• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Mk 13 Mod 0 stock

rangers were running badger 1.125 w/ pvs22 / pvs26

0.jpg


47513_1174375415238_1703658191_349780_5757125_n.jpg
67981437_2360846937331357_3594734146095677440_n.jpg


a buddy got a handful of nav-specs from 2008-2009ish and all had 1.125 rings.
 
Rangers circa 2009 if I recall correctly. (guy on left is local, he "loved the 300s." He used both variants seen in this pic).
(I never asked him about NV gear used at that time, but next time I run into him I will ask out of curiosity).

Mk 13 Mod 5 & Mk 13 Mod 2_2009_cropped.png
,

From the source re Mk 13 Mod 2:
"We used Badger Steel 1 1/8" rings on the Mod 2 (and 4.5-14X Leupold MK 4 scopes). We even had threaded muzzles with thread protector cap and included Vortex with the Mod 2’s. I like the green so much better than that nasty color the Mod 5 stock skins ended up."

...his words, not mine(!).
 
Last edited:
Is there information on which model Vortex muzzle devices were issued for the Mod 2?
The one I can find that appears to match the visual characteristics in the handful of Mod 2 reference images I have (longer oal, no suppressor groove around the circumference), is the one labelled 5/8"-24 Tactical 308 in the attached image. Sadly it's a discontinued model and I can't track down a P/N
 

Attachments

  • smith.jpg
    smith.jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 186
Is there information on which model Vortex muzzle devices were issued for the Mod 2?
The one I can find that appears to match the visual characteristics in the handful of Mod 2 reference images I have (longer oal, no suppressor groove around the circumference), is the one labelled 5/8"-24 Tactical 308 in the attached image. Sadly it's a discontinued model and I can't track down a P/N
The one you are highlighting looks like the ones in all the reference photos. Talking to Ron Smith, it seems those are what they did testing with but the contract one was different. I attached a photo of what he said were the contract ones, which had the same shape, but had grooves and a suppressor ring cut in it. Somewhere in the timeline on the mod 2, they discovered the flash hiders actually hurt accuracy and actually stopped using them.
IMG_2876 2.JPG
 
One more note re the Smith Vortex flash hiders. The early ones had a smooth finish, but I think Ron mentioned there were issues/complaints about how difficult it was to remove the suppressor after carbon fouling got caked in-between the suppressor and the Vortex flash hider. So, they revised the design with the grooved surface and suppressor ring - that reportedly allows the carbon fowling places to 'collect' and thus it's easier to remove a dirty sound suppressor from the later "grooved" style flash hider. I don't know the timelines involved re that design change, so this is just a random fyi.

Ilikebmxbikes probably knows the answer, but the original Mod 2s circa early 200Xs had the unique Leupold 4.5-14x FFP scopes. (on edit: Below take-off Leupold scope is a "K" code on the serial number suffix, so that scope is dated 2002). A later briefing from what I would guess is late 200Xs or maybe 2010 refers to a "Mk 13 Mod 2 Update" specification, which lists a 3.5-15x50mm NF NXS scope with 'Ranger reticle' (1 MOA elevation & 1/2 MOA windage adj) - but it doesn't show the Vortex flash hider in that pic, so not sure if it was omitted at some point, or what.
 
Last edited:
Here is my mod 2 pile before it gets sent out next week.

MK13 MOD 5 take off Chassis w/ Green Skins swapped on
Used MK13 MOD 2 optic and rings
Rem 700 w/ G639 Prefix
MK13 Bolt w/ Sako Extractor - not sure if off a MOD 0/3 or a MOD 2.
MK13 MOD 5 MARS Rail
Crane Recoil Lug
Crane MK13 Trigger
Smith Enterprises MK13 Vortex Flash hider
Lilja MK13 MOD 0/2/3 barrel
Used MK13 MOD 5 Bipod - not pictured

IMG_2882.JPG
 
I think those are the only two Mk 13 Mod 2 replicas that I have seen with original Crane/Leupold take-off scopes. Well done(!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCSGT0331
Ok, so who ended up with the (21) issued/surplus MIRS rails today?
Dont blame me for the final price, I got out of it a few bids before it ended.

But uhhh.....can I get one of those? 😉
 
Ok, so who ended up with the (21) issued/surplus MIRS rails today?
Dont blame me for the final price, I got out of it a few bids before it ended.

But uhhh.....can I get one of those? 😉
Didn’t thoroughbred armament just release a few more on their site?
 
I got a new rev B from them, I think the last one they had, around Christmas. These sold today on an auction site. Nice salty ones. It just got to rich for my poor ass. But... heads up, and if anyone on here got them I would love to pick one up to go with the issued stock I was lucky enough to get from 0331. Many thanks again for that.

And I guess I need some NF logo'd rings or caps now too. 😑 hahaha
 
I got a new rev B from them, I think the last one they had, around Christmas. These sold today on an auction site. Nice salty ones. It just got to rich for my poor ass. But... heads up, and if anyone on here got them I would love to pick one up to go with the issued stock I was lucky enough to get from 0331. Many thanks again for that.

And I guess I need some NF logo'd rings or caps now too. 😑 hahaha
I second the need for NF logo rings
 
Ok, so who ended up with the (21) issued/surplus MIRS rails today?
Dont blame me for the final price, I got out of it a few bids before it ended.

But uhhh.....can I get one of those? 😉

Now that the auction is over, please post a link. I'd like to see what they look like and if any match the stocks I have!
 
Now that the auction is over, please post a link. I'd like to see what they look like and if any match the stocks I have!
i bid up to like 2600 or something. the box was a mix of mars and mirs. be curious to see what serial range on the MARS rails.
 
Just catching up on this thread - so much great info and really fantastic photos.

Working on finishing my Mod 5 Stiller Action w/ IMUNs - if I go NXS 5.5-22x56, it's the Nightforce A107 1.125 rings that I want?
 
Last edited:
Figured I'd contribute to this awesome thread (even more info here than on arfcom - loving it).

Almost there with mine - suppressor will hopefully be approved in the next month or so. Just need to make up my mind about what optic to go with - can't decide between the ATACR 5-25x56 or the NXS 5.5-22x56.

RWS built Mod 5 w/ Stiller action:


tI96XOG.jpg


M9MCHjM.jpg


eNUglj7.jpg
 
.
Yeah, I was watching that GB one just to see if it would sell for that. If I would have looked back and seen that it actually sold I probably would have kept going. :unsure: You gotta add the 20% auction fee to that, so maybe 325.00 or so...but still, $900.00 is just crazy.
 
Anyone know of any pics in the wild showing a Mod 5 with an ATACR?

I don't have pics, and other's may know more, but here's all I understand re that scope and SOCOM's procurement of them:

In July 2018 the USMC awarded a contract for NF for the 5-25X ACTAR scopes for their new Mk 13 Mod 7 rifles:

In December 2019 SOCOM awarded a contract to NF for 5-25x and 7-35x ACTAR scopes (5-year contract known as the "Precision-Variable Power Scopes (P-VPS)" contract : https://www.nightforceoptics.com/in...tforcer-optics-awarded-ussocom-p-vps-contract

So a 5-25x ACTAR on a Mk 13 Mod 5 or Mod 7 prior to Dec 2019 would likely be a Test and Evaluation (T&E) scope, likely provided gratis by NF in an effort to get feedback from Crane/SOCOM, and thus better position them for when the P-VPS RFP was released and subsequently awarded.

I don't know exactly when Mod 5's were more of less replaced by Mod 7s, but I assume that was prior to late 2019.
 
Last edited:
That makes sense - so more than likely there were a few Mod 5s out there with ATACRs.

I've been going back and forth on optics. The ATACR is obviously the better scope, but I think I may just go with the NXS 5.5-22x56 and save some money, especially since I don't really have access to many ranges with shooting distances beyond 4-500 yards. It's not like I'm going to be taking this thing out (not anytime soon anyway) to hit targets at 1,000 and beyond (where I'd feel like the better glass would shine).

The NXS 5.5-22x56 is also just a classic GWOT optic - a workhorse that has seen a ton of action, so I think it'd be a great fit for my Mod 5.
 
As noted in post #865, the ring heights changed over time based on which scope and Night Vision optic used, as centerline b/t both optics was desired:

"For the NF 5.5-22x56, pre clip-on, we ended up with 1.375” rings. For the longest time, 1.125 was the tallest on the SR25 and MK11. About the same time as PVS-22/INOD, the MDNS was being developed (finally the PVS-24)...SOCOM settled on the 1.535” centerline for optics."

So, perhaps 1.375" for an early Mod 5 with AN/PVS-22, and at some point SOCOM standardized on 1.535" for ring heights on all flat top weapons when they adopted the PVS-24. I don't know what years correspond with those two different night vision optics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wayfaerer1
So, perhaps 1.375" for an early Mod 5 with AN/PVS-22, and at some point SOCOM standardized on 1.535" for ring heights on all flat top weapons when they adopted the PVS-24. I don't know what years correspond with those two different night vision optics.
you are not factoring the additional height of the of the mars rail. A 1.375 height ring on the mars rail would be on the tall side for a pvs/22. The Stiller/Imuns and Rem/Badger/Imuns had a much lower scope base that aligned evenly with the NF mount, where the mars rail, like the MIRS, has a step down to the night vision.

The pvs24LR is not magnum rated and I do not believe they were designed to be used on the mk13's but they do have similar height as the pvs27/30.

Here are some photos of my PVS30 w different optics. With a pvs30, you have about a 1/4 alignment deviation between optic and clip on without any issues. None of these optics/ ring combos are out of spec.

MK13 Mod 7 - 1.5" OBR with S&B PM2
IMG_2867.JPG


xm2010 w/ XM2010 rings and scope. This system was designed to be used with PVS30's.

IMG_2870.JPG


MK13 MOD 5 w/ 3.5-15X50mm w/ 1.125

IMG_2871.JPG


NF 5.5-22X56mm w/ 1.125

IMG_2874.JPG
 
you are not factoring the additional height of the of the mars rail. A 1.375 height ring on the mars rail would be on the tall side for a pvs/22. The Stiller/Imuns and Rem/Badger/Imuns had a much lower scope base that aligned evenly with the NF mount, where the mars rail, like the MIRS, has a step down to the night vision.

The pvs24LR is not magnum rated and I do not believe they were designed to be used on the mk13's but they do have similar height as the pvs27/30.

Here are some photos of my PVS30 w different optics. With a pvs30, you have about a 1/4 alignment deviation between optic and clip on without any issues. None of these optics/ ring combos are out of spec.

MK13 Mod 7 - 1.5" OBR with S&B PM2
View attachment 7561689

xm2010 w/ XM2010 rings and scope. This system was designed to be used with PVS30's.

View attachment 7561691

MK13 MOD 5 w/ 3.5-15X50mm w/ 1.125

View attachment 7561693

NF 5.5-22X56mm w/ 1.125

View attachment 7561694

Valuable info, thank you for posting
 
  • Like
Reactions: wayfaerer1
No expert on night vision gear, but here how Crane optics guy explained it, more or less.

Early Mk 13 rifles with MIRS/MARs stated with 1.125” rings, circa 2004-2005. Lowest centerline to bore was desired. (Crane ordered it first 600 MIR rails circa 2004, along with AN/PVS-22 units).

Nightvision optics progressed and ring height was adjusted to get proper center lines between day and night optic. He joked something about the old PVS-17 being “last century” and couldn’t remember the height of its centerline.

At some point the 1.375” value was adopted to get proper centerline with NV gear, which might have been the PVS-26? He implied this was during PSR contract time period, which had a separate optics procurement. I assume this is Mod 5 era.

I got the impression that a “flat rail” system was desirable to standardize ring heights. (KAC Mk 11/M110 and FN Mk 20 for example). I think the iMUN rail achieved that goal on the Mk 13 Mod 5, with front rail height alignment, correct?

At some point SOCOM instructed vendors to centerline their NV optics with a 1.535” ring height, so all flat rail systems could use the same NV gear with perfect centerline alignment, thus allowing a standardized ring height (30 or 34mm scope tube). Maybe that’s why he said 1.5” was “close enough” although spec is 1.535”.

He didn’t say what year that occurred, only that the PVS-30 was designed to that SOCOM spec.

Based on your pic, your PVS-30 aligns perfectly with the flat Mod 7 rail, but sits a little too high (~ 1/4”) with the MARs rails seen above with the 1.125” rings, hence I presume 1.265 rings? and his remarks about settling on the 1.375” rings with the NF 5.5-22x56mm scopes?. Not sure about Mk 11, but alignment looks very slightly off, with PVS-30, maybe about 1/8” taller than scope centerline...I think, but hard to see.

(FWIW, it seems SOCOM has ordered all of the following clip-on NV optics over the past decade and a half: PVS-22, 26, 27, 29 and 30, but obviously I don’t know what NV optic(s) operators preferred on their Mk 13 platforms over time).
 
Last edited:
No expert on night vision gear, but here how Crane optics guy explained it, more or less.

Early Mk 13 rifles with MIRS/MARs stated with 1.125” rings, circa 2004-2005. Lowest centerline to bore was desired. (Crane ordered it first 600 MIR rails circa 2004, along with AN/PVS-22 units).

Nightvision optics progressed and ring height was adjusted to get proper center lines between day and night optic. He joked something about the old PVS-17 being “last century” and couldn’t remember the height of its centerline.

At some point the 1.375” rings were adopted to get proper centerline with NV gear, which might have been the PVS-26? He implied this was during PSR contract time period, which had a separate optics procurement. I assume this is Mod 5 era.

I got the impression that a “flat rail” system was desirable to standardize ring heights. (KAC Mk 11/M110 and FN Mk 20 for example). I think the iMUN rail achieved that goal on the Mk 13 Mod 5, with front rail height alignment, correct?

At some point SOCOM instructed vendors to centerline their NV optics at 1.535”, so all flat rail systems could use the same NV gear with perfect centerline alignment, thus allowing a standardized ring height (based on day optic tube diameter of 30 or I guess 34mm?). Maybe that’s why he said 1.5” was “close enough” although spec is 1.535”.

He didn’t say what year that occurred, only that the PVS-30 was designed to that SOCOM spec.

Based on your pic, your PVS-30 aligns perfectly with the flat Mod 7 rail, but sits a little too high (~ 1/4”) with the MARs rails seen above with the 1.125” rings, hence I presume his remarks about settling on the 1.375” rings with the NF 5.5-22x56mm scopes. Not sure about Mk 11, but alignment looks very slightly off, with PVS-30, maybe about 1/8” taller than scope centerline...I think, but hard to see.

(FWIW, it seems SOCOM has ordered all of the following clip-on NV optics over the past decade and a half: PVS-22, 26, 27, 29 and 30, but obviously I don’t know what NV optic(s) operators preferred on their Mk 13 platforms over time).
PVS30 are designed you so can be .250 inches off center - up or down and the unit functions fine. If you take any mars rail gun with 1.125 rings and factor in the mars rail itself, which steps the night vision down, .250 inches, the actual center alignment of the scope is 1.375 relative to the NV unit. Now this would have lined up very well on a pvs22, and while visually not lining up perfect with the optics / PVS30 i shown in my photos, it is in fact within spec of the .250 alignment deviation and functions perfect. To say any of those optic combos is right or wrong, is looking at it wrong. They all work and were used heavily. The only issue with the different systems is a cosmetic one of them looking unaligned.

The M2010 is a good example of this. The XM2010 Rings are 1.375 height on a flat rail. The NV unit sits at the exact same alignment as my NXS on 1.125 rings on a mars rail relative to the NV unit. The army is still running that exact combination today with PVS30's and in much higher quantities than Crane / Socom did with the mk13's.

I dont think that they switched from PVS22 to PVS26 and all of a sudden had to raise the scope rings for performance reasons. PVS26 were issued in 2007ish. We have photos of rangers using pvs26's on mk13 mod 2 with 1.125 rings in 2009. MK13 mod 5's were delivered in 2007 with 1.125's and based on that timeframe, they initially used PVS26's and later PVS30's. Furthermore, the M2010 has the same alignment relationship and is still being used today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Random Guy
I dont think that they switched from PVS22 to PVS26 and all of a sudden had to raise the scope rings for performance reasons..
I hear you, and I am certainly not an optical engineer. However, as noted by NF rep in post #862, SOCOM asked NF for higher rings for the Mod 5 to better co-witness with NV gear, resulting in the 1.265" rings, but apparently that was not the end of the story... The main optics guy at Crane noted there were three optical and small arms engineers who ultimately "agreed to settle on" the 1.375" ring height based on a switch in NV gear on the Mk 13 Mod ?, but they didn't tell me what year that was. The key opto-electrical guy noted that ~1.38" was the centerline, and that 1.375 rings were "close enough". (From SOCOMs perspective rings are cheap and easy to swap, pricey scopes and NV gear is not).

Again, this topic is not my thing, but I suspect in-line optics are complex lens-based instruments and I simply don't know enough about what happens when there is a slight mis-alignment between the optical centerline of a telescope with a reticle with slightly curved objective lens, and the optical centerline of an in-line NV device that might utilize a flat or very slightly curved lens. If all the lens involved were flat and very close together like a double-paned window, there were would be no real optical dispersion/refraction and no focal point divergence issue(s).

I'm speculating, but perhaps there is some minor optical dispersion/refraction issues, or maybe a parallax issue (or small parallax error) occurs when the two centerlines/focal points are mis-aligned since we are talking about curved lens in one or both devices and the lens are always separated by a several inches? I'd have to go ask an optical engineer about that rather arcane topic...and how that might impact long range aiming precision, if at all...

Anyhow, as you noted, the systems worked well enough and were issued for years. Per your info, PVS-30 units have a .250" off-center tolerance spec. That said, for whatever reason SOCOM engineers sought over time to align the two centerlines of the day optic with the NV optic to the extent possible on various platforms, hence references on this thread different NF ring heights on the 'drop down' rails. I guess the circa 2004-5 MIRS rails on the Mk 14 Mod 0/1/3 were a bit of challenge with the step-down feature as NV gear evolved b/t PVS22 vs 26 vs 30, and maybe that is why SOCOM/Crane sought "flat rail" systems w/ a standardized ring height of 1.535" for flat rail weapon systems, (aka Mk 13, Mod 7). That’s all I know...
 
Last edited:
Great responses - especially the reference pics - that is too cool.

I ordered A107s (1.125) NF rings for my NXS 5.5-22x56. Both are in the mail.

I guess I won't really know until I test it out how the objective bell will sit above the barrel - I can always return the rings for a higher set if this doesn't work out on this rifle:

M9MCHjM.jpg
 
Actually, after re-reading some of the posts, it sounds like 1.125 rings would work with the above setup, but would not be high enough for use with NV.
 
A 1.375 ring on a mod 5 with a mars rail would be like running a 1.62 inch ring on a flat mod 7. The alignment would be equally as visually off with a pvs30 just the other direction. A 1.375 ring on a flat top mod 7 would have the same alignment as a mk13 mod 5 with 1.125 rings and a mars rail. Perhaps they were saying they set 1.375 total height as the original spec total optic height - which would have been a mars rail + 1.125.

what you describe with parallax shift is not the case pvs26/37/30. Stay within 1/4 of the center bore or you will start seeing vignettes before any large poi shift.

The xm2010 was not designed by crane but was designed for pvs26/30 and sits at 1.375 and it was designed years after the mod 5’s and continues service today.
 
Great responses - especially the reference pics - that is too cool.

I ordered A107s (1.125) NF rings for my NXS 5.5-22x56. Both are in the mail.

I guess I won't really know until I test it out how the objective bell will sit above the barrel - I can always return the rings for a higher set if this doesn't work out on this rifle:

M9MCHjM.jpg
For the Stiller / imuns- you want 1.5”
 
I don't know the NF model number, but here's info from the source re 1.5" rings (sounds like small variation b/t Combat Commands).

For flat rail weapons like Mod7 and Mod5 with the iMUNs, then use 1.5” rings or if LaRue the 1.535”. Depends on the user and which SB PMII scope you use or which Component Command you want to copy. Most long range clip-ons are 1.5” centerline. The ARMY wanted 1.535” as that was SOPMOD/WPNAC height. Close enough for most applications.

For drop down rails, we used the 1.285” Larue or the 1.25” OPSS/AWP. These LaRue mounts were upon Gould’s insistence and for the most part I think the guys were happy with them. LaRue LT111 and LT120 or OPSS/AWP 1.5” rings or 1.25” rings.
...I may ping him next week about the obscure engineering topic of centerline daytime scope + NV optic alignment, just out of curiosity...

One note re the LaRue LT120 mount as mentioned in the context of what I suspect is a late Mod 5 or maybe a Mod 7:
https://www.larue.com/products/larue-tactical-qd-scope-mount-lt120/
"The LT120 QD Scope Mount is similar in design to the LT111, however it allows scope to be mounted lower to the bore. It is available in 34mm or 30mm rings. The height is set for 1.285" centerline of the scope above the M1913 Picatinny rail. Because the LT120 sits the scopes lower to the bore, they will not align properly with weapon-mounted clip-on night vision devices which sit at 1.535”. Additionally, it will not work with scopes that have an Objective Housing larger than 56mm which is the largest that will fit and still allow the use of lens caps. The mount has a 0 MOA built-in cant. The LT-120 will also accommodate the US Optics T-Pal with its larger turret body. The generous 2.9" ring spacing accommodates large turret blocks with ease.
...vs their LT111 mount:
"The LT111 OBR (Optimized Battle Rifle) QD Scope Mount was designed specifically for the OBR, available in 34mm or 30mm rings. The height is set for 1.535" above the rail, for perfect alignment with weapon-mounted clip-on night vision devices. There is zero built-in cant to ensure perfect centerline alignment (the OBR rifle has 20 MOA built-in to the upper rail). The LT-111 will also accommodate the US Optics T-Pal with it's larger turret body. The generous 2.9" ring spacing accommodates large turret blocks with ease."
I think Gould might be associated with the Special Forces, so a replica with the LaRue mount is an option, assuming that is correct inference re his Combat Command. My 2cts.
 
Last edited:
I believe the Ops PSR High rings are 1.125. I posted a photo of them on a Mars mod 5 a ways up.

This is another take off Army mk13 mod 5 take off scope (5.5-22x56mm USASFC spec) with issued larue rings on a mars.
3A707474-130C-4A3A-B166-197CC2B16617.jpeg
 
Gen 1 PSR 1.125"
Gen 1 PSR 1.5"
 

Attachments

  • 0126211425_1.jpg
    0126211425_1.jpg
    525.4 KB · Views: 164
  • 0126211347_HDR_1_1.jpg
    0126211347_HDR_1_1.jpg
    536.8 KB · Views: 162
  • Like
Reactions: Random Guy
I believe the Ops PSR High rings are 1.125.
I think you might be right, based also on the pics by 0812guns of PSR rings. Maybe that was a typo and he meant to write 1.125 instead of 1.25.
 
Can someone post a pic of the correct thumb screw for the cheek piece in the mod 0 stocks? Mine came less screw and McMillan is having a hard time figuring it out. They said the .950 gen 1, but it's a 10-32 and the stock hole is 1/4-20.
 
Can someone post a pic of the correct thumb screw for the cheek piece in the mod 0 stocks? Mine came less screw and McMillan is having a hard time figuring it out. They said the .950 gen 1, but it's a 10-32 and the stock hole is 1/4-20.
@0812guns helped my friend source a thumb screw for his cheek riser. He can help you get one. McMillan didnt have the hardware in stock at the time.
 
Can someone post a pic of the correct thumb screw for the cheek piece in the mod 0 stocks? Mine came less screw and McMillan is having a hard time figuring it out. They said the .950 gen 1, but it's a 10-32 and the stock hole is 1/4-20.

Here is a pics of the correct thumb screws for the mk13, SSR and early DMR. As far as I know mcmillan has not had any more of the correct screws in a long time. I have quite a few extra surplus ones that I would be willing to sell.
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20210224_170408297.jpg
    PXL_20210224_170408297.jpg
    431.8 KB · Views: 136
  • PXL_20210224_170413761.jpg
    PXL_20210224_170413761.jpg
    544.6 KB · Views: 111
Here is a pics of the correct thumb screws for the mk13, SSR and early DMR. As far as I know mcmillan has not had any more of the correct screws in a long time. I have quite a few extra surplus ones that I would be willing to sell.
very generous of you.

Interestingly, one of my issue mk13 mod 0 stocks had the same thinner thumb screw that has been seen on mk15 mod 0 kits. My other 3x mk13 mod 0 stocks had the thicker screws like yours.
 
I have one screw that I bought from mcmillan about 4 or 5 years ago that fits that description.
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20210224_183943035.jpg
    PXL_20210224_183943035.jpg
    370.4 KB · Views: 100
  • PXL_20210224_183955852.jpg
    PXL_20210224_183955852.jpg
    513.2 KB · Views: 74
  • Like
Reactions: ilikebmxbikes
My 2cts after speaking with Lynn at McMillan Stocks over the past few years. She said that while they make all their fiberglass molds and the stock itself (paraphrasing if not verbatim): "We use subcontractors for all of our stock hardware."

At the time I was asking about a cheek piece for the M2A M14 stock, and she said that their subcontractors require a minimum order of 50 parts to make their stock hardware. So if McMillan doesn't have spare hardware pieces in inventory for a discontinued stock that might need a repair, one may be out of luck, as they don't manufacture the stock's hardware in-house. My guess is that the knurled knobs they use on the various stocks might have changed subtly over time. The knob I ordered in 2009 (is smooth on face) like the one on the right in post #915.

Fwiw, here's a random factoid re a minor hardware change on the early McMillan A2 stocks for the Navy "M700/300" rifles circa 1995....the original cheek pieces were painted gray to match the stock, not the black color pad that they have used for the past 20 years or so. Not sure when that changed and maybe it was just for that initial order by Crane for gray A2 stocks, but just an random observation. (Part of me wants to clone the original flavor)
 

Attachments

  • M700-300_stock_image.jpg
    M700-300_stock_image.jpg
    102.5 KB · Views: 150
  • M700-300_night.jpg
    M700-300_night.jpg
    94.7 KB · Views: 151
Last edited: