bcm m4 stock
I believe the SL was mean't to fully collapse with the standard 7 position A5, no need for the 6 position tube... BCM recently (quietly) released an 8 position A5 tube, specifically for the Gunfighter stock, I'm sure the SL would work well with the 8 position stock also.
why am i picturing the hitchhiker in Something About Mary yelling, no not six, seven man!
I finally got a bcm when I reconfigured my 6.8mm coyote/hog rifle (merry Christmas to me) and IMHO it's awesome. Overall feel is superior to anything else I've tried. I like it well enough that all my strs will slowly be replaced.
With the SL if I manually pull the pins down it does snug up to the threads and lock there, but you can't pull it back out without again manually pulling both pins down
With the SL if I manually pull the pins down it does snug up to the threads and lock there, but you can't pull it back out without again manually pulling both pins down
Are you using a 6 position or 7 position A5? 6 position is for short stocks and longer stocks will go past the first position. 7 position allows for longer stocks to lock up at the first position.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.