Thought I'd throw this out there for those looking into compact PDW-type systems. I believe there are two options currently available that shorten OAL the most yet are very different in design. I bought a UCIW kit from LWRC and the NEA CCS PDW kit to compare on an 8.2" 300 BLK and an 11.5" 5.56. I ran 220 gr SMKs through the 300 BLK and 69 grain SMKs (loaded to 5.56 pressures) through the 5.56. I ran an AAC MK13-SD on the 300 and an AAC M4-2K on the 5.56. Here are some of my observations.
*A few things to note, the NEA kits include a proprietary bolt carrier that has a buffer machined into the rear and a spring made specifically for the set up. The UCIW uses a proprietary buffer tube, 3.6oz buffer and custom length/standard power spring. Slash's Heavy Buffers offers a replacement 5.5oz buffer and XP spring. After comparing the two UCIW options I chose the buffer/spring combo from Slash and that was what I used to compare the two here.
The right side bar does not have multi-position adjustment for length of pull. It pulls back and locks only at fully extended position. NEA does however have a replacement bar that incorporates 5 locking positions throughout the range of LOP.
If you have a lower with a right side bolt release, like the Seekins for example, the right side bar must be cut to allow the stock to fully collapse.
The spring and mag release button used as the adjustment mechanism is poorly made. This is why you see YouTube vids and reviews reporting that the stock randomly collapses while firing the gun. I switched the spring out for a longer 308 mag release spring and used a spare Seekins magazine release button instead of the std plastic one as it protrudes just a touch more and ends up making a huge difference in the ease of adjustment. It also locks up very tight with the stronger spring. The random collapsing was a non-issue after this was done.
The left side bar has a set screw machined into the end to act as a stop and somewhat as an anti-wobble mechanism. My problem with this is that there is still significant wobble. I drilled, tapped to rethread using a 3/16ths set screw that works much better. Pic is of the gaps present with factory set screw.
The term "cheek weld" should not be used in the same sentence as this stock. If you're used to having one this unit will take some time to get used to as there is literally zero cheek weld to be had. Even with a T-1 I found this took some getting used to as I am accustomed to having that reference point.
The NEA set up is nearly a half pound (7.6 ounces to be exact) heavier than the LWRC UCIW. All parts in each lower are the same. Without stocks they are with .8 ounces of each other. Adding stocks and using the same upper on each lower (swapping carrier obviously on the NEA) the NEA-equipped rig is noticeably heavier. The UCIW does give up 1.3 inches in length when fully collapsed. That said, I do feel the UCIW is "shootable" while fully collapsed if one had to. That is not the case for the NEA - at least for me. The nice thing here is the ability to tune the rifle via different carrier weights, buffer weights, and springs. The NEA - for the time being at least - would only allow you to mess with spring tension. I'm in the process of testing out a UCIW spring from Slash's and cutting one coil at a time. Not quite done yet.
The UCIW has a buttpad 4.65" tall by 1.95" wide vs the NEA that is 3.4" tall but only 1.25" wide. Seems like you're jamming a dowel rod into your shoulder. It's things like this that effect the "shootability" of the rifle that Im really conflicted about. If the design wasn't so damn cool it would already be on Gunbroker or in the classified section.
The NEA won't fit on any lower that has machined flush cups in the aft section of the lower. The adjustment bars won't have enough clearance to pass by them. I tried on both a KAC and San Tan lowers.
Compared to the LWRC UCIW kit (that runs $129) I'm not sure the NEA is worth keeping. The jury is still out. It probably doesn't help that the buffer/spring combo from Slash coupled with the UCIW set up when running suppressed is just about the smoothest shooting SBR - in any caliber - that I've put rounds through. I did call NEA to get the multi-position adjustment bar to replace the current one to see if I can make it at least somewhat comfortable to shoot about halfway through the adjustment range and still take advantage of the extremely compact size of the weapon with that kit installed. I'm also messing around with some of Slash's UCIW springs to see if I can't get this running how I like, see how well I can control gas blow back, dwell time and just go from there.
FWIW, I did throw an 8.5" .458 SOCOM on this and swapped the NEA factory spring with a UCIW XP spring from Slash's heavies. Thing ran like unicorn butter (with an AWC Thundertrap attached of course)! Neither the 300 BLK or the 5.56 - on suppressed gas setting or unsuppressed - would cycle with the XP UCIW spring (which is the same length as the factory NEA spring). The 300 BLK wouldn't even extract, but the 5.56 would get close. There was more gas in the face than I'd prefer (I prefer none btw) using the factory NEA spring. Testing the spring out a bit more next weekend.
I conclusion, if the LWRC is more versatile via offering an outstanding cheek weld, lends itself to a higher degree of accuracy as a result, is lighter, is more accommodating to tuning any given rifle to a specific load, barrel length, gas system, etc. then I would think the NEA has some lofty expectations to live up to based on what I've seen amount to simply a "cool design".
Hell, this set up is even borderline too small for my little princess...
But this... That's just about perfect for tough guy...
I guess we'll see...
*A few things to note, the NEA kits include a proprietary bolt carrier that has a buffer machined into the rear and a spring made specifically for the set up. The UCIW uses a proprietary buffer tube, 3.6oz buffer and custom length/standard power spring. Slash's Heavy Buffers offers a replacement 5.5oz buffer and XP spring. After comparing the two UCIW options I chose the buffer/spring combo from Slash and that was what I used to compare the two here.
The right side bar does not have multi-position adjustment for length of pull. It pulls back and locks only at fully extended position. NEA does however have a replacement bar that incorporates 5 locking positions throughout the range of LOP.
If you have a lower with a right side bolt release, like the Seekins for example, the right side bar must be cut to allow the stock to fully collapse.
The spring and mag release button used as the adjustment mechanism is poorly made. This is why you see YouTube vids and reviews reporting that the stock randomly collapses while firing the gun. I switched the spring out for a longer 308 mag release spring and used a spare Seekins magazine release button instead of the std plastic one as it protrudes just a touch more and ends up making a huge difference in the ease of adjustment. It also locks up very tight with the stronger spring. The random collapsing was a non-issue after this was done.
The left side bar has a set screw machined into the end to act as a stop and somewhat as an anti-wobble mechanism. My problem with this is that there is still significant wobble. I drilled, tapped to rethread using a 3/16ths set screw that works much better. Pic is of the gaps present with factory set screw.
The term "cheek weld" should not be used in the same sentence as this stock. If you're used to having one this unit will take some time to get used to as there is literally zero cheek weld to be had. Even with a T-1 I found this took some getting used to as I am accustomed to having that reference point.
The NEA set up is nearly a half pound (7.6 ounces to be exact) heavier than the LWRC UCIW. All parts in each lower are the same. Without stocks they are with .8 ounces of each other. Adding stocks and using the same upper on each lower (swapping carrier obviously on the NEA) the NEA-equipped rig is noticeably heavier. The UCIW does give up 1.3 inches in length when fully collapsed. That said, I do feel the UCIW is "shootable" while fully collapsed if one had to. That is not the case for the NEA - at least for me. The nice thing here is the ability to tune the rifle via different carrier weights, buffer weights, and springs. The NEA - for the time being at least - would only allow you to mess with spring tension. I'm in the process of testing out a UCIW spring from Slash's and cutting one coil at a time. Not quite done yet.
The UCIW has a buttpad 4.65" tall by 1.95" wide vs the NEA that is 3.4" tall but only 1.25" wide. Seems like you're jamming a dowel rod into your shoulder. It's things like this that effect the "shootability" of the rifle that Im really conflicted about. If the design wasn't so damn cool it would already be on Gunbroker or in the classified section.
The NEA won't fit on any lower that has machined flush cups in the aft section of the lower. The adjustment bars won't have enough clearance to pass by them. I tried on both a KAC and San Tan lowers.
Compared to the LWRC UCIW kit (that runs $129) I'm not sure the NEA is worth keeping. The jury is still out. It probably doesn't help that the buffer/spring combo from Slash coupled with the UCIW set up when running suppressed is just about the smoothest shooting SBR - in any caliber - that I've put rounds through. I did call NEA to get the multi-position adjustment bar to replace the current one to see if I can make it at least somewhat comfortable to shoot about halfway through the adjustment range and still take advantage of the extremely compact size of the weapon with that kit installed. I'm also messing around with some of Slash's UCIW springs to see if I can't get this running how I like, see how well I can control gas blow back, dwell time and just go from there.
FWIW, I did throw an 8.5" .458 SOCOM on this and swapped the NEA factory spring with a UCIW XP spring from Slash's heavies. Thing ran like unicorn butter (with an AWC Thundertrap attached of course)! Neither the 300 BLK or the 5.56 - on suppressed gas setting or unsuppressed - would cycle with the XP UCIW spring (which is the same length as the factory NEA spring). The 300 BLK wouldn't even extract, but the 5.56 would get close. There was more gas in the face than I'd prefer (I prefer none btw) using the factory NEA spring. Testing the spring out a bit more next weekend.
I conclusion, if the LWRC is more versatile via offering an outstanding cheek weld, lends itself to a higher degree of accuracy as a result, is lighter, is more accommodating to tuning any given rifle to a specific load, barrel length, gas system, etc. then I would think the NEA has some lofty expectations to live up to based on what I've seen amount to simply a "cool design".
Hell, this set up is even borderline too small for my little princess...
But this... That's just about perfect for tough guy...
I guess we'll see...
Last edited:
