|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Last edited by MountainRaven; 11-14-14 at 02:01.
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
Does anyone else read LAVs posts in his voice??
I watch too much TacTV.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Why do the loudest do the least?
I enjoy TacTv. Vickers YouTube channel is one of my favorites.
I cringed when the did the bcm stock test.
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?
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.
Bookmarks