anyone think they would buy a Canadian made M14 chasis system?

well... my fiberglass custom stocks start around 400.00 and I'll tell ya this..... the demand quite frankly is something I never anticipated. Preparing to meet that demand has been a year long road, and I'm not quite ready to advertise.... the demand at the price point I've targetted would sink me. This is why i have not yet enrolled in the dealer program..... I want to be able to deliver on demand, not "make to order" as I have in the past.

A 700.00 aluminum chassis stock that passed the eye of the masses ..... i would estimate sales of 3 to 6 per month for at least a year, considering sales confined to the canadian market only. After that .... who knows..... will the m14 train last that long? ...... will it's cult following continue at the rabid pace it has over the past year or so? ...... These are also serious questions to ask yourself if you are thinking of investing your time and money into a business endeavor with a price point of 700.00 . How many stocks would you have to sell to break even on the cost of R&D and protoyping, labour, materials, machine hours ect ect . Remember Sage has military contracts, thier product is now $$$$ in the bank...... Troy has the LEO side under wraps and possibly military contracts as well.... again $$$$ in the bank.
Your product will have a civillian market only in canada and this will affect whether or not the business side of the endeavor would make it worth pursuing.

I am in no way trying to talk you out of it, but i went down this road before i made the decision to get into fiberglass. I am going to eventually buy a mini mill set up and "one off" one of aluminum chassis designs and who knows, one day maybe i'll make those too ;)
 
So I think we are gonna go with the two piece system, similar in concept to the CAS-14 design but not nearly the same. The Upper hand guard will be seperate from the stock and fit on a rifle using the factory stock, USGI etc. This way people can use a variety of stocks if they like.

There are a few questions that I want to get the opinion of fellow m14 lovers on:

1. Would a picitinny rail that extends rearward past the rear sight be preffered? This would give a profile similar to the AR for optics mounting
a. The factory irons are too low for backup use in a setup that has a comfortable cheak weld with optics so trying to acomodate them is a bit of a waste.
b. The user could chose any flip up iron sights he/she wanted.
c. The Norinco rear irons are notorious for failing so...

2. Price. Keep in mind that just because you want it cheap doesn't mean it can be made cheap. We are looking at a price point of $275-$300 for the upper hand guard optics mount. Would this be acceptable?
a. We are planning to use some pretty advanced alloys in the construction of this system. The downside is cost the upside however is weight. The one alloy we're looking at has similar strength charistics to steel so we can make the part thinner then regular aluminum, thus lighter. The weight charistics are a few percent heavier then plastic.
 
You could probably put me down for one at that price...definitely the price would not be a concern as $275-300 is not unreasonable in comparison to stuff like the KAS rail system.

Picatinny past the rear sight...I have to say I am indifferent to this as I have no particular expertise with the AR platform. It would not stop me from buying the chassis, that's for sure.

So when you say a 2-piece like-ish to the CAR 15 are you talking upper and lower front end, to be used with whatever stock you already have? Or will the lower be a chassis component that will replace the stock?

Very interested to see some sketches!
 
We're looking at a stock that allows the barrel to float but an upper rail system that captures the barrel to stabilize it and mount the optics, but they would be seperate components. Yes you could use a diffencent stock. The benefit of our stock is that it that is would be modular and allow for multiple but stock, pistol grip, bi-pod, forward PG etc options.

I honestly think that once you are committed to a system like this the factory irons become moot. Extending the rail allows you to use pretty much any type of optic you want which means BUIS or primary optics.
 
the upper full length rail would be a winner at 300.00 Other designs have utilized the rear sight pocket as the mounting point so having a rail that extended forward from the back of the rear sight pocket and forward from there would be ideal....... and LOW, LOW LOW , as low as you can get it.


sign me up, I'll take 2 :D...... oh and one other thing, will your upper unit be compatable with a medium profile or DMR profile barrel....... then I'll for sure take 2 ;)
 
45ACP we are still working on the barrel profile issues.

Yep we will be as low as we can. There are limits though. Ours should be about as low as the CAS-14 setup.
 
One of the things I'm thinking about is making ours shorter then the factory hand guard. About as long as the Sage CQB. I know it would look different on a standard stock but it would help us to keep the weight both to a minimum and off the end of the rifle.

Thoughts???
 
suprathepeg said:
We're looking at a stock that allows the barrel to float but an upper rail system that captures the barrel to stabilize it and mount the optics, but they would be seperate components. Yes you could use a diffencent stock. The benefit of our stock is that it that is would be modular and allow for multiple but stock, pistol grip, bi-pod, forward PG etc options.

I honestly think that once you are committed to a system like this the factory irons become moot. Extending the rail allows you to use pretty much any type of optic you want which means BUIS or primary optics.
Click to expand...

Why not make your stock to work with the UTG system I have been impressed with mine. That would keep the cost down and I know I would be interested in one
 
suprathepeg said:
So I think we are gonna go with the two piece system, similar in concept to the CAS-14 design but not nearly the same. The Upper hand guard will be seperate from the stock and fit on a rifle using the factory stock, USGI etc. This way people can use a variety of stocks if they like.

There are a few questions that I want to get the opinion of fellow m14 lovers on:

1. Would a picitinny rail that extends rearward past the rear sight be preffered? This would give a profile similar to the AR for optics mounting
a. The factory irons are too low for backup use in a setup that has a comfortable cheak weld with optics so trying to acomodate them is a bit of a waste.
b. The user could chose any flip up iron sights he/she wanted.
c. The Norinco rear irons are notorious for failing so...

2. Price. Keep in mind that just because you want it cheap doesn't mean it can be made cheap. We are looking at a price point of $275-$300 for the upper hand guard optics mount. Would this be acceptable?
a. We are planning to use some pretty advanced alloys in the construction of this system. The downside is cost the upside however is weight. The one alloy we're looking at has similar strength charistics to steel so we can make the part thinner then regular aluminum, thus lighter. The weight charistics are a few percent heavier then plastic.
Click to expand...


All i got to say is *Make it lighter they will come* :D
 
Well for one the base material we will be making our stock from will be FAR FAR FAR superior to the UTG. Our tollerances will be WAY WAY WAY more consistant etc etc etc.

That said our design should work with the UTG mount if the user should so choose.
 
suprathepeg said:
One of the things I'm thinking about is making ours shorter then the factory hand guard. About as long as the Sage CQB. I know it would look different on a standard stock but it would help us to keep the weight both to a minimum and off the end of the rifle.

Thoughts???
Click to expand...


It would definitely be worth seeing some concept drawings of your upper with your stock. The problem with keeping the standard stock is that you are going to have that barrel band hanging out there uselessly on top, but still holding the stock on the bottom!

But if your stock looks badass and is sized to go with the upper...could see people buying both.

Honestly (and this is just personal opinion so take it for what it's worth) if the upper is shorter than the lower, then I'd make the lower first just because I think it would look weird with a standard stock.

But what do I know? If I saw drawings I might change my mind!
 
misanthropist said:
It would definitely be worth seeing some concept drawings of your upper with your stock. The problem with keeping the standard stock is that you are going to have that barrel band hanging out there uselessly on top, but still holding the stock on the bottom!

But if your stock looks badass and is sized to go with the upper...could see people buying both.

Honestly (and this is just personal opinion so take it for what it's worth) if the upper is shorter than the lower, then I'd make the lower first just because I think it would look weird with a standard stock.

But what do I know? If I saw drawings I might change my mind!
Click to expand...

I've learned not to post up concept drawings cause people either get confused or steal ideas. So you will all have to wait.

The "barrel band" can be removed easy enough.
 
Its not holding your stock on, the trigger mech is. I don't see anything wrong with floating the BBL. Its main purpose is to retain the UHG.
 
Like someone said, make it kinda like the troy, with the stock inline with the barrel.

Why not use magnesium? easily machined. can be anodized. Lighter than aluminum.

Water = 1g/cm^3
Magnesium 1.61g/cm^3
Aluminum 2.62 g cm^3
iron 7.86 g/cm^3

Magnesium stocks would be very light.
 
The stock will have adjustable butt stock heights so if you chose to use an optic or the irons cheek weld shouldn't be an issue. Keep in mind that ours will look nothing like the Troy, mostly cause the Troy is way too heavy for what we want to accomplish.

Finally for a combat weapon floating the barrel is not an issue, look at the M16/C7 everything forward of the receiver is supported by the barrel.

We're actually looking at some Aluminum alloys that have similar strenght charictoristics to steel, so we can reduce weight by removing material. This means a system that is very strong and solid but not bulky or heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom