LAW Tactical Folding Stock adapter.

AR/M4 AR General Discussion
1

Today a friend of mine showed me his AR at the range (in the middle of nowhere, shootable land) equipped with one of these, along with some LAW Tactical Mk. 262 clone.

Some observations:

The Mk. 262 clone performed well. 500m shots were easy with 3X magnifiers, and the smallest group of the day (from me) was about 1.3’’ (10 rounds) at 100m. KAC NT4 suppressor. He told me they use Nosler 77 gr. bullets. According to their site, he is correct. I don’t know if they were cannelured (hopefully I spelled that right) or HPBT or not, but they were accurate, 5.56mm pressure (locked my gun’s bolt back when unsuppressed.), and didn’t cause malfs.

The LAW Tactical folding stock adds a little bit of length to the stock. Like maybe 3/4’’ an inch or so, but I suck at measuring. The folding stock + VLTOR A5 collapsed completely (stock deployed) with B5 SOPMOD (his SOPMOD. Mine is LMT.) seems to be about the same LOP as a Colt M4 stock on the second notch. It’s a good length, and I like it. I usually keep my A5 on the second notch anyways, so it was great for me, and didn’t need to be extended. Sadly, you can’t make it shorter than that either, so it’s either that or collapse it. I’ve not held it with standard carbine RE.

It did not cause a single malf, and walking around with it folded was fine. It also fits very well in a backpack.

I don’t know if I’d recommend it, but I might try one out for myself. I wonder a little bit if it adds to the length that the bolt has to travel rearward, giving you an even slower carrier velocity…

I dig it though. But I’ll still wait to see how it performs over the long run. However he told me that he payed like $230 for his.

It is compatable with any endplate that fits on a standard carbine RE. As he had a KAC endplate on his, and it was fine. Hopefully there wouldn’t be an issue with it collapsing during firing or anything. (because you can’t stake it, even though you’d still stake the castle nut.)

I’ll have to revise this later, as I’m really tired while I write this.

I’ll keep you guys updated to see if it causes any problems on his gun.

http://www.lawtactical.com/

Their site seems a little tacticool to me, but not too bad.

The one thing I HATE about it however. It totally leaves he ass end of the bolt carrier exposed, and crap could get inside the gun. That’s retarded. But the nature of the beast I guess. I did get oil all over myself because of that.

2

The carrier itself is not exposed when folded. There is an extension that fits into the rear of the carrier and that is what is open to the elements. It is solid so it has a better chance at keeping debris out in theory, but I think it is mainly to make up for the length of the folder so the carrier travels the same distance as a standard setup. I’m not sure if the extra weight of the carrier extension has any effect on function like a heavier buffer or carrier would, but I assume so.

Pics of the extension:

3

4

What is the purpose of this, exactly?

If you’re trying to fit it into a backpack, it makes much more sense to simply tear the weapon down to just the upper and lower receiver assemblies.

If you’re wanting a weapon with a folding stock, I say buy one that’s actually designed for one, like an AK, SCAR, or ACR.

5

well if this worked and was reliable I think it has a market. being able to fit into a back pack or what ever broken down is not easy to put into action if required. A folding stock is much easier to put into place than assembling a lower and upper.

JP

6

Anyone knows what gen 2 is about?

7

Great news. A piston ar as short as an ak folder is in my future. I like the idea of carrying it to the range on the back seat of my bike

8

I’ll have to get more time with it to comment on that. I TOTALLY remember seeing the ass end of the carrier openly exposed. I acutally wanted to see if I could cycle the weapon that way, but we never tried.

I also wanted to add that using a sling with this thing folded sucks ass.

9

This could grow on me. I like the idea of a folder with DI parts. If it holds up, I might get one.

ETA: what I don’t like is the ass end of my carrier exposed. Hmmm…

10

I think I remember reading that the weapon would fire one round with it folded, but that it bent a tab and the assembly had to be returned to the manufacturer to repair?

11

I think someone is going to have a bad day when they forget to close it and fire the weapon. Interesting idea none the less.

12

I’ve heard of that too. And we considered doing it, but then decided that it was too likely that something would go wrong, and that it was unnecessary abuse, and didn’t do it.

13

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=98690

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=104703

14

If you fire it with the stock folded back, it bends a tab. The tab should be able to be replaced.

15

This entire idea is dumb, and is just another example of people trying to take the easy way out and introducing more problems in the process.

if the goal was to allow a folding stock, the RIGHT thing to do would have been to redesign the upper receiver assembly so that the receiver extension was unnecessary. But nope, they can’t do that.

At least RRA made an attempt at this.

16

Justin—you do have a point, but there is, I think, a countervailing point to consider. For better or worse, it looks like “we” are “stuck” with the M4 for the foreseeable future. (I share the consensus opinion here that that’s not really a bad thing, not at all.)

Being “stuck” with the M4 means that novel upper receiver assemblies aren’t going to happen. We’re going to be operating with very similar upper and lower receivers for a while. If there’s going to be progress (and there is), it’s going to be around the edges. Ambi-selectors and mag releases, mid-length gas (maybe), the Vltor A5 receiver extension----these are all upgrades (arguably) to the M4, but it’s still an M4.

The folding stock may flop. It might not strike the right chord with the buying public, and it might turn out to have serious problems in use. I don’t particularly care for it, but I can see a real niche for people needing the smallest possible profile. And, with the stock installed, the M4 it’s installed on is still an M4.

Hope this makes sense.

17

This device looks about as awesome as the one that uses the shooters chin to absorb the recoil.

18

I can tell you right now that the military will NEVER adopt this. Period. So, yes, you are “stuck” with the M-4 and M-16 if you’re in the military and not assigned to any special mission units.

Not only that, the military puts very low priority on folding stocks.

And, no, you won’t see mid-length gas systems adopted by the military on a large-scale, either.

If you’re a civilian, then, no, you are not “stuck” with this. You can buy an SLR-107 for about $800-$900.

And, yes, there are some companies working on new upper receiver assemblies, even though most are still on the drawing board. As for right now, there’s only Z-M Weapons and RRA, but there are others in the works. Read around the forum a bit…

19

Sure, if you don’t like it… it must be dumb, yet someone introducing a proprietary and redesigned gas system which changes the entire weapon would be great. Ok. :stuck_out_tongue:

Getting rid of the buffer assembly has been done before, if you don’t remember it, that would be because it didn’t stick around.

20

Moonlight Again,

Well said. I think if it proves to meet a certain level of reliabilty and durablity it could fill a niche roll for SBR’s. The idea of putting a loaded SBR in a case about the size of a laptop case it pretty cool. Of course this device isn’t going to be adopted by the military but that doesn’t mean it can’t serve a limited purpose and fill a limited roll well.