P1140364

The M14 is a beast of a rifle. And I mean that not only because the rifle is still an accurate and effective battle implement over 75 years since the original design (M1) was fielded, but because the rifle is a chunky and massive piece of metal to lug around the battlefield. In a world where super slim rifles are all the rage and the “pounds equals pain” mantra is ringing strong, VLTOR has taken it upon themselves to reduce the overall weight of the M14 even further.

Their original M14 stock that they introduced a while ago was just a stripped down USGI stock, but the composition wasn’t right — it kept splitting, and still was a very effective boat anchor. This year, VLTOR has swapped out the old stock for a carbon fiber composite version that holds up way better under stress, and has chopped the weight down to a svelte 2 pounds and change. It’ll cost you, but it feels pretty great. And the ability to slap an adjustable stock on the end is a definite benefit.

Recommended For You

30 Responses to VLTOR Slims Down with Carbon Fiber M14 Stock

  1. That is awesome. Needs a cheek riser on whatever rear stock gets put on, but awesome.

    This and an M9A3 are what I want for Christmas.

  2. “It’ll cost you…”

    Yep. Everything M14 will cost you, it’s one of those “gotta pay to play” type of rifle.

  3. M1A or m14 is one of those guns that looks awsome in just about any stock. I like classic wood, but I also like the plastic mossy oak stock that springfield released a few years back. This is cool too, makes the current aluminum ebr stock look so 2000.

    • The original stock, the M21 stock, and the OD green composite stock look the best IMO. The tacticool chassis-things like this Vltor stock, the Archangel, and the EBR just look funky and clunky.

    • Agreed. My Scout wears a full VLTOR setup and looks similar to the one pictured above. My SOCOM 16 is in a Sage EBR chassis and my Loaded is in an old walnut M14 stock I bought at a gun show. They all are fun to shot and look damn good.

      Thanks for some M1A products, Nick.

      • Not trying to hijack this post, but I’m looking at buying an m1a. I plan to hunt, target shoot and kill of a few coyote. But I’m lost as to which to buy. Some say the scout others the socom 16 ( easier in and out of the truck). What is your opinion. Thanks.

        Just realized this post is a year old?? so if y’all are still around. I appreciate the comments.

    • thats what a Mosin is for, a 5 shot long pike with rear club attached. in a CQC situation, you only need one shot. Those that the bullet only maims and the muzzle flash does not instantly incinerate, can be dealt with easily by your giant pig-sticker on the front.

      Just ask anyone who has destroyed a ceiling fixture with one, they are not to be trifled with.

    • Please don’t butt stroke people, it’s something a lot of people have learned the hard way in CQD courses that a attempted buttstroke is a quick way to get your face beat in by the Redman.

      • Just use the bayonet.

        Small question: Would it be hard to mount a bayonet on a suppressed rifle? The rifle in question would be an AK with a shortened barrel (12 inch barrel + 4 inches of suppressor since the rest extends behind the muzzle). I haven’t built the rifle yet (will probably in a couple of years).

  4. The M14 isn’t that heavy. It is in the ballpark of .308/.30-06 battle rifles, the G3, FN-FAL, L1A1, etc.

    • Agreed, but there is a bizarre obsession with reducing weight as much as possible. I personally don’t see the issue. Whether a rifle weighs 9 pounds or 11 pounds or whatever, it’s really not that big of a deal, certainly not enough to justify spending hundreds of dollars to reduce the weight by a few ounces. And hell, it’s a .308 combat rifle. If a weapon that weighs 12 pounds is backbreakingly heavy, .308 is NOT the cartridge for you.

      • If you plan on carrying the rifle further than from your car into the range, reducing the weight of it is a huge bonus. It would definitely be a nice weight reduction for any service members still carrying this boat anchor around the Middle East.

        • The M1 Garand was only slightly lighter than the M14, and our troops carried it all over North Africa, Europe, the lush tropical paradise islands of the Pacific, then Korea, etc.

          The issue of weight on our infantry now isn’t a problem brought about by their rifles, or their ammo loads. It is all the other stuff we’re packing onto them – electronic gear, body armor, etc. What our troops could really use is body armor that is about 10 lbs and still able to resist .308-class rifle rounds. Someone oughta get working on that.

        • Body armor like that would be made of mixed carbon nanotubes and unobtanium at this point, but would be wonderful if it ever happens.

        • In the battle between armor vs. bullet technology the bullet wins. When they get a material that is good enough to stop .308 rounds and yet be light and affordable we’ll see an advance in technology that puts bullets through it just fine.

    • Tactikewl math. Shave 10 ounces off the stock and you can add 10 pounds of battery powered widgets to the wanker rails.

    • Thank you! I like reducing weight but I do know that a rifle can be too lightweigh. And in spite of not being a strong guy (just grew up as the weakest sibling on a farm) I find a rifle like the AK ligthweight (many people call it heavy).

      The problem soldiers have is the fact that they carry a bunch of other heavy stuff. Did the troops in WW2 carry ceramic body armor? Or radios, night vision and whatnot? The majority carried their weapons and what they needed to keep themselves alive for a while (rations and ammo). Just compare the loadout of a WW2 soldier and the loadout of a modern day soldier.

    • I was thinking the same thing. That’s one thing that really, really annoys me on some tacti-kewl stocks – how they snag beard hair.

  5. What is this obsession with putting AR15 parts on any and every platform that you can jimmy a buffer tube onto?

    Pass

  6. VLTOR has apparently been in the proceedings to buy McCann Industries (http://mccannindustries.com/) and last summer they were going to take over sales and marketing. Don’t thank VLTOR for the originality or the design, they are only keeping this carbon fiber design alive. This looks interesting but I will echo the comment of Tex300BLK in saying that I wouldn’t want to put AR crap on my M1A. Reason: buffer tube stocks jiggle around too much and are not sleek in the least. I’d rather have an integral stock that would be rock solid and wouldn’t catch on my clothing. The original polymer stock doesn’t weigh that much anyways, how much weight does this actually save? The new one saves 2 lbs. over the original VLTOR, but how much does it actually weigh? I’ll keep my OEM stock. Thanks.

    • The real advantage with a VLTOR stock is it is height adjustable. The tube can be raised up so it is much closer inline with the oprod and bolt. The fit between the tube and stock is well done with no jiggle.

  7. Checked VLTOR’s website. Their MSRP for what is shown in the photo adds up to a little over $900.00 for their Stocks, nevermind the optics, so I am thinking “lugging” my wood stocked M1A around is “good exercise” and will leave it at that.

  8. The price that is mentioned for M14 stock is almost enough to get another M14, hmmm, I think I am going to get another weapon! I would rather pop my 14 vs my 15. Or even the 16. Guys always watch your six and keep packing. Our blessed 2nd. Amendment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *