NEA Compact Carbine Stock install - Range report up.

FastFord: This stock doesn't require the use of the buffer retaining pin. Are you certain you haven't screwed the tube in a turn or two too far? There is no reason you couldn't turn the buffer tube out a turn to gain more internal length. Obviously we don't want to turn the tube out too far as that would leave too few threads holding it in the reciever.
 
Suputin said:
FastFord: This stock doesn't require the use of the buffer retaining pin. Are you certain you haven't screwed the tube in a turn or two too far? There is no reason you couldn't turn the buffer tube out a turn to gain more internal length. Obviously we don't want to turn the tube out too far as that would leave too few threads holding it in the reciever.
Click to expand...

I suppose I could do that. My only concern is having the tube back out under use. I suppose it is easy enough to monitor.
 
Reminds me of this from my childhood............


beforeNafter_Squires_Bingham_m1600R.jpg
 
So it seems to me, the designer did not allow for the bolt to travel the correct distance. A shorter stock certainly has its place, however by shortening the travel distance of the bolt feed reliability will go down. During WW2 the Germans found that the longer the bolt travels under spring power, the more reliably it feeds. The STG44 travels roughly three cartridge lengths from battery to fully opened and has a heavier recoil spring.

The AR15 bolt travels roughly less than two cartridge lengths and this short stock reduces that distance further. The issue with the bolt release seems pretty clear cut to me, the bolt is bouncing off the buffer and starting its forward travel before the bolt catch can be pushed into place.

My gut feeling is that this stock was designed for .300blk and not 5.56.
 
I'm probably missing something but why would it matter if its designed for 556 or 300 blk?
Aren't they both the same case and same mags etc?
If its short for one, wouldn't it be short for the other?
 
Mr Mirk....
Is your buffer trimmed from the factory like the bottom photo?
If it is please lmk asap and ill cut the bloody thing down!!!
Mine is like upper photo and NFG.
Thanks!
 
pauls said:
I'm probably missing something but why would it matter if its designed for 556 or 300 blk?
Aren't they both the same case and same mags etc?
If its short for one, wouldn't it be short for the other?
Click to expand...

My guess is that with subsonic .300blk the bolt travel speed is much slower, giving more time for the bolt catch to operate reliably.
 
Mirk said:
I just received mine yesterday and my carrier looks like the one in the second pic. Hmmm… they trimmed it for me I guess…
Click to expand...

Interesting!

I may trim it with a file about another 1/16th and see how that pans out. Saving that, there is just not much I will be able to do. It does catch occasionally, so if I can just get it to a reliable catch, I'll be good to go.
 
Alright, had sometime to mess with it and do some test fitting. Can’t assemble anything yet though as one lower won’t work (see below) and the other needs to be fit as the end plate hole is too small. So... The good, the bad, and the ugly...

The Good – It appears to be very well made, things fit together near perfectly, the rails slide smoothly, it’s solid. It looked like the inside of the buffer tube thing might have been dry film lubed. The carrier appears good, solid, well staked, the coating feels slick. Overall build quality seems quite good.

The Bad – If I pull my bolt all the way forward in the carrier, which it doesn’t necessarily do manually cycling it, and put it in the lower it almost perfectly lines up with the bolt catch. I have like 1/32” of room. If I put the spring in it binds up and I can’t get the carrier back far enough for it to clear the bolt catch, this is just testing by hand, so once the upper is on I might not have an issue. Now, I have a lower that has a lip on it above the safety, instead of flat walls, and I can’t put the upper and lower together because the carrier sticks out the back. So it won’t necessarily work with just any lower.

The Ugly – Alright, why is every component of it a different color, the parts that appear to be aluminum are 3 different colors. It doesn’t really bother me but common guys. It appears that the end cap on the buffer tube should have been 3/8” shorter as the stock will not lock into its shortest notch. Subsequently, that end cap seems to be made out of steel and appears to be adding a good amount of weight. I would like to know the reason for this as I am seriously considering cutting 3/8” off of it. Finally, the set screw on one of the legs sticks directly out of the side 1/8”, not sure of the reason for this, but it looks like it is asking to be snagged on everything and anything.

You can see the lip on my receiver here, there is a little aluminum showing from where I forced it together. (Bonus points if you can guess the type of receiver.) I guess the back of my buffer is somewhere between FastFord's pics.
DSC00224_zpsd2c072b6.jpg


Here is the bolt fitted into the receiver.
DSC00223_zps479abad2.jpg
 
What camera did you take those with? Nice resolution.

You have the same problem I have basically. I'm going to trim a bit more, but not much. It still may not be enough. It is an annoyance for civilian use; I'm not sure I would run it as an operator though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom