• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Who makes synthetic stocks for an SKS?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kestrel

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
2,168
I'm trying to lighten up my SKS. Who makes a good synthetic stock for them? Also, is there any other way to lighten them up?

Thanks,
Steve
 
Butler Creek and Ramline, maybe others.

http://www.midwayusa.com/rewriteaproduct/278428

Some have hollow buttstocks - these would be even lighter.

To lighten the SKS I used to have, I just dremel-cut the bayo lug completely off as close to the bbl as possible, along with the bipod I had had connected via this lug. Beyond that, dunno how to lighten it.
 
There was a thread on Survivors SKS forum where they were comparing the synthetic stocks to the originals. It turns out that the aftermarket stocks were heavier! Even those specifically marketed as light weight. :rolleyes:


You don't say what kind of SKS you have, but the lightest stock is probably the original Norinco wood stocks. The fiberglass "Jungle Stocks" weigh about the same.
 
The SKS runs like a truck. Heavy and nonstop :D

I would love to lighten one up but I cannot see how. The bolt weighs a ton, maybe an aluminum receiver? Anything I can think of requires complete re-engineering.
 
Many people reccommend Choate stocks for the SKS. I have an old Monte Carlo on one of mine marked Combat somethingorother... It is a decent stock. The reviews on ATI are mixed. I am considering getting an ATI for my SKS Sporter only because they are the only company that seems to make one for this SKS variant (takes AK mags). If anyone knows of another company that makes a drop in stock for this gun let me know.

You might try.

sksman.com

http://www.combatstocks.com/
 
By the way the poster that indicated that wood was probably lighter is right. We are not talking about high density hardwood here. The stock SKS I have is lighter than the one with the Monte Carlo stock by far. Can't compare a Fiberforce style for folding stock style. I imagine those would be lighter than the nylon Monte Carlos.

Wood is still a good option for stocks. I really like my all original SKS. It does have a rubber buttpad that extends the LOP about an inch. The SKS Sporter is the lightest of the bunch. It has a shorter barrel though.
 
Thanks for all the replies. Maybe I'll just forget trying to make it lighter and look to making it fit me better. Sounds like I might get better LOP if I get one of the synthetic stocks.

Is the Choate better than the Ramline? Is there a Hogue or something better?

Thanks again,
Steve
 
I've got the Choate Dragunov-style stock on mine, very nice. Can't comment on the Ramline and Hogue stocks, but the Choate is worlds better than the ATI POS I used to have... ATI's drag-style stock is crap compared to the Choate, it's cheaper though so...
 
Prefer the Ramline stock myself - the increased Length of Pull was very welcome -

rifles.jpg
 
Nice family photo there, rayra!

Avoid the ATI Dragunov stock -- there is a huge unnecessary hump of plastic that sticks up right behing the receiver cover which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to field strip without taking the stock off (which is a pain anyway). Some very careful hacksaw work will remove that hump, but going with a Choate is easier.

You can see it here if you look carefully http://www.atigunstocks.com/sksfiber.html
follow the line of the pistol grip straight up to the back of the receiver cover. Compare that picture to the monte carlo http://www.atigunstocks.com/sksmonte.html which doesn't have that hump.

You'd think ATI would have corrected it by now... :rolleyes:
 
What is the difference between the Choate and Ramline stocks (standatd - not dragonov)? Which is considered to be higher quality?

Thanks,
Steve
 
A cursory inspection of both didn't leave me with any impression of major differences between them.
The Ramline doesn't come with a recoil pad, the Choate does, but for 7.62x39, who needs one?
They (and the Butler Creek version) only seem to differ in the styling of the grip. And they are all within a couple dollars of each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top