I have never used an AICS stock, going to buy one, but....have been told that the non folder must be partially disassembled to run a cleaning rod through the rear of action (taking apart (?!) the stock, riser etc). Apparently the folder does not have this issue, as it folds out of the way. Is this correct & really a chore to disassemble each time to clean, or no big deal ? thanx for any info.
- Thread starter WCW308
- Start date
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
You are correct about both the 1.5 & 2.0 versions..
You are correct about both the 1.5 & 2.0 versions..
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
Go 2.0 and don't look back...
Go 2.0 and don't look back...
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
Who cares? Cleaning is over-rated anyway.
But yes, if you insist on raping your barrel you do have to remove the cheek riser to run a cleaning rod through, properly. It's two lil screws and takes about 3 seconds to accomplish. Oh and plus another 4 seconds to re-install.
Who cares? Cleaning is over-rated anyway.
But yes, if you insist on raping your barrel you do have to remove the cheek riser to run a cleaning rod through, properly. It's two lil screws and takes about 3 seconds to accomplish. Oh and plus another 4 seconds to re-install.
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
no big deal to pull the cheekpiece-takes a allen type wrench or a second to loosen the screws and pull the cheekpiece(then do in reverse when done). Quicker and a higher cool factor with the folder but really not a big deal either way
no big deal to pull the cheekpiece-takes a allen type wrench or a second to loosen the screws and pull the cheekpiece(then do in reverse when done). Quicker and a higher cool factor with the folder but really not a big deal either way
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
that's not a big deal, yeah, I prob clean too often-folder looks neat, tho. thanx.
that's not a big deal, yeah, I prob clean too often-folder looks neat, tho. thanx.
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
Besides the cheek piece, the butt spacers have to be swivelled out the way. You will find the top of the butt spacer will be a bit high, and the rod won't go in straight.
For me this is no biggie.
Besides the cheek piece, the butt spacers have to be swivelled out the way. You will find the top of the butt spacer will be a bit high, and the rod won't go in straight.
For me this is no biggie.
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
When you consider that it's only $200 more for the extra versatility of the folder...I'd personally go for the 2.0. Not just for cleaning, but for general ability to shorten up the rifle length, be it transport, fitting into the safe better, or whatever other reason might come up.
Either way, be sure to PM for discount codes whichever one you decide to get.
When you consider that it's only $200 more for the extra versatility of the folder...I'd personally go for the 2.0. Not just for cleaning, but for general ability to shorten up the rifle length, be it transport, fitting into the safe better, or whatever other reason might come up.
Either way, be sure to PM for discount codes whichever one you decide to get.
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
thanx gents for the info. helpful. 2.0 it is....
thanx gents for the info. helpful. 2.0 it is....
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
I have all 3 versions. I have the 1.0 on my 308. I got an extra long cleaning rod to keep the handle behind the butt. This works just fine.
The 1.5 is on my 264 Mag. As I keep the cheek piece all the way down removing it and getting it repositioned is no big deal. If you have the cheek piece raised, I would make a solid gage to set under the cheek piece until you get the screws tightened. Again no big deal to do. Keep the gage in your kit.
I have the 2.0 on my 338 Lapua. The hinge adds weight to the weapons system. This is something to consider along with the additional $200 it costs.
The 1.5 works fine, and myself I have no problem with the 1.0 either for that matter. The bottom line is; you are carrying it, as well as paying the bill for it. If the $200 is no problem, and the extra weight is tolerable by all means go for a 2.0. If you want to cut some weight the 1.5 will also work just fine.
I have all 3 versions. I have the 1.0 on my 308. I got an extra long cleaning rod to keep the handle behind the butt. This works just fine.
The 1.5 is on my 264 Mag. As I keep the cheek piece all the way down removing it and getting it repositioned is no big deal. If you have the cheek piece raised, I would make a solid gage to set under the cheek piece until you get the screws tightened. Again no big deal to do. Keep the gage in your kit.
I have the 2.0 on my 338 Lapua. The hinge adds weight to the weapons system. This is something to consider along with the additional $200 it costs.
The 1.5 works fine, and myself I have no problem with the 1.0 either for that matter. The bottom line is; you are carrying it, as well as paying the bill for it. If the $200 is no problem, and the extra weight is tolerable by all means go for a 2.0. If you want to cut some weight the 1.5 will also work just fine.
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
I have the 1.5 and 2.0 and I almost never use the folding capability of the 2.0. Yes you have to take out the comb to clean the 1.5 but it's very easy... also I usually pull the comb out the 2.0 as well since when it's folded, it becomes harder to balance on the bipod.
Either one you choose you will love them.
I have the 1.5 and 2.0 and I almost never use the folding capability of the 2.0. Yes you have to take out the comb to clean the 1.5 but it's very easy... also I usually pull the comb out the 2.0 as well since when it's folded, it becomes harder to balance on the bipod.
Either one you choose you will love them.
Re: AICS stock question 1.5 vs 2.0
thanx, all comments valid...& appreciated...putting a 6.5X47 in this, do they
really hold action tight w/o bedding under tang, etc...BAT repeater action.
thanx
thanx, all comments valid...& appreciated...putting a 6.5X47 in this, do they
really hold action tight w/o bedding under tang, etc...BAT repeater action.
thanx
Similar threads
