Tele-stocks - any drawbacks?


NES Member
Feb 5, 2006
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Been looking at tele-stocks for AR's, and I wonder if there are any drawbacks to them. For instance, are they as comortable as a regular stock? Any problems with sharp edges etc? Are they reasonably strong?

Greg said:
Only drawback is that you have to have a pre-ban lower.
Or permanently fix it so it is no longer adjustable.
You wouldn't want one for serious target shooting.
I'm not a huge fan of the "stock" telestocks for m4s and similar ARs. They're on the flimsy side, and there's considerable wiggle room between the moving part and the buffer tube.

I do, however, love the Ace SOCOM stock. Absolutely ROCK solid. Comfy foam cheek pad. And last but certainly not least, there's a meat tenderizer on the bottom in case you ever want to use your AR as Thor's hammer. The only drawback is that there isn't a whole ton of adjustability.

I would pick the standard stock over the regular telestock every time. But the SOCOM stock beats both. It can get pricey, but I found mine for $129 from an ebay dealer. Search the completed listings and you'll see the auction. It appears there were still some left when time ran out, so I'd send the guy an email.
Draw back is its not as strong as a fixed A2 stock,They do have a bit of a rattle although the RRA 6 posistion stocks on my pre-ban Bushmasters are tight with not much play.Biggest advantage is compactness where space is at a premium.I can get 3" groups offhand with my carbine at 50 yds.For serious target shooting fixed stocks are best...for a preban rilfe used in carbine form as a compact self defense weapon they are perfect especialy if you take tactical classes and practice combat shooting as oposed to target shooting in traditional static posistions.I have both I was lucky enough to get my hands on 2 Bushmasters back in 92 before the ban and I have a blue label HBAR that I got in 91.Its a 20" full size and thats my target rifle.[smile]
Top Bottom