Another great review. If I hadn't just bought a Bonesteel/CNC Warrior folder with integrated buffer tube, I probably would have gone with the Rifle Dynamics option. I really like how much higher in the receiver the Rifle Dynamics adapter puts the stock. Putting the tang inside the buffer tube (reverse that and it almost sounds dirty ) was a good bit of engineering.

1. Ar Stock Adapter For Macbook Pro

With all the current and emerging aftermarket support for the AK platform, its a good time for us AK guys. Also, a special thanks to MAC for devoting so much of time to reviewing quality AK products that work. Originally Posted By treasurediver: Also, a special thanks to MAC for devoting so much of time to reviewing quality AK products that work.The AK is my favorite rifle so I'm always on the look out for new products that work. I've had a CMR scope with the Midwest Industries mount for a while now but I couldn't find that perfect stock to go with it. The Midwest Industries mount gets the CMR down nice and low but the eye relief is such that it requires a stock longer than a traditional Warsaw length. I've tried the Vltor stock system and was only luke warm to the design. I did know that I wanted a M4 type setup though for the adjustable LOP.

The Rifle Dynamics system works the best because they set the stock tube up high enough to give the perfect cheek weld and the adapter is rock solid, more so than the Vltor system in my view. The Rifle Dynamics RDAKM4 attaches with two screws then you attach a rear metal plate that engages the receiver.

Lateral force will be handled better by this system than the Vltor system. The RD system also gives you the ability to use a wider variety of stocks and end plate accessories.

MAC M-11/9 SMG Wire Type Folding Stock Assembly for SMG. 1/2 x 28 (AR-15 Std THREAD) to 3/4 x10 tpi (MAC 9mm THREAD) Threaded Adapter. Pictures of Ar Stock Adapter For Mac / Cobray Firearms.

Overall the RD system is more flexible and likely more durable, however I've broken neither system so the durability advantage of the RD system is an assumption on my part. Is the castle nut and end plate necessary? If so, does it matter which one you get? I was thinking of going with this thin lock ring by ACE to reduce overall length to a minimum. Originally Posted By SpacemanSpiff: I dont really see any significant height difference between any of them. You can add a cheek piece to an AK so it is moot anyway.

It's not just about cheek weld. A lower stock means the recoil impulse is more likely to go upward instead of rearward, likely increasing time to get back on target for a quick follow-up shot. For a range plinker it's no big deal; for a fighting gun it's a very big deal. As always, purchase gear appropriate for the intended use. Good call, the 0.05' height difference really makes the recoil totally uncontrollable on my AMD-65. The Rifle Dynamics RDAKM4 attaches with two screws then you attach a rear metal plate that engages the receiver. Lateral force will be handled better by this system than the Vltor system.

The RD system also gives you the ability to use a wider variety of stocks and end plate accessories. Overall the RD system is more flexible and likely more durable, however I've broken neither system so the durability advantage of the RD system is an assumption on my part.

Is the castle nut and end plate necessary? If so, does it matter which one you get? I was thinking of going with this thin lock ring by ACE to reduce overall length to a minimum.

It's a standard AR setup so anything that will work with an AR will most likely work with the RDAKM4. If you don't see a height difference between the Vltor (or Mako) and the RDAKM4, then you've never seen a RDAKM4 in person or side by side with the other stock options. Is the slight height difference going to change the recoil characteristics all that much? It will behave differently than a standard AK stock with a downward comb, but straight tube vs straight tube will be nearly identical in handling. The height difference is noticeable with regards to sight picture and cheek weld when using optics. Originally Posted By MilitaryArms: If you don't see a height difference between the Vltor (or Mako) and the RDAKM4, then you've never seen a RDAKM4 in person or side by side with the other stock options.

Is the slight height difference going to change the recoil characteristics all that much? It will behave differently than a standard AK stock with a downward comb, but straight tube vs straight tube will be nearly identical in handling.

The height difference is noticeable with regards to sight picture and cheek weld when using optics. Do you think you could measure how high the buffer tube sits above the rear trunnion on the RDAKM4? I have a Mako right here I could compare it to. Originally Posted By SpacemanSpiff: I dont really see any significant height difference between any of them.

You can add a cheek piece to an AK so it is moot anyway. It's not just about cheek weld. A lower stock means the recoil impulse is more likely to go upward instead of rearward, likely increasing time to get back on target for a quick follow-up shot. For a range plinker it's no big deal; for a fighting gun it's a very big deal. As always, purchase gear appropriate for the intended use.

Good call, the 0.05' height difference really makes the recoil totally uncontrollable on my AMD-65: no need to get sand all in your vagina because someone posted factual information on arfcom for once. Christ in a chicken basket. ZOMG WHAT HE SAID REALLY HURT MY FEELINGS HERES A VIDEO OF ME PROVING HIM WRONG, YAY I WIN ON THE INTERNET!!!! That's how you came across. Again, my deepest apologies for hurting your feelings with a fact of physics.

However, if you'll look closely, i never compared YOUR setup to someone else's, just stated that as a stock is closer to the bore, recoil is more manageable. You, however, succeeded in looking quite hilariously foolish. Originally Posted By SpacemanSpiff: I dont really see any significant height difference between any of them. You can add a cheek piece to an AK so it is moot anyway.

It's not just about cheek weld. A lower stock means the recoil impulse is more likely to go upward instead of rearward, likely increasing time to get back on target for a quick follow-up shot. For a range plinker it's no big deal; for a fighting gun it's a very big deal. As always, purchase gear appropriate for the intended use. Good call, the 0.05' height difference really makes the recoil totally uncontrollable on my AMD-65: no need to get sand all in your vagina because someone posted factual information on arfcom for once. Christ in a chicken basket.

ZOMG WHAT HE SAID REALLY HURT MY FEELINGS HERES A VIDEO OF ME PROVING HIM WRONG, YAY I WIN ON THE INTERNET!!!! That's how you came across. Again, my deepest apologies for hurting your feelings with a fact of physics. However, if you'll look closely, i never compared YOUR setup to someone else's, just stated that as a stock is closer to the bore, recoil is more manageable. You, however, succeeded in looking quite hilariously foolish. You sound like a really neat guy. Thanks for all the valuable info!

Originally Posted By MilitaryArms: If you don't see a height difference between the Vltor (or Mako) and the RDAKM4, then you've never seen a RDAKM4 in person or side by side with the other stock options. Is the slight height difference going to change the recoil characteristics all that much? Landesk patch news bulletin: aim for mac. It will behave differently than a standard AK stock with a downward comb, but straight tube vs straight tube will be nearly identical in handling. The height difference is noticeable with regards to sight picture and cheek weld when using optics. Do you think you could measure how high the buffer tube sits above the rear trunnion on the RDAKM4? I have a Mako right here I could compare it to.

The RD adapter+MOE stock is extremely close to the same height as a Vltor+MOE+0.25' riser. Can't say about your Mako specifically, but it's quite a bit more than the 0.05' you sarcastically claimed previously. Honestly, if your only goal is to bring the buffer tube up higher like the RD unit the better option is a product from CSS: This unit not only allows you to collapse the stock all the way into the back of the receiver without any thing between the stock and the reciever like the RD unit for ultimate compactness - but has a place to attach ACE QD cups if you so wish.

Downside is that it is commercial OD spec. BTW - That picture of the Mako comparison above is deceiving. It makes it appear close. You can see the top of the tang above the top line of the buffer. Clearly with the RD unit, which I have, the top of the tang is below the top line of the buffer - it's INSIDE the buffer.

Originally Posted By ec4321: BTW - That picture of the Mako comparison above is deceiving. It makes it appear close. You can see the top of the tang above the top line of the buffer. Clearly with the RD unit, which I have, the top of the tang is below the top line of the buffer - it's INSIDE the buffer. The tang is inside of the buffer on the Mako unit too, but the tube has a cut out in that top section so you can see the tang from the side. Look at the position of the rear trunnion rivets. The picture has the lines drawn in the same place, it is not misleading.

Originally Posted By ec4321: BTW - That picture of the Mako comparison above is deceiving. It makes it appear close. You can see the top of the tang above the top line of the buffer. Clearly with the RD unit, which I have, the top of the tang is below the top line of the buffer - it's INSIDE the buffer. The tang is inside of the buffer on the Mako unit too, but the tube has a cut out in that top section so you can see the tang from the side.

Look at the position of the rear trunnion rivets. The picture has the lines drawn in the same place, it is not misleading. I am sorry but you are mistaken. The top of of the angle of the tang where it hits the reciever in the MAKO pic is visable. The top line of the buffer tube is below that feature with the mako. WIth the RD unit, the top line of the buffer tube is well above that feature (Where the top angle of the tang hits the rear line of the receiver). The stocks are different which may contribute to the way it appears to be at the same height.

They are not. It's physically not possible as the entire tang including the highest point of the angle where it connects with the receiver is entirely inside the RD adapter. Originally Posted By ec4321: BTW - That picture of the Mako comparison above is deceiving. It makes it appear close. You can see the top of the tang above the top line of the buffer. Clearly with the RD unit, which I have, the top of the tang is below the top line of the buffer - it's INSIDE the buffer.

The tang is inside of the buffer on the Mako unit too, but the tube has a cut out in that top section so you can see the tang from the side. Look at the position of the rear trunnion rivets. The picture has the lines drawn in the same place, it is not misleading. I am sorry but you are mistaken. The top of of the angle of the tang where it hits the reciever in the MAKO pic is visable.

The top line of the buffer tube is below that feature with the mako. WIth the RD unit, the top line of the buffer tube is well above that feature (Where the top angle of the tang hits the rear line of the receiver). The stocks are different which may contribute to the way it appears to be at the same height. They are not. It's physically not possible as the entire tang including the highest point of the angle where it connects with the receiver is entirely inside the RD adapter. Again, look at the rivet positions. I am not going to argue with you anymore because clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ar Stock Adapter For Macbook Pro

Originally Posted By SpacemanSpiff: Again, look at the rivet positions. I am not going to argue with you anymore because clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Nice to take it to a personal level and start attacking. Take a look at the line you drew on your Mako picture, where it hits the top angle of the tang. Now compare that to the Vltor picture's line and where that line crosses the top angle of that tang? What's different?

What's that in the green box? But I guess that doesn't matter, does it? I don't know what I am talking about. The green dots in the following picture represent the apex of the top of the tang where it meets the reciever: Your mako line is drawn much lower. The back of the receiver/cover is different.

The stock is different. Your rivet maybe in a different spot.

I don't know. It is certainly taken at a different angle looking more downward compared to the vltor or RD pics mac took. I can see both sides of the tang in the mako pic. Originally Posted By SpacemanSpiff: Again, look at the rivet positions. I am not going to argue with you anymore because clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice to take it to a personal level and start attacking. Take a look at the line you drew on your Mako picture, where it hits the top angle of the tang. Now compare that to the Vltor picture's line and where that line crosses the top angle of that tang? What's different? What's that in the green box? But I guess that doesn't matter, does it? I don't know what I am talking about.

The green dots in the following picture represent the apex of the top of the tang where it meets the reciever: Your mako line is drawn much lower. The back of the receiver/cover is different. The stock is different. Your rivet maybe in a different spot. I don't know. It is certainly taken at a different angle looking more downward compared to the vltor or RD pics mac took. I can see both sides of the tang in the mako pic.

I am beginning to remember why I stay out of the AK 'tech' forums. How rigid exactly IS the Mako tube? I mean, will it sustain any falls? General rough-out-and-about-alpine hunting abuses?

I suppose for the price, it wouldn't hurt as an option, but again, for those 'stuck' with Chi-Com models, how does it match up with the tang points - any ideas? I have been looking into the RD adapter and have concluded that, if one was so inclined, with very little knowledge, one could quite easily modify the rear tang, seems others have done it with great results, and it wouldn't be that hard. It would destroy the full Chi-Com authenticity, but hell, if one is looking at this route, I doubt thats much of a concern:) Good news is that, if one makes a mess, as long as it works, it is hidden. Despite how much the knowledge that it is mangled in that pleasing exterior, hiding it like bad case of genital warts on a heavily dressed fat man - at least it would work.