I just wrote a short article on the MSS(Modular Stock System) that was designed to replace the current M4 collapsible stock for the military. I got to handle one recently at Shot Show 2002 in Vegas, and it was pretty choice. Anyway, please let me know what you think. You can read the article at http://www.defensereview.com.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If you own an M4/CAR-15, you might want to read this.
- Thread starter viper
- Start date
Almost forgot, we're currently in the process of building our membership, so please sign up as a member if my site looks like something that would be a good online resource for you. We'd like to have as many TFL'ers as possible as members of DefenseReview.com.
So you know, I've been a TFL'er myself for a while now, and am currently a senior member. I just really admire the crowd here, and would like to have as many of you guys as possible as members of my site, provided you guys like what you see there.
Thanks.
So you know, I've been a TFL'er myself for a while now, and am currently a senior member. I just really admire the crowd here, and would like to have as many of you guys as possible as members of my site, provided you guys like what you see there.
Thanks.
I just went and met with Rich Fitzpatrick last Friday and got to check out the Modular Stock System extensively. Rich brought me up to speed as to the the things that he currently doing with the stock. I was really impressed to say the least.
In it's locked position the MSS is as sturdy as the A2 stock. I tried the stock with just a t-shirt, then with body armor, and then with all of my SWAT gear on. The stock fit much better than the current stocks.
I'll be doing a review with pics within the next week and post it here in the rifle section.
BTW, good article.
Semper Fi
Jeff
In it's locked position the MSS is as sturdy as the A2 stock. I tried the stock with just a t-shirt, then with body armor, and then with all of my SWAT gear on. The stock fit much better than the current stocks.
I'll be doing a review with pics within the next week and post it here in the rifle section.
BTW, good article.
Semper Fi
Jeff
Badger Arms
New member
Two Questions:
1) In the forward position, how far beyond the gun does the stock extend? I've currently got the 6-position M-4 stock and this suits me fine. I'm wondering if, for just the cheek weld, I'd be sacraficing compactness.
2) How much is this thing going to go for? I've noticed that them "Modular Handguard" thingies cost an arm and a leg... that's why I don't have one. It might be the case that this stock, too, will cost more than it's worth.
1) In the forward position, how far beyond the gun does the stock extend? I've currently got the 6-position M-4 stock and this suits me fine. I'm wondering if, for just the cheek weld, I'd be sacraficing compactness.
2) How much is this thing going to go for? I've noticed that them "Modular Handguard" thingies cost an arm and a leg... that's why I don't have one. It might be the case that this stock, too, will cost more than it's worth.
Jeff,
Thank you for the your kind words, and I'm glad you got a chance to meet Rich and handle the MSS. It's pretty damn sweet, isn't it?
Listen, I wouldn't mind having you as a DefRev resource, since you're active SWAT and an ex-Marine. And, who know's, I might even be a good resource for you, as well. I keep up to date with the latest and greatest of what's out there.
If you have personal email and phone contact information that you wouldn't mind me having, I'd certainly like to have it. You can send it to me at either of my email addresses, david@defensereview.com or davidc@netrox.net.
In the meantime, stay safe, and watch your six.
Thank you for the your kind words, and I'm glad you got a chance to meet Rich and handle the MSS. It's pretty damn sweet, isn't it?
Listen, I wouldn't mind having you as a DefRev resource, since you're active SWAT and an ex-Marine. And, who know's, I might even be a good resource for you, as well. I keep up to date with the latest and greatest of what's out there.
If you have personal email and phone contact information that you wouldn't mind me having, I'd certainly like to have it. You can send it to me at either of my email addresses, david@defensereview.com or davidc@netrox.net.
In the meantime, stay safe, and watch your six.
Badger,
The MSS ain't gonna' be cheap--that's for sure. It's probably going to retail between $280 and $300. Serious mujumbo! Definitely not for monetary lightweights, i.e. the currency challenged.
However, for those that can afford the unit, it will be well worth it. So you know, the stock seems to compact just as short as the 6-position stock you now have, but offers many more positions, a better(and constant) check weld, and is much more rugged. It's simply light years ahead. There's just no comparison. It changes the game.
The MSS ain't gonna' be cheap--that's for sure. It's probably going to retail between $280 and $300. Serious mujumbo! Definitely not for monetary lightweights, i.e. the currency challenged.
However, for those that can afford the unit, it will be well worth it. So you know, the stock seems to compact just as short as the 6-position stock you now have, but offers many more positions, a better(and constant) check weld, and is much more rugged. It's simply light years ahead. There's just no comparison. It changes the game.
Last edited:
David,
Email sent to your defensereview address. I've seen some of the info from your site on ar15.com and the Tactical Forums. I'll book mark your site, looks like it's got a lot of great info.
Badger,
The stock should be avalible to the public in July / August of 2002 and will cost around $300 for the initial set up. Mr. Fitzpatrick is modifying the MSS to be as short as the current telescoping stock and will be 1" longer than the A2 stock when fully extended.
The stock that I got to check out was just a prototype and didn't even have all the improvements made to it yet. Rich Fitzpatrick is one hell of a nice guy and really listens to his customers wants and needs.
Outside of the A2/M4 improvements to the M16 weapon system, I would say that the MSS is the greatest improvement to the M16 since it's introduction. The stock will definately be worth the cost.
Look for my review coming in the next week or so, once I've got the review complete I'll email Rich a link so he can answer any questions and get everyone's opinion.
Semper Fi
Jeff
Email sent to your defensereview address. I've seen some of the info from your site on ar15.com and the Tactical Forums. I'll book mark your site, looks like it's got a lot of great info.
Badger,
The stock should be avalible to the public in July / August of 2002 and will cost around $300 for the initial set up. Mr. Fitzpatrick is modifying the MSS to be as short as the current telescoping stock and will be 1" longer than the A2 stock when fully extended.
The stock that I got to check out was just a prototype and didn't even have all the improvements made to it yet. Rich Fitzpatrick is one hell of a nice guy and really listens to his customers wants and needs.
Outside of the A2/M4 improvements to the M16 weapon system, I would say that the MSS is the greatest improvement to the M16 since it's introduction. The stock will definately be worth the cost.
Look for my review coming in the next week or so, once I've got the review complete I'll email Rich a link so he can answer any questions and get everyone's opinion.
Semper Fi
Jeff
USMCsilver
New member
I am still awaiting to see what BATF says about the stock. Have you guys gotten anything from them yet stating legality for post ban use?
Last I heard from Magpul over at AW.net, it is undetermined as of yet.
Oh how I hope I can have this on my post ban to make my pre-ban jealous!
Last I heard from Magpul over at AW.net, it is undetermined as of yet.
Oh how I hope I can have this on my post ban to make my pre-ban jealous!
USMCsilver,
I've just added an addendum to the MSS article at DefenseReview.com(http://www.defensereview.com), that relates to your question. The inventor calls the MSS an "adjustable length carbine stock" or as the military might put it, "carbine stock- adjustable for length". It's operation is quite different from the standard M4 "collapsible" buttstock, and could therefore possibly end up being approved by BATF for installation on post-ban weapons. Technically, the MSS is not a "collapsible" buttstock as described in the law.
Hope this helps.
I've just added an addendum to the MSS article at DefenseReview.com(http://www.defensereview.com), that relates to your question. The inventor calls the MSS an "adjustable length carbine stock" or as the military might put it, "carbine stock- adjustable for length". It's operation is quite different from the standard M4 "collapsible" buttstock, and could therefore possibly end up being approved by BATF for installation on post-ban weapons. Technically, the MSS is not a "collapsible" buttstock as described in the law.
Hope this helps.
The way I understood it was if the buttstock folds, telescopes, or collapses it would make it allowed only for prebans.
Technically Magpuls Modular Stock System adjusts from one approved length to another approved length.
But remember this is all lawyer talk and is up for interputation, not our interputation, but the BATFs interputation.
I'm not trying to tell you that it is or is not post ban approved, this is just the way it was explained to me. It will be up to the lawyers to figure out and we will just have to wait and see.
Semper Fi
Jeff
Technically Magpuls Modular Stock System adjusts from one approved length to another approved length.
But remember this is all lawyer talk and is up for interputation, not our interputation, but the BATFs interputation.
I'm not trying to tell you that it is or is not post ban approved, this is just the way it was explained to me. It will be up to the lawyers to figure out and we will just have to wait and see.
Semper Fi
Jeff
Band-aid
More expensive band-aids for a flawed design. Gee, if we add a $1000 red dot and a $300 telescoping stock and a $250 rail system won't we have a supergun?
Uh, no. You still have a 1960s prototype design that pollutes itself each time you pull the trigger, that requires maintenance WAY out of order with competitive modern designs, and that will go DOA with a little brass shaving under the extractor spring.
I'm just so tired of the AR tweaking. Just replace the thing with a g36 or modernized AR 180 or a Sig 551. Heck, police and military can buy a folding stock g36 for under $600.
The position of the buffer tube on the AR is a bad design, plain and simple. Any attempt to make a good folder is consequently flawed. Like hot-rodding the engine in a Yugo. Yes, you can do it, but what's the point?
More expensive band-aids for a flawed design. Gee, if we add a $1000 red dot and a $300 telescoping stock and a $250 rail system won't we have a supergun?
Uh, no. You still have a 1960s prototype design that pollutes itself each time you pull the trigger, that requires maintenance WAY out of order with competitive modern designs, and that will go DOA with a little brass shaving under the extractor spring.
I'm just so tired of the AR tweaking. Just replace the thing with a g36 or modernized AR 180 or a Sig 551. Heck, police and military can buy a folding stock g36 for under $600.
The position of the buffer tube on the AR is a bad design, plain and simple. Any attempt to make a good folder is consequently flawed. Like hot-rodding the engine in a Yugo. Yes, you can do it, but what's the point?
Yo,
Truer words were never spoken. You're preachin' to the choir with me, bubba. The M16/AR-15 design is problematic.
I don't know, however, that I necessarily agree with your assessment that "the position of the buffer tube on the AR is a bad design, plain and simple." The buffer tube does soak up some recoil. Also, The the M4 stock is actually pretty directly in line with the chamber/barrel, which yields a nice straight-back recoil. The major flaw of the M16/AR-15 system is the lack of robustness under combat conditions, as well as reliability under those same conditions in adverse environments due to the actual execution of the direct gas-impingement system by the various companies, and the flimsiness of the aluminum 30 round magazines.
There is an exception to the rule regarding the gas-system problems. M2 Corporation out of Las Vegas has executed the gas system properly. They've modified the gas system/barrel-length ratio and have employed a proprietary front site that is now integral with the gas tube. In fact, it remains connected with the gas tube upon disassembly of the weapon. The M2 M16SP(8 3/4" barrel) and M16C(6" barrel) are both mini-assault rifles based on the M16/AR-15 system. They are extremely reliable from all reports I've received from cogniscenti friends of mine that have evaluated them. To my knowledge, M2 is the only company that has solved the gas sysem problems pretty much completely. You can run 5 or 6 C-mags(each 100 rounds) back to back, without overheating the gun(including the barrel), blowing out the rings or clogging the mechanism. No other company, to my knowledge, has accomplished this feat. The M2 guns will out-shoot and out run the G36K and G36C. I don't know how they stack up against the SIG 552.
By the way, I own a pristine Howa AR-180 that's very sweet. Great gun, and an inherently more reliable and maintainable system than the AR-15, due to its simplicity. In fact, the G36 is based on the AR-18 system.
Truer words were never spoken. You're preachin' to the choir with me, bubba. The M16/AR-15 design is problematic.
I don't know, however, that I necessarily agree with your assessment that "the position of the buffer tube on the AR is a bad design, plain and simple." The buffer tube does soak up some recoil. Also, The the M4 stock is actually pretty directly in line with the chamber/barrel, which yields a nice straight-back recoil. The major flaw of the M16/AR-15 system is the lack of robustness under combat conditions, as well as reliability under those same conditions in adverse environments due to the actual execution of the direct gas-impingement system by the various companies, and the flimsiness of the aluminum 30 round magazines.
There is an exception to the rule regarding the gas-system problems. M2 Corporation out of Las Vegas has executed the gas system properly. They've modified the gas system/barrel-length ratio and have employed a proprietary front site that is now integral with the gas tube. In fact, it remains connected with the gas tube upon disassembly of the weapon. The M2 M16SP(8 3/4" barrel) and M16C(6" barrel) are both mini-assault rifles based on the M16/AR-15 system. They are extremely reliable from all reports I've received from cogniscenti friends of mine that have evaluated them. To my knowledge, M2 is the only company that has solved the gas sysem problems pretty much completely. You can run 5 or 6 C-mags(each 100 rounds) back to back, without overheating the gun(including the barrel), blowing out the rings or clogging the mechanism. No other company, to my knowledge, has accomplished this feat. The M2 guns will out-shoot and out run the G36K and G36C. I don't know how they stack up against the SIG 552.
By the way, I own a pristine Howa AR-180 that's very sweet. Great gun, and an inherently more reliable and maintainable system than the AR-15, due to its simplicity. In fact, the G36 is based on the AR-18 system.
Badger Arms
New member
The British L85 service rifle was ALSO based on the AR-18. Hehehe.
-Yo-
You’re right, what was I thinking!
Developing an improvement for one of the most common rifle systems in the world and current rifle in use by the US, Canadian and Israeli armed forces is such a dumb idea.
I’ll abandon the project immediately.
But seriously,
No one is saying the M16 is the best system out there, but it IS an established system with millions of units in countless configurations and calibers. With all it’s shortcomings the M16 also remains the longest serving service rifle in the US Military.
Newer might be better when it comes down to computers but with firearms things get a little complicated.
In my case I not only have many many hours invested in training with the M16 but also own transferable M16s and preban AR15s.
A G36 might be a viable option for a small Law Enforcement Dept, but my version of a G36 is an expensive, gray, post ban restricted target rifle, limited to special 10 round mags and costly spare parts. At least with an M16/AR15 you always know spare parts and mags will never be a problem.
For me, the M16 buffer design works very well to counter recoil and the MSS adjustable stock is much more versatile than a simple folder like the one on the G36. My experience suggests that folding stocks are basically only useful for storage of the weapon. The CAR design still allows for a very compact weapon but is still usable, as a stock, in the closed position.
I too would like a op-rod gas system however after watching a M2 shorty M16 empty several Beta C mags, one after another, on full auto with no malfunctions - they may have that problem solved.
With this in mind the MSS is designed to fix one of what I see as the final flaws with the M16/AR15 weapon system, not to create some sort of "super-gun"
***edited for piss poor grammer***
You’re right, what was I thinking!
Developing an improvement for one of the most common rifle systems in the world and current rifle in use by the US, Canadian and Israeli armed forces is such a dumb idea.
I’ll abandon the project immediately.
But seriously,
No one is saying the M16 is the best system out there, but it IS an established system with millions of units in countless configurations and calibers. With all it’s shortcomings the M16 also remains the longest serving service rifle in the US Military.
Newer might be better when it comes down to computers but with firearms things get a little complicated.
In my case I not only have many many hours invested in training with the M16 but also own transferable M16s and preban AR15s.
A G36 might be a viable option for a small Law Enforcement Dept, but my version of a G36 is an expensive, gray, post ban restricted target rifle, limited to special 10 round mags and costly spare parts. At least with an M16/AR15 you always know spare parts and mags will never be a problem.
For me, the M16 buffer design works very well to counter recoil and the MSS adjustable stock is much more versatile than a simple folder like the one on the G36. My experience suggests that folding stocks are basically only useful for storage of the weapon. The CAR design still allows for a very compact weapon but is still usable, as a stock, in the closed position.
I too would like a op-rod gas system however after watching a M2 shorty M16 empty several Beta C mags, one after another, on full auto with no malfunctions - they may have that problem solved.
With this in mind the MSS is designed to fix one of what I see as the final flaws with the M16/AR15 weapon system, not to create some sort of "super-gun"
***edited for piss poor grammer***
Last edited: