Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23313233
Results 321 to 328 of 328

Thread: The big 10.5"-12.5" general purpose pistol/SBR thread

  1. #321
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    Here it is compared to a MOE SL-K:

    Attachment 118643

    My worry is that this will be an AR seed - A1 upper, 10.5”, corncob…
    Yours appears to be the SL-K? which works on a standard carbine receicpver extension?

    Then there's a shorter SL-M that requires a dedicated shorter receiver extension (and presumably buffer and spring?)?

    anyone know if the M will work on a folder?

    I have a spare “ultralight” SBR that wouldn't be so light with all this junk in the trunk but might be useful if it were compactable…

    SL-K VS SL-M
    Name:  IMG_1105.jpg
Views: 199
Size:  48.0 KB
    Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.

  2. #322
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Said “spare” (perhaps posted earlier in the thread) with what I'm pretty sure is an unfired BCM upper which was “new” about the time keymod (Betamax) was cool for all of 5 minutes before Mlok (vhs) killed it.

    Name:  IMG_4311.jpg
Views: 190
Size:  102.8 KB
    Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.

  3. #323
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    Yours appears to be the SL-K? which works on a standard carbine receicpver extension?

    Then there's a shorter SL-M that requires a dedicated shorter receiver extension (and presumably buffer and spring?)?

    anyone know if the M will work on a folder?

    I have a spare “ultralight” SBR that wouldn't be so light with all this junk in the trunk but might be useful if it were compactable…

    SL-K VS SL-M
    Name:  IMG_1105.jpg
Views: 199
Size:  48.0 KB
    Yes, mine is a SL-K. I wasn’t even aware of the SL-M! I probably would have used it on my AR9 SBR last year, I ended up with a LWRCI UCIW stock/RE and a 9mm optimized HeavyBuffer which is fine. I don’t think I would use it on the SBR I pictured, I’d always be running it out a few positions and it wouldn’t save space folded. I could see a SL-M on a LAW if someone was looking for a shorter base LOP.

    I don’t see any reason a LAW folder wouldn’t work with a PDW length RE. You would need to take the weight of the LAW bolt carrier extension into account when selecting a buffer, but that’s a nice thing.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  4. #324
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    I don’t think I would use it on the SBR I pictured, I’d always be running it out a few positions and it wouldn’t save space folded. I could see a SL-M on a LAW if someone was looking for a shorter base LOP.
    That's actually a really good point.

    The M might not actually achieve anything once you're folding it to the side anyway. And would be less optimal when deployed.
    Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.

  5. #325
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    That's actually a really good point.

    The M might not actually achieve anything once you're folding it to the side anyway. And would be less optimal when deployed.
    As a data point, Mr. Tape Measure says the back of receiver to buttplate measurement (not LOP) of a fully collapsed SL-K on a LAW folder is 8 11/16”. That’s with the stock SL-K buttpad. It’s just about perfect for me, I usually run an AR one or two clicks out.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    We talked about stubby entry stocks on LAW folders in this thread a few years back, and RRA is finally doing them again. Scalpers were getting in excess of $200 for beat up ones, now you can get a new one for under $100 shipped. Just a FYI.

    https://www.rockriverarms.com/index....tegory_ID=1377
    You mentioned the Sully Stocks. Before I retired we hosted Sully at least every other year for an armorers course. Along the way we picked up several of his rifles. The last ones I got were his 'Commanders' (dissipator) and I spec'ed them with Sully entry stocks which are 8 inches long. I found them too short on a fixed extension even with a vest on. I have a feeling they would be about right on a LAW equipped rifle.

    https://www.thedefensiveedge.com/Sul..._p/sully01.htm


    Quote Originally Posted by GyroF-16 View Post
    A. - shows “TEMPORARILY BACKORDERED”
    B. - what makes this superior to a Magpul short adjustable stock with a LAW folder? Shorter LOP? (No dimensions provided).

    Not being argumentative- just really wondering what made / makes this so desirable?
    According to a picture I found, the RRA Entry Stock is 7 11/32 / 7.0343 long. A Magpul SL is 7.2 inches long which is .166 longer than the RRA stock. Collapsed LOP for the SL is 10.8 so the LOP for the RRA ought to be around 10.634 (10.6)

    The LAW folder adds 1.3 inches to the LOP so collapsed LOP with the RRA would be 11.9; collapsed LOP with the SL would be 12.1; with the SL-K it is 11.6; with the SL-M it would be 10.7.

    The negative to the RRA is that it is a fixed stock whereas, of course, the others are all adjustable. Here is a comparison of the various SL stocks data:

    Name:  MOE SL.JPG
Views: 146
Size:  34.6 KB

    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    As a data point, Mr. Tape Measure says the back of receiver to buttplate measurement (not LOP) of a fully collapsed SL-K on a LAW folder is 8 11/16”. That’s with the stock SL-K buttpad. It’s just about perfect for me, I usually run an AR one or two clicks out.
    For comparison, I measured an SL in the same manner on a regular (non-LAW) extension and got 8". That particular rifle is my HD SBR and I removed the LAW folder because with the suppressor attached it didn't position the way I wanted in the bedroom gun safe. I think I may put the LAW back on and try an SL-M, that would put my saddlebag SBR back into play, although IDK why I need to be riding with an SBR on my Street Glide.
    Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....

  7. #327
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Quote Originally Posted by DDTSGM View Post
    You mentioned the Sully Stocks. Before I retired we hosted Sully at least every other year for an armorers course. Along the way we picked up several of his rifles.
    I still have one of his stripped lowers

    Never could decide what to turn it into.
    Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.

  8. #328
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    OKC
    [QUOTE=rob_s;1579881]Said “spare” (perhaps posted earlier in the thread) with what I'm pretty sure is an unfired BCM upper which was “new” about the time keymod (Betamax) was cool for all of 5 minutes before Mlok (vhs) killed it.

    I like it. I have an early lightweight BCM keymod rail (before they changed them) and it is nice. I remember Defoor said he is agnostic about keymod vs mlok……. Mlok probably more secure mounting. That said if you want to sell it……😀

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •