quote:

Originally posted by Andyb:
Having shouldered the KM and the telescoping, the KM stock is the best fit for this gun IMO. Just a bit more LOP (telescoping is too short) and looks good.

I love my KM Stock on my SBR'd MCX but also keep in mind, when the "thick butt pad" for the tele stock becomes available it should have close to the same length of pull as the KM Stock.

quote:

Originally posted by johntsi:
Emailed sig lasy night to ask how people who ordered stocks after me were receiving them. This was the response.

"Your order is the “true” “longer adjustable” MPX stand alone stock.  The ones shipping are the MPX/MCX duel stock.  Similar but not as much telescoping ability and wider"

I can wait.

I think you were probably given bad info. I ordered mine June 12th 2015. When I called and asked about the new part number I was told not to change my order and to wait on the original stock I had ordered. It was later rumored a few pages back the original was discontinued in favor of the new MPX/MCX stock. I got a notice Monday that mine has finally shipped but Sig has changed it to the new part number! I am wondering if all future shipments will be the new stock with shorter rods.I was willing to wait also but I suspect the old stock no longer exists.

quote:

Originally posted by Dano36:

quote:

Originally posted by johntsi:
Emailed sig lasy night to ask how people who ordered stocks after me were receiving them. This was the response.

"Your order is the “true” “longer adjustable” MPX stand alone stock.  The ones shipping are the MPX/MCX duel stock.  Similar but not as much telescoping ability and wider"

I can wait.

I think you were probably given bad info. I ordered mine June 12th 2015. When I called and asked about the new part number I was told not to change my order and to wait on the original stock I had ordered. It was later rumored a few pages back the original was discontinued in favor of the new MPX/MCX stock. I got a notice Monday that mine has finally shipped but Sig has changed it to the new part number! I am wondering if all future shipments will be the new stock with shorter rods.I was willing to wait also but I suspect the old stock no longer exists.

Oh man...not what I want to hear. I've also been continuing to wait for the original MPX only telescoping stock that I ordered last July. They had verified in a Facebook message, as well as over the phone, that they would fulfill my order with the STOCK-MPX-TELE, and NOT the STOCK-X-COLLAPSIBLE-BLACK. Sounds like they are doing just what I had feared they might...

Other then filling in the rail slots when collapsed, what's the big deal? They both measure the same length of pull...

quote:

Originally posted by Faust245:
Other then filling in the rail slots when collapsed, what's the big deal? They both measure the same length of pull...

From that point of view, it's not really that big of a deal.

Yet it continues to add to the frustration/confusion that Sig CS reps still provide inaccurate information and guidance on this subject. Too bad they missed this one in the MPX FAQ video!

On the other hand, from the point of view of the individuals with orders from May-July of 2015 who are still sitting in some type of Bermuda Triangle of order fulfillment, for a stock that is currently shipped on the MPX Carbine(realeased months after our backorders were taken), yet to this day can't be fulfilled for our outstanding backorders - it is much more of a "big deal." Furthermore, if Sig was aware that they would be using the original stocks on the carbine, and then discontinuing that item, they could have changed all of those outstanding orders to the new model, provided notice of such, and truly shipped in a first order in/first order out method. They instead choose to go in every direction while contradicting themselves each step of the way, from reassuring people with the original order that they will get the "original" stock, and/or telling them NOT to change the part number when they call to do so because it's worth the wait, while also at the same time encouraging others in the same situation to switch to the new model to get it faster. It's longer, shorter, wider, thinner, better, worse. But if you change it...you can't change back. No new orders for that model taken. No pressure. Right?

For something I plan to have for life, and am already very invested in, it would be wonderful to have the stock specifically designed to fit my MPX (fill rail slots). It would be an added bonus, as well as making it "worth" the extended wait that I've encountered while others have been receiving the universal alternative on a steady basis. It would be exceedingly frustrating to have waited additional time on the premise I'd receive the "original," only to receive the universal stock I could have switched to and had in my hands quite some time ago.

However large or small the difference between the two may strike any individual, the way it's been handled by Sig is the biggest disappointment. That's my perspective on it anyhow...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Cntrl23,

quote:

Originally posted by Faust245:
Other then filling in the rail slots when collapsed, what's the big deal? They both measure the same length of pull...

Aesthetics. For a platform at this price point it shouldn't be an issue.

Gothcha

quote:

Originally posted by Faust245:
Other then filling in the rail slots when collapsed, what's the big deal? They both measure the same length of pull...

Do we have that confirmed with a pic side by side of the short rod(new) and standard rod (original) tele stock ? If the length of pull is indeed the same and the rods DON'T fill the channel using the new style, then SIG wasted an opportunity to make the stock extend an extra inch. I really don't see how the length of pull IS the same if one style rod doesn't use rods long enough to fill the slot while the other style does ?

quote:

Originally posted by Titleiiarms:

quote:

Originally posted by Faust245:
Other then filling in the rail slots when collapsed, what's the big deal? They both measure the same length of pull...

Do we have that confirmed with a pic side by side of the short rod(new) and standard rod (original) tele stock ? If the length of pull is indeed the same and the rods DON'T fill the channel using the new style, then SIG wasted an opportunity to make the stock extend an extra inch. I really don't see how the length of pull IS the same if one style rod doesn't use rods long enough to fill the slot while the other style does ?

I have yet to see it confirmed in pictures, however, it has been posted in the form of measurements.

I agree, I've been thinking the same thing. If they do both actually have the same length of pull, regardless of rail length, it would definitely be such a missed opportunity. Offering a model that took advantage of that extra inch of rail AND extended the length of pull to be equivalent of the thin skeletonized folder would be a win-win, especially without adding to the OAL as an extended recoil pad would.

quote:

Originally posted by ivy6t5:

quote:

Originally posted by Faust245:
Yes, we are all aware of the differences with it collapsed. What everybody wants to know is if the length of pull is different between the two. It may not be bc that extra bit of rail may not be utilized. Show us a comparison between the two of them opened with a tape measure...

Here is the full-length rod "collapsible" stock that is shipping with the Gen 2 Carbines. The length of pull appears to be exactly 12". Hopefully someone else with the shorter MPX/MCX Collapsible can post that length. When the "thicker" butt pad becomes available, it will be nice to make this stock a full 13" pull.

Again, this is the "long rod" stock that is currently shipping with the MPX Carbine. Since it appears that no one has BOTH stocks to compare side-by-side, maybe someone can provide the same data for the "short rod" stock.

I did verify that the overall LOP is 12.25" (not 12" as previously posted). When fully extended, the rod ends are flush with the end of the telescopic housing (part 515). The telescopic housing is 2" long and the remaining rod exposure is 4.5". If the "short rod" stock indeed has the same LOP, then the rod ends may extend further into the housing (not flush with housing end) and the remaining rod exposure is longer, or the housing itself is a different dimension. If these conditions are the same, then the overall butt assembly itself may be longer - it is 2.5" (at top) on this stock. If you add all dimensions, this stock is 9" fully extended.

Here you go. Best pics I could come up with this morning. As you can kinda see the "short" rails go further into the mount and are not flush as was stated with the "long" rails. There's your extra length. The length of pull is the exact same between the two. I hope we can finally put this to rest. They are the same.

That makes sense. They went to a shorter rod to allow universal use on the MCX-C and cut the retaining steps in the front of the rods closer to the end to allow the same overall stroke. They do loose some support though since the short rods aren't supported the whole length of the mount when extended anymore. Sound like the bean counters got a hold of this and decided one stock number was enough.

quote:

The length of pull is the exact same between the two. I hope we can finally put this to rest. They are the same.

Dang nab it, you mean we can't bitch about it anymore?

No wait there is some empty slot room left it could be a 13 inch pull back sig is not giving us the full shaft! To Arms! LOL

Funny thing is if they made full length shafts for the collapsable, and it touched the upper and left a tiny mark we'd have a 40 page thread on "OMG my Upper has a boo boo sig made the arms too long" thread...

Christ it's a gun, load up some mags, get it dirty and have fun...

Thank you for the heads-up LLD.
My impression so far, is that the MPX was well conceived and thought of. Also that somewhere along the line, some "ear" was lent to the civilian market.
Nothing wrong with that of course, but it seems (to me) that this element went a little above what one can call, feasibility as a working gun.
However, I have now been long enough in this to understand that there are many considerations and undoubtedly, individuals who will have lent their own ideas to a product.
Actually the MPX fills almost a market non gap, because pistol cal carbines are not right now, popular with neither civillians nor the military.
My own idea is that this is due in part, perceived deployment role and also weapon attributes : The weapon must be compact and have absolute minimum recoil.
The minimum recoil part is not well understood and can lead to role negation and confusion.
But briefly, the whole idea is to have a bullet hose, for zero to 25 / 50m. Recoil, in most 9mm closed bolt, blowback, subguns is significant enough to interfere with the hose accuracy, This is important in cqb ops and limited area target saturation at medium ranges.
Experienced users who deny this, are possibly pre conditioned to consider 9mm recoil as zero: ZERO FELT maybe, but not zero effects. (they are in effect fighting it out)
The end result of which would be that one might as well use a 223 shortie.
The UZI and Sterling and some first generation guns as open bolt weapons came very close to this ideal, followed very closely by the roller locked MP5.
The MPX is therefore a very interesting idea and one hopes that the design concepts have not been compromised too much by bling as barrel exchange and possibly cosmetics such as m4 looks. When this happens, it will be the market that determines design and function, when clearly, for serious use, this is not a good criterion.
I hope I did not bore too many readers, with this extended discourse, but I like to think that in general, users would like to be treated as intelligent consumers.......Maybe next time we can go into the workings of differential api, gas brakes and venturi locking

Apologies if this has been covered, I did a search and found some general comments but...

SO when does the MPX-K become available to the public? Costs about the same as the carbine or?

Thanks!

I know this isn't a buy and sell but I will put this out just in case it helps someone on here that may not see it elsewhere I have a 16" hand guard that I will trade for a GEN 2 8", also before I cut it down I have the unfired 16" barrel I will trade for a 8" GEN 2 barrel (Low round count)

quote:

Originally posted by pedro66:
I know this isn't a buy and sell but I will put this out just in case it helps someone on here that may not see it elsewhere I have a 16" hand guard that I will trade for a GEN 2 8", also before I cut it down I have the unfired 16" barrel I will trade for a 8" GEN 2 barrel (Low round count)

I'd take you up on that (handguard trade).

Send me an email, you have no email in your profile.

http://soldiersystems.net/2016...-9mm/#comment-810200

Not directly rated to MPX but
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...ackjack-and-hookers/

Anyone else replace their factory iron sights? What sights did you use? Not talking about red dots, just irons.

Thanks!