PDA

View Full Version : Rate This New ButtStock Design


HPArmory
05-22-2011, 7:02 AM
Hey gents,

I'm looking for some feedback on my new buttstock design. The functionality of the below units is the same. What I'm interedted in is the preference of appearance. Please vote for "A", "B", or "C". cheers.

http://hparmory.com/misc/buttstocka.jpg
http://hparmory.com/misc/buttstockb.jpg
http://hparmory.com/misc/buttstockc.jpg

mceod
05-22-2011, 7:07 AM
I'll vote B

Sanderhawk
05-22-2011, 7:08 AM
I like "A" the best but they all look good

thunderbolt
05-22-2011, 7:08 AM
If I had to choose, I'd say A.

Interesting design. Would you like further feedback or just the design vote?

caldude
05-22-2011, 7:09 AM
B - Looks less busy.

HPArmory
05-22-2011, 7:11 AM
Thanks guys,

Thunderbolt, feel free on giving any feedback. thx

kozumasbullitt
05-22-2011, 7:12 AM
Vote-B

Nate87
05-22-2011, 7:13 AM
A. It'd be easier to use that sloped bottom to adjust elevation with a sand sock in the prone if needed. Or you can add provisions for a monopod but I prefer sand sock.

furfam4
05-22-2011, 7:16 AM
I like the look of all of them but if I had to choose 1 I'd say C.

capitol
05-22-2011, 7:32 AM
I thought it was gonna be another lame stock design, but those look sweet and functional.
I like "A" the best.

stevie
05-22-2011, 7:34 AM
Feedback

1. No sling attachment
2. Is the check riser portion fixed, fore and aft? Do not see adjustment lever.
3. Whats the chance of face operating the buttstock adjustment lever?
4. Do not like using allen/torx wrench to adjust check riser. Looks like 4 screws are involved in adjustment.

I like B othewise

thmpr
05-22-2011, 7:44 AM
A...............

WishinIwerFishin
05-22-2011, 7:46 AM
A!!

Fjold
05-22-2011, 7:48 AM
B,

Also I would like to see the recoil pad adjust up and down for positional shooting.

Wicked K5
05-22-2011, 7:49 AM
I like the looks of A over the others

HPArmory
05-22-2011, 8:03 AM
B,

Also I would like to see the recoil pad adjust up and down for positional shooting.

Thanks. FYI....the recoil pad does adjust up and down. cheers.

mlevans66
05-22-2011, 8:13 AM
A. needs a sling point.

Rock6.3
05-22-2011, 8:18 AM
Please add a provision for attaching a sling to the bottom rear of your design.

HPArmory
05-22-2011, 8:32 AM
what type of sling attachment? I can incorporate a slot pretty easy.

Rock6.3
05-22-2011, 8:43 AM
what type of sling attachment? I can incorporate a slot pretty easy.

A 1.25" sling swivel like they use in the Appleseed Program (Magpul mostly fails in this regard). They can be mounted on a rail, in a quick detatch pocket, or on a machine screw.

QD: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=316748
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=213545
Threaded: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=633381
Rail Mount (which also works for the monopod folks) http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=838567

451040
05-22-2011, 8:44 AM
option B

HPArmory
05-22-2011, 8:52 AM
A 1.25" sling swivel like they use in the Appleseed Program (Magpul mostly fails in this regard). They can be mounted on a rail, in a quick detatch pocket, or on a machine screw.

QD: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=316748
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=213545
Threaded: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=633381
Rail Mount (which also works for the monopod folks) http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=838567

No problem, consider it done.

thunderbolt
05-22-2011, 9:48 AM
It looks like the cheek pad is a bit small for my taste. Also is it adjustable in two ways fore and aft or just one?

evidens83
05-22-2011, 9:50 AM
C...

EvoXRiley
05-22-2011, 9:52 AM
Make sure there is a lock for the stock so there isn't any play like other companies stocks

lelandEOD
05-22-2011, 9:53 AM
Definitely B.

D2Shooter
05-22-2011, 9:54 AM
As for looks, I like "C". But what ever works best/strongest is the one I would buy, since they all look good.

NorCalAthlete
05-22-2011, 10:08 AM
A, definitely.

verapakill
05-22-2011, 10:08 AM
B :)

bombadillo
05-22-2011, 10:17 AM
I think the cheek piece shroud needs to be extended toward the muzzle of the gun by a good 4" or more or at least make it so there are interchangeable pieces shorter and/or longer. I like to shoot nose to charging handle while scoped and it would be awful hard on this one. Also a QD on BOTH sides because different people like to sling different ways, I prefer around the far side of the rifle in 2 point mode. Lastly, make a slot somewhere for a standard sling to fit through of course as has been discussed. You could even integrate a ring inside of the frame of the stock somewhere for an HK style hook to be clasped onto the buttstock somewhere, it would just be part of the machining process.

As for looks, I'm gonna go with either A or C. A to me looks a bit busy, but its cool and different. If it were production, I think C would be the choice most people would think looked cool and is functional.

http://www.whiteoakprecision.com/images/wopstock_compD_small.jpg

These guys have done well in the space gun area, and I think you could be in direct competition with a little effort! Good job and good design man.

HPArmory
05-22-2011, 10:25 AM
Thanks to all for the great feedback. It looks like I might be best if I offer several styles since the voting has been pretty broad.

To be honest I'm not exactly happy with the cheek rest either. I'd like to have it larger and further forward but the charging handle interferes. I need to figure out something on that. Also I already had a bunch laser cut so ill offer free upgrades.

Thanks again!

Rock6.3
05-22-2011, 10:28 AM
For the extension of the cheek rest (very necessary in my opinion) please consider a cantilever so the charging handle can move under the cheek rest. The sides of the charging handle can still protrude right and left of the cheek rest so the handle retains functionality and the cheek rest does not interfere.

SureShot241
05-22-2011, 10:29 AM
I vote C

motorwerks
05-22-2011, 10:33 AM
That looks expensive. I think I like A and kind of want to try it out on my .308 :D

Yargh
05-22-2011, 10:52 AM
I like A the best.

LovingTheYear1911
05-22-2011, 10:54 AM
B. Looks less busy

veterosa
05-22-2011, 10:59 AM
B looks great.

pacrimguru
05-22-2011, 11:02 AM
B. keeps it lighter, cleaner looking, and one can use that area to hold if need be.

berg
05-22-2011, 11:04 AM
This post should be made into a poll.

Anyway my vote is C if simply voting on aesthetics.

Sonic_mike
05-22-2011, 11:19 AM
B for sure.

missiontrails
05-22-2011, 11:21 AM
B. Cheek riser is too short.... trying to decide if my cheek would hang off the front, ot the back of it. Need to leave some metal in the rear inner corner of design B to allow for a QD mount hole.

Killawhale415
05-22-2011, 11:25 AM
B for sure because you can put your hand up in there, sorta like a butthook you see on some precision rifles nowadays.

leoffensive
05-22-2011, 11:27 AM
A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

when will ya have em available? hahah they are freakin sweet lookin and i want one!!!

owenriquez
05-22-2011, 11:30 AM
I'll go with A, looks more solid

Airrixd
05-22-2011, 11:34 AM
To much stuff going on with A. Either B or C.

dieselpower
05-22-2011, 11:38 AM
I'd go with B, but on the forward edge I would round it off to match the back strap of the lower. This way in the fully collapsed position it fits seamlessly. As it stands the top edge is flat and will leave a gap.

I can see precision guys liking this design.

Killawhale415
05-22-2011, 11:40 AM
BTW great job on the designs man :thumbsup:

chead
05-22-2011, 11:58 AM
B for sure. Less material = lighter = better than. It's hard to tell but is the butt flush with the tube, sans-riser? That would be nice, but maybe it's just my OCD shining through.

elSquid
05-22-2011, 11:59 AM
Are those exposed screws going to pull hair from shooters with beards?

I vote A. Looks more rigid.

-- Michael

ar-dude
05-22-2011, 12:16 PM
i like c
would that be available for ar-10?

NorCalAthlete
05-22-2011, 12:41 PM
Yeah, where's the poll on this? Can a mod add the poll for A/B/C? It'd make it easier for OP to get a count for each design.

RONIN.
05-22-2011, 12:47 PM
stock A

would like provision for mono-pod, QD sling attachment

Reductio
05-22-2011, 1:00 PM
I really dig the looks of A, but all of them could use a larger button on that lever to slide the stock.

Exile Machine
05-22-2011, 1:09 PM
They all look good. Personal preference is B. Be sure to design it so that it's easily converted to a fixed stock without drilling or pinning for featureless. This design is similar to XLR industries tactical stock...

https://www.exilemachine.net/shop/images/TAC_L.JPG

1lostinspace
05-22-2011, 1:10 PM
B looks cleaner. Less is more, the more elegant it looks the better.
Great Idea.

incredablehefey
05-22-2011, 1:12 PM
b looks lighter

bob7122
05-22-2011, 1:16 PM
all are good but i like a the most

Flogger23m
05-22-2011, 1:18 PM
Would B be cheaper? If so go with that. You can probably make an addon storage compartment there to?

notme92069
05-22-2011, 1:25 PM
A gets my vote

killshot44
05-22-2011, 1:29 PM
B

I'd suggest making the bottom part that runs back to the butt a little longer to better ride a rear bag, maybe 4" long.
The cheek riser will need to be lowered far enough to use iron sights - as it is would probably only work with scopes (not that that's a bad thing).

Kyle at XLR made a one-off for my Spacegun that works great.
More makers can only improve the breed.

1lostinspace
05-22-2011, 1:30 PM
(A) would make it harder to get to the adjustment knob during stress. B is better in every way.

IPSICK
05-22-2011, 2:36 PM
B

I'd suggest making the bottom part that runs back to the butt a little longer to better ride a rear bag, maybe 4" long.
The cheek riser will need to be lowered far enough to use iron sights - as it is would probably only work with scopes (not that that's a bad thing).

Kyle at XLR made a one-off for my Spacegun that works great.
More makers can only improve the breed.

Could you post pics of what Kyle made for you? He's in the process of making something for me now to allow me to use iron sights and it sounds like he's making mods so the tube attachment piece doesn't interfere with the charging handle.

As ExileMachine has pointed out this is similar to the XLR industries design with the most important difference to me being how you adjust the buttstock (please consider making an option to have this area fixed for featureless rifles). This stock looks like a better design concept in that area because of greater adjustability.

One drawback of this design (XLR has it too) is the ability to use the cheekpiece if you shoot nose to charging handle. Moving the cheekpiece closer to the charging handle prevents use of the charging handle limiting the design to side charging uppers. And keeping it back means the cheekpiece is superfluous if you shoot NTCH.

Now if you don't shoot NTCH the cheekpiece becomes usable again and so does the charging handle. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing because with optics you'll no longer be required to use an extended mount for eye relief. For iron users this may be a problem because most train NTCH. However, mounting the gun w/o NTCH does have advantages and disadvantages.

Lastly, I don't think the cheekpiece is to short because I don't think it needs to be that long. Also, again with the shorter cheekpiece you can mount the stock closer to the charging handle. Here's a pic of AMU shooter Daniel Horner using a TacMod stock (again similar to XLR and the design in this thread). Cheekpiece looks about as short as the design presented here.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdoNNztMj5HAwPH4uBuENH64zbePtHt atCvon6Jvw4B2bL8wll

Btw, my pick is 'C'.

C_1
05-22-2011, 2:40 PM
In order of preference: B, C, then A.

And like others have suggested, a sling loop/connection and a longer cheek piece would be nice.

Dreaded Claymore
05-22-2011, 4:03 PM
This thread needs to be a poll.

For pure aesthetics, my vote is A.

kpinole
05-22-2011, 4:09 PM
B...less material assuming rigidity is not affected.

Colt-45
05-22-2011, 4:24 PM
I like A

HPArmory
05-23-2011, 10:31 AM
Gents,

Just an fyi so far the votes are:

Design A 39%
Design B 44%
Design C 17%

My conclusion is I should consider offering "A" and "B" for sure, maybe "C".

I'm working on the cheek rest design and to be honest I think IPSICK is spot-on correct in his #62 post above. I've rechecked my measurements and used my mock-up and my current design is perfect for a scoped setup (as further illustrated in his picture). The cheek rest position is basically in the same place as a PRS as far as I can tell. So the question is how many of you actually shoot in the NTCH position as IPSICK describes?

IPSICK
05-23-2011, 10:50 AM
HP Armory, one thing to consider is that many people buy extended scope mounts to be able to shoot NTCH with a scope. You might want to consider incorporating a design similar to the Larue RISR if possible. Here is yet another pic:

http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/images/test2/RISR_hp-1.jpg

Personally, I am reconsidering the advantages on NTCH. Sure it helps to align a user's eyes to the aperture sights but is it really the best method? Many action shooters describe bringing the rifle up to your cheek and not lowering your cheek to the rifle but it's hard to do that using the NTCH method (unless, I'm doing it wrong. I haven't been shooting rifles long). I am switching from irons to scope soon though and it seems many of the top 3-gun shooters do not strictly subscribe to NTCH.

mike_the_wino
05-23-2011, 10:53 AM
I like A. Looks more sturdy...but they all look expensive. :D

kozumasbullitt
05-23-2011, 11:02 AM
For everyone looking at A because it looks more sturdy, how many if you ever had a stock break? The actual mechanism is the same between the three so all the extra stuff on A is just additional weight.

HPArmory
05-23-2011, 11:08 AM
Mike,

Not sure what expensive means to you as that is a very subjective issue. I'm shooting for these buttstocks to retail for under $200.

R.Mac
05-23-2011, 11:18 AM
"A" is obviously the strongest design. Nice piece of CAD work!

KCDS
05-23-2011, 11:23 AM
I vote for A

morfeeis
05-23-2011, 11:25 AM
1st A
2nd C
3rd B

Uxi
05-23-2011, 11:31 AM
B. Maybe an option to have side panels and/or doors for storage/cleaning kit?

r6raff
05-23-2011, 11:32 AM
A, C and the B. All are sweet designs regardless. Do you have any projection of weight for each model? It would be nice to see a comparison for each and against other available stocks. Keep it up, im in the market for a new stock for my BCM, any idea when these may go into production?

bubbapug1
05-23-2011, 11:35 AM
is it patented yet or did you just want to make it public?

B is the cheapest to make, the lightest, and they all will work the same.

richie3888
05-23-2011, 11:42 AM
B. Nice and simple

You should've made a poll

HPArmory
05-23-2011, 11:50 AM
These are not into production yet, hense I wanted to get pro-active feedback from you users before I made a whole bunch of them. I am planning on making a small prototype run this week to check everything out. Patenting something like this would be a total waste of time.

According to the CAD models, the following is the projected weight for each design.

Design A - .70 pounds
Design B - .57 pounds
Design C - .60 pounds

This should compare very favorably to the PRS which is 2 pounds. At .60 pounds this would be 70% less weight. This could fluctuate but a 50% weight savings should be very doable.

CSACANNONEER
05-23-2011, 11:56 AM
I'd say that it would depend on the media and cost. A machined from Aluminum would cost a bit more than B or C. But, if they are going to be produced in some sort of polymere, after the intial cost of tooling, the costs would be close to the same. While not my style, I'd probably go with C since, I see easier ways to modify it to do what I want it to. and it does have a slightly stronger appearance.

biloutkast
05-23-2011, 12:03 PM
I like all 3 but my votes for B

tacgunner530
05-23-2011, 12:40 PM
nice designs! i like C.

X-NewYawker
05-23-2011, 12:47 PM
I think that all of them don't give a good cheek weld for a scoped AR -- even with the adjustable saddle, the main recoil pad appears too low. Most AR scopes are pretty high above the bore line.

X-NewYawker
05-23-2011, 12:48 PM
Nice designs, though. Very clean. Depending on the material, B

Packy14
05-23-2011, 12:55 PM
B. keeps it lighter, cleaner looking, and one can use that area to hold if need be.

Thats exactly what i thought when i saw it.

goodlookin1
05-23-2011, 1:01 PM
Not my cup of tea, but C > B > A

Nice designs, bro.

CrossedRifles
05-23-2011, 1:08 PM
I'll vote A if it's just for looks. Some people might dislike the things getting in the way.

HPArmory
05-23-2011, 1:10 PM
I think that all of them don't give a good cheek weld for a scoped AR -- even with the adjustable saddle, the main recoil pad appears too low. Most AR scopes are pretty high above the bore line.

Just as an fyi...the recoil pad is adjustable up/down. cheers

dellgsg5
05-23-2011, 1:14 PM
I go with B!

themailman
05-23-2011, 1:20 PM
B looks to be the best choice. Great work up!

glock_this
05-23-2011, 1:37 PM
B

cleaner, less weight

evollep3
05-23-2011, 1:39 PM
I like A and C but Jerry makes a good point about B ability to hold the stock and bring it into your shoulder

hellraiser
05-23-2011, 2:59 PM
Personally I'd go B. Like the others said it looks less busy.

apbrian112
05-23-2011, 3:38 PM
"B" for me...

RugerNo1
05-23-2011, 4:00 PM
My vote is for "B" with "A" a close second.

I like this stock design, kind of like a hybrid Spacegun/Tactical look.

A Provision for some kind of bag rider would be nice though...

Edit: I think "A" would be nice without the extra metal in the middle if structural integrity was not sacrificed.

keson
05-23-2011, 4:07 PM
I like C

Arnelcheeze
05-23-2011, 8:06 PM
B gets my vote.

sequoia_nomad
05-23-2011, 8:10 PM
I like C, B would be second choice. This woulda made a good poll, ya know. :)

nanoc
05-23-2011, 8:16 PM
B. because it look the lightest of them all and simplicity always wins in my book.

Yugo
05-23-2011, 8:19 PM
A..

RONIN.
05-23-2011, 9:00 PM
hparmory.. let me know when they are available.. i will buy two.. for my spr and one for the 308..

ronin.

esskay
05-23-2011, 9:14 PM
I like A, but would like it open in the middle like B.

I would also like to see QD sling sockets on the left and right sides of the stock (preferably toward the rear of the stock).

Are you thinking about a version that would go on a rifle-length receiver extension?

Also assume that the user could remove the cheek piece entirely if desired?

Another nice option would be an alternate wider cheek piece, like on the SOPMOD/ACS/VLTOR stocks.

bomb_on_bus
05-23-2011, 10:17 PM
B as well.

Less material means less weight and less cost to make.

IPSICK
05-23-2011, 11:24 PM
...Are you thinking about a version that would go on a rifle-length receiver extension?...

I think this would limit the adjustability.

thrillhouse700
05-24-2011, 1:53 AM
I like B. Like I said before you have great products and great vision. Keep it up man best of luck.

You should make an adapter for non tilting bi-pods that go from picatinny to picatinny with a friction lock in the center. So you can tilt bi-pods like the tango down, Ema and other non swiveling ones :)

Noobert
05-24-2011, 8:01 AM
A (filler)

CK_32
05-24-2011, 8:04 AM
Fans of all

But c.. B... A in that order. Looks legit.

Hopefully they will be semi affordable

komrad
05-24-2011, 11:05 AM
B for me.

Peter W Bush
05-24-2011, 11:13 AM
You should make runs of A and B. Seems like they are getting the most traction and should probably do very well. What price are you thinking about selling these at?

HPArmory
05-24-2011, 11:58 AM
You should make runs of A and B. Seems like they are getting the most traction and should probably do very well. What price are you thinking about selling these at?


yup, the latest results are:

A - 36%
B - 47%
C - 17%

I'm shooting for (pun intended) a retail price of under $200. What do you think?

Peter W Bush
05-24-2011, 12:13 PM
yup, the latest results are:

A - 36%
B - 47%
C - 17%

I'm shooting for (pun intended) a retail price of under $200. What do you think?

I think it looks like a great design. I don't know if I said it already, but I prefer A. Looks more rigid for some reason. You should also consider making a non adjustable A2 type fixed stock for target/varmit ARs (something to replace the PRS, maybe). I would be all over that!!!

1911Operator
05-24-2011, 2:46 PM
Id go with B

biker777
05-24-2011, 3:00 PM
B for the win for me!

vintagearms
05-24-2011, 4:10 PM
B. There is no reason to add un-needed weight in a or c. Its not about looks. Its about what is functional.

762.DEFENSE
05-24-2011, 4:15 PM
Option #B

MongooseV8
05-24-2011, 4:28 PM
Hands Down B

Its lighter and looks like it would hook onto my shoulder best when Im at rest without a sling.

timmyb21
05-24-2011, 4:58 PM
C. Put it in production, I'd try one out!

RugerNo1
05-24-2011, 6:16 PM
I'm shooting for (pun intended) a retail price of under $200. What do you think?

With a little refinement? I would pay that...

You should also consider making a non adjustable A2 type fixed stock for target/varmit ARs (something to replace the PRS, maybe). I would be all over that!!!

I second that! But, How about just a rifle length stock with the adjustments? Frankly, I would just set the length of the stock and leave it. I do not have much need for a collapsing stock, but I still like the original design as well.


..."A" is growing on me though...

tommyid1
05-24-2011, 7:29 PM
A!!!

wchutt
05-24-2011, 7:49 PM
B looks sweet, what about a picatinny rail incorporated into the bottom for a monopod?

hblifgrd
05-24-2011, 7:57 PM
B..

REDdawn6
05-24-2011, 7:58 PM
B is nice

fermi
05-24-2011, 8:05 PM
B, +1 to adding a slot for a sling

Jpach
05-24-2011, 8:08 PM
A no doubt

killshot44
05-24-2011, 8:37 PM
Could you post pics of what Kyle made for you? He's in the process of making something for me now to allow me to use iron sights and it sounds like he's making mods so the tube attachment piece doesn't interfere with the charging handle..

This was the first one he made for me. As you can see, I had to lengthen the cutouts for the cheekpiece to ride closer to the tube to allow for proper eye positioning. Since I have a side-charger the stock doesn't interfere with the CH.
http://i878.photobucket.com/albums/ab348/Killshot44_bucket/6ARturbo40/2-13download005.jpg?
He cut another cheekpiece for me that has more of a cutout allowing me to get down behind the scope. No pics.

Kyle said he was going to change all the cheekpieces so they will ride lower on the tube so Iron sight users can also use them. What I have is a combination of his "Extreme" stock and his "Standard". Rides a rear bag perfectly.
http://www.xlrindustries.com/butt-stocks.html

arsilva32
05-24-2011, 9:43 PM
A-for me but i would like to see the entire rifle with it installed,its hard to say how it looks not seeing the complete gun .

MrExel17
05-24-2011, 10:03 PM
I like "C" looks light and solid +1

IPSICK
05-24-2011, 11:47 PM
Killshot44, thanks for the pix. I will post pics of my setup when I get all the parts from Kyle. I'll probably post it in Exile Machine's thread. I'm a little surprised you needed longer cuts for a scope setup. I am in the process of moving to a scoped setup myself and hopefully the new cheekpiece will work.

When I looked at your setup again in your other thread I noticed that you were using a side charging setup. This is one area of concern for me regarding this stock. The cheekpiece has to be away from the charging handle to maintain use of the charging handle for those of us with non-sidecharging setups. This will prohibit the use of the cheekpiece when shooting NTCH.

Btw, I've seen this setup already. I was hoping for pics of the new cheekpiece. Hope you can update your thread with pics of the new piece.

I am curious how this stock will be so light. I thought this was going to be aluminum like the XLR stock, but the projected weight has me thinking this is going to be polymer.

Dan-O
05-25-2011, 7:37 AM
A. You should add a Poll to this thread

Cali-Shooter
05-25-2011, 7:42 AM
B is the simplest, the lightest (less material), and the most accommodating. B for sure.

Peter W Bush
05-25-2011, 9:48 AM
With a little refinement? I would pay that...



I second that! But, How about just a rifle length stock with the adjustments? Frankly, I would just set the length of the stock and leave it. I do not have much need for a collapsing stock, but I still like the original design as well.


..."A" is growing on me though...

I think you would sell a ton of non collapsing adjustable stocks. There aren't too many designs I like on the market but I really like yours. Are you going to offer an aluminum stock?

HPArmory
05-25-2011, 10:12 AM
thx, I'm working on a "fixed" adjustable version right now. These are going to be machined out of aluminum. cheers

In_this_city
05-25-2011, 10:20 AM
I'd definitely purchase B. Maybe you could make a spring loaded cheek piece so itll slide back with the charging handle. Kind of like the LArue RISR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VVlRLM44LE

EDIT: Just noticed IPSICK already posted about the RISR.

RugerNo1
05-25-2011, 10:40 AM
thx, I'm working on a "fixed" adjustable version right now. These are going to be machined out of aluminum. cheers

I would totally be in for one, or two!

calibre50
05-25-2011, 12:29 PM
I vote for "B" cleaner design

GILMORE619
05-25-2011, 4:07 PM
I like A... what kind of material will you be using? EDIT just saw your above post about machined alum

Baga
05-25-2011, 4:14 PM
All look good, my vote in order:
1st - A, sleek rounded look, with a little more style
2nd - C, sleek yet simple
3rd - B, simple

Motor Man
05-25-2011, 6:31 PM
I'd vote for B.

HPArmory
05-30-2011, 10:32 AM
Gents,

Iíve made a couple of prototypes and thought Iíd share some pictures since Iím doing a mock-up for the long-range 6mmAR Iím putting together. Iíve added a couple of features to the buttstock you might like:

a) The buttstock can now be installed with the actuating latch positioned on either the left or right hand side. This way the userís preference can be accommodated without the need for a separate left/right hand specific buttstock.

b) The buttstock will come standard as an adjustable/collapsible unit. However, it will also come with a small hardware kit that will transform the buttstock into an adjustable/fixed version. This accommodates the featureless users and like ďaĒ above itís the same buttstock so it can be converted from a collapsible style to a fixed style (or vice versa).

The cheek rest is not installed in the pictures as I havenít formed them up yet. The buttstock is nice and tight throughout the adjustment range and the latching mechanism is working great. The adjustable shoulder pad works great too. Iím so pleased with the results that my next step will be to do a small production run and get them hard anodized. Cheers.

http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Buttstock_proto1.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Buttstock_proto2.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Buttstock_proto3.jpg

spits55
05-30-2011, 10:39 AM
Very nice!! I vote for all of them, even though B looks to be the lightest one...

pacrimguru
05-30-2011, 10:39 AM
good job, looks great so far.

RugerNo1
05-30-2011, 10:40 AM
Looking very good! Is it safe to assume that the buttpad is at the lowest setting in your pictures?

r6raff
05-30-2011, 10:43 AM
I liked how in your concept design the butt plate extended up higher towards the buffer tube (if that makes sense lol) I feel that evened out the looks.

Looks good regardless though

Edit*** is the butt pad adjustible? Can we see it at its "highest" position please

HPArmory
05-30-2011, 11:04 AM
Yes, the shoulder pad is adjustable and in the above pictures it was in its lowest position. Below are pictures with it in it's highest position.

http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Buttstock_proto4.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Buttstock_proto5.jpg

Here are some shots of the buttstock in the fully collasped position:

http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Buttstock_proto6.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Buttstock_proto7.jpg

pTa
05-30-2011, 11:07 AM
B definiteley

r6raff
05-30-2011, 11:14 AM
Sweet Mark!!!! Looks fantastic, how soon until we can buy'em. Plus was the Cad projected weight accurate?

DeltaAlphaDelta
05-30-2011, 12:10 PM
I vote for A, with empty space like in B, plus optional compartments that can be added or removed for battery, cleaning, spare parts, etc... storage.

I'd also suggest modifying or adding some sort of cover along the buffer tube for comfort and cheek weld... but nm... I see you mentioned you just don't have the prototype yet.

Looks interesting. I like the easy switch between fixed or collapsible.

evollep3
05-30-2011, 12:10 PM
I like it I thought the butt pad was going to be about in taller? Or maybe is the lever mechanism is a bit taller. But it looks goo I will rock it

MilSim
05-30-2011, 2:30 PM
BRAVO

Jubz
05-30-2011, 3:04 PM
I vote C due to the simple option of attaching a sling, looping the strap around the horizontal reinforcement strut.

wash
05-30-2011, 3:08 PM
My suggestion is to add a hand hook to the bottom. A monopod option would be good to have.

I like all three, just make sure it has the features people want.

GasPiston
05-30-2011, 11:17 PM
I like B it looks lighter.

giants_fan24
05-31-2011, 6:53 AM
I like "A"

ZX-10R
05-31-2011, 7:56 AM
You using SolidWorks? Who did you get it through? Run each design through Simulation/ Cosmos...I see the issue really being the recoil and the notch area where the butt is adjusted. I like it...I would put one on my WASR or AR. What is the material? Mass properties should tell you everything if you designed it with material in mind. I like C. Great job.

Stone
05-31-2011, 9:33 AM
Kudos to you for designing and building your own stock...it looks very solid and well made!

With that said, it doesn't have the features I'd be looking for in a stock. I don't like that the pad is not in line with the barrel, this will increase torque and muzzle rise. It also looks a lot heavier and beefier than it needs to be. What does it weigh?

If you plan to experiment with more designs, I think there is an open niche for a light-weight adjustable carbon fiber stock that weighs under 0.6 lbs

Rust
05-31-2011, 8:53 PM
I like "C" but also agree with the above posters who think the cheek rest is to far back. maybe and extension off of it to the front so you can choke up on the stock a little further.

OutbreakPLZ
05-31-2011, 9:54 PM
A! yesssss

Flyingpootang
05-31-2011, 9:59 PM
They all look great, but B or C with a compartment option would be awesome...

Donk310
05-31-2011, 11:11 PM
Build all three. Someone will buy em'.

HPArmory
06-01-2011, 6:32 AM
guys,

Either I'm missing something or you're suffering from an optical illusion, regarding the cheek rest position.

The cheek rest on my buttstock is basically the same as the PRS. I've measured the PRS to verify. I'm specifically refering to the distance from the back of the lower to the front of the cheek rest.

Also to illustrate is the picture below of a similar design to mine that was posted previously in this post. Again, my cheek rest is positioned the same as this one, just like the PRS.

So, what am I missing ???? Are all of you saying the PRS's cheek rest position isn't optimal?

http://www.hparmory.com/misc/images.jpg

IPSICK
06-01-2011, 8:40 AM
I believe the concern is for the nose to charging handle shooters who may feel the cheek rest is to far back to effectively use with iron sights. The cheek rest in the TacMod stock, above, the PRS, and yours seem to be optimal for scope users.

esskay
06-01-2011, 11:03 AM
It also appears to me that the buttpiece in its highest position on your prototype is lower than in your rendering. Personally I would want to see the buttpiece high enough to be in line with the receiver extension (as shown in the photo of Daniel Horner's rifle above).

RugerNo1
06-01-2011, 11:28 AM
http://hparmory.com/misc/buttstockb.jpg


Yes, the shoulder pad is adjustable and in the above pictures it was in its lowest position. Below are pictures with it in it's highest position.

http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Buttstock_proto4.jpg

I think everyone is seeing an illusion due to the lack of cheek piece.

HPArmory
08-30-2011, 8:54 AM
Guys,

Just wanted you to know I finally finished the first run of these. They turned out very nice. The official weight is 1lb 1oz! I also incorporated some aspects per all of the recommendations including:

Ambidextrous mounting of the latch mechanism (left or right hand side)

Ambidextrous mounting of the adjustable cheek rest

Fully adjustable cheek rest and shoulder pad

Fixed mounting kit for Featureless applications

13 points of adjustment for LOP

Quick detachable sling mount enabled

Iíll probably have a Calguns special introductory offer so watch for that if you are interested. Cheers.

http://www.hparmory.com/misc/BS_1.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/BS_2.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/BS_3.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/4.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/14.jpg
http://www.hparmory.com/misc/Dane_1.jpg

someR1
08-30-2011, 8:58 AM
B for sure.

this.:cool2:

Quinc
08-30-2011, 9:04 AM
That stock looks great! Do you have an introductory price in mind?

RugerNo1
08-30-2011, 9:07 AM
I may have just finally found a reason to build a second lower...

Very good work!

Striper 05
08-30-2011, 9:09 AM
B is my vote

gun toting monkeyboy
08-30-2011, 9:16 AM
C looks like it would be the best from a stability vs. ease of production standpoint. But I think A looks better.

Shellshocker66
08-30-2011, 9:53 AM
B is my choice!

macnone
08-30-2011, 9:53 AM
A for sure.
Can you add a mag holder for the 2nd mag? :)

macnone
08-30-2011, 9:57 AM
So .... "B" it is. When and where I can I get one?
Will there be "A" and "C" later?

Uxi
08-30-2011, 9:57 AM
Looks even better seeing them all lined up like that.

HPArmory
08-30-2011, 9:58 AM
Guys,

Just an fyi the debate on which version is over. The latest pictures posted above are the production units. Also, I put a special Calguns discount in the marketplace section. cheers.

FX-05 Xiuhcoatl
08-30-2011, 10:59 AM
GO WITH B

pacifico23
08-30-2011, 11:31 AM
Whats with everyone re-choosing the stock, check the original date of the thread.

Awesome job on the stocks, they look great. Whats the MSRP gonna be on those?

RugerNo1
08-30-2011, 12:20 PM
I asked in your Marketplace post, but I will ask here as well.

Will the bag rider be an option later on? The price is great and I think I may get one anyway, but I do like that rider.


http://www.hparmory.com/misc/14.jpg

HPArmory
08-30-2011, 12:25 PM
Dane,

The bag rider is just something I added for my own use. The buttstock does come with two threaded holes on the botton (where the bag rider is attached in the photos). these holes are intended for the use of quick detaching sling mounts, mono-pods, bag riders, etc. If sales are good I will start offering these types of accesories but for now I'm only doing the buttstocks with the provision of attachments.

HPArmory
08-30-2011, 12:29 PM
Whats with everyone re-choosing the stock, check the original date of the thread.

Awesome job on the stocks, they look great. Whats the MSRP gonna be on those?

Thanks, MSRP is $186 for the complete buttstock. Currently I have a Calguns promotion code offered in the marketplace. cheers.

RugerNo1
08-30-2011, 12:35 PM
Dane,

The bag rider is just something I added for my own use. The buttstock does come with two threaded holes on the botton (where the bag rider is attached in the photos). these holes are intended for the use of quick detaching sling mounts, mono-pods, bag riders, etc. If sales are good I will start offering these types of accesories but for now I'm only doing the buttstocks with the provision of attachments.

Good enough for me. I can always make my own rider.

Thanks for the reply.

motorwerks
08-30-2011, 1:25 PM
I love that the folks new to this thread did read any of it except the first post..... the stocks have been built, its ok to stop voting.

DDRH
08-30-2011, 1:30 PM
I like all 3 ABC. A looks very solid. B looks light weight and good for a lightweight carbine/rifle.