This originated as a reply in the PSA JAKL thread, but I figured it was perhaps better suited as it's own discussion. I am curious what other members think.

Seems, to me, that a rifle with a folding stock, that is able to be fired while folded, is always ultimately bulkier and heavier than it's performance equivalent in a conventional AR15. The receivers and handguards just can't avoid being taller and/or longer; it is a necessity. I understand the utility of a folding stock, when it comes to storage and transport, but I don't really see the utility in the ability to fire when folded, except for extreme close quarters circumstances; so extreme that even a handgun held at arms length would be somehow prohibited. All that being said, I am not crazy about a LAW folding mechanism on an AR15 either; so, if folding is a necessity, I suppose a rifle with a AR-180 or AK47-derived operating system is preferred.

In situations that prohibit the use of a rifle with a stock extended, I think one would do well to opt for a pistol instead. Perhaps the rifle is our only choice, in which case I suppose we're lucky to have one that folds. If one makes a habit of regularly employing firearms inside vehicles or other extremely confined spaces, I think they'd do well to have a handgun, as the enhanced performance aspects of a rifle are neutered when not shouldered.

I think folding stocks fold largely because their operating systems permit folding, so: why not? An added utility in storage and transport is achieved. I don't think a folding stock is a feature that ought to be perceived as some sort of performance advantage. I have more than a couple rifles with a folding stock that permits firing of the weapon while folded; I don't have them because their stocks fold, and I don't think I need more than one finger, to count the number of times I've fired one with it folded.

I am not knocking guns with folded stocks, or those who like them. I think it's an interesting discussion, in a similar vein as the bullpup discussion. There are weapon design aspects that have unique advantages in certain circumstances, but that also come with unique baggage. In the case of the folding stock (and weapons whose systems enable them, in general): weight and bulk, when compared to the AR15.

Oh, and if we're considering storage and transport the primary perks of folding stocks, we should not ignore the fact that an AR15 can be very quickly reduced in size by pushing two pins. Prompt deployment as a proper shouldered weapon is possible, but certainly not nearly as quick as unfolding a stock. So, outside the extremely unique requirement of firing a foldable rifle in it's folded condition, the perk of a folding stock is more rapid deployment from a confined storage or transport location. At this point, maybe we should consider whether we can rethink said location, in order to accommodate an AR15 that is ultimately lighter and sleeker, and won't require the investment of time in making it ready to fire properly, from the shoulder.

All other things being equal, of course anyone would pick a folding gun that can be fired when folded, over one that can't. But everything else is never equal, and often doesn't work in favor of the gun whose stock can fold, when compared to the AR15.

Keeping in mind the required changes in receiver dimensions in a design that enables a folding stock, especially those not of AR-180 origin, we can perhaps see the possibility of an AR15 of damn similar proportions to a folding stock rifle in a folded condition. Using something like a LWRC compact stock, buffer, and buffer tube, we'd be mere inches away from the same size, and with a rifle that is much lighter overall. I will not consider PDW stocks in this line of thinking, because you are making real sacrifices in usability and even reliability, IMO, when you dabble in those designs.

I would argue that almost any rifle with a folding stock was designed to have a folding stock solely for ease of transport. The ability to fire said rifle with the stock folded may or may not have been a consideration when it was designed but it certainly was not the primary goal. Over time this concept was forgotten and people started to assume that a folding stock that didn't allow the weapon to fire while folded was a design flaw. I would argue that a folding stock that DOES allow you to fire while folded is a design improvement/enhancement.

That brings us to the LAW folder...IMHO the biggest ripoff the AR industry has ever created. While I like the ability to fold a stock on a rifle, the LAW folder is a $250 part that also adds a significant amount of weight and length to the AR platform, which was designed to be lightweight. Add in the fact that it DOES NOT allow you to fire while folded (yeah you can fire 1 round...super impressive!) and it really shows what a waste of money it is.

I like folding stocks. I can lower the shelf in the safe for more room. But, I shoot a rifle as a rifle and a handgun as a handgun.

This is another one of your interesting questions, KSGM, that’s worth of some thought and discussion, so thanks.

I’ve been pondering the issue of handling and firing full size ARs with conventional sliding (collapsible) stocks in really close quarters/confined situations for some time.

If we want to shorten the distance the muzzle projects forward of our body to the maximum possible extent while retaining the ability to fire effectively as fast as possible, it’s necessary to hold the gun with the stock under the armpit, and pulled back with the grip against our chest. In that position it’s effectively as short as one with a folding stock, but without the unnatural thickness of the stock folded forward against the receiver.

Holding and firing the gun like that means normal aiming isn’t possible and it’s a form of point shooting, but that’s pretty much true of firing a rifle with the stock folded unless one is proficient shooting the gun held in front at arm’s length. The latter would be like trying to aim and fire an unbraced AR pistol, but with the added weight, bulk, and unnatural balance due to one side of the gun’s being heavier than the other because of the weight of the folded forward stock. And of course if we’re shooting the rifle like that, why not use the stock normally?

I’m not one of the Forum’s true Operators, but I have spent a bit of time holding a conventional AR ready for employment while riding in a van, and in a situation like that a folding stock could be of some use if the design allowed shooting with the stock folded. It’s possible to hold the conventional rifle when not being used even in cramped quarters, but the underarm shooting method would be very awkward—if possible at all.
A rifle with a folded stock could be rested on a door post or window ledge while being extended and aimed more or less normally, or at least with more stability than holding it offhand. If, of course, the gun couldn’t be fired with the stock folded, then that feature would be worse than useless.

When using a conventional rifle in that situation I planned to punch out a side window and shoulder, aim, and fire the gun normally.

All that being said, I haven’t actually experimented with holding and point shooting an AR in the “underarm” position. I do, however, plan to do that in the coming weeks and if I confirm my theories about it, I’ll be incorporating it in my agency training this summer.

I have two precision rifles with folding stocks, but I don’t use that feature even for storage in a safe or transport in a drag bag; the additional side to side thickness would actually be a drawback. It is handy, though, when cleaning the guns because I don’t have to change the position of the cheek rest to insert the cleaning rod. At one time I was intrigued by the folding stocks that were/are available for Sako TRG-22 rifles, but fortunately their stunningly high price kept me from ever making the mistake of actually acquiring one.

Again, good question.

quote:

it’s necessary to hold the gun with the stock under the armpit

I think over the shoulder may be preferred; I have found that the armpit almost requires the "chicken wing", where the over-the-shoulder approach lets you keep your elbows in. I think I have seen pictures of Marines in Fallujah, and likely elsewhere, with their A2 stocks riding their shoulders for CQB.

I hear you loud and clear, on the inside vehicle advantages of a folding stock.

First thought was for use with gas masks or ballistic visors, now redundant with visible lasers on aiming modules. Second thought would be to fire out of a vehicle, close quarters or suppressive fire. I believe the HK53 and 51 was designed for shooting from one vehicle to another. I feel like most pictures I have seen of them in use were with fixed stocks, strangely enough.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I think over the shoulder may be preferred ....

Thanks, I will keep that in mind with my experiments.

In my brief test just now, though, I am much more confident that better control and accuracy is possible with the armpit position. And at first thought, I think about the issue of shooting a rifle from one’s nondominant side. As I point out when teaching the subject, when someone is shooting at us, the only way to stop that threat is with our own fast and accurate fire. If we’re doing something such as trying to shoot from the nondominant side, speed and accuracy suffer if we’re not just as proficient as shooting normally. There are no doubt people that’s true of, but not many of us, and even then, how much more proficient would they be shooting dominant side if they didn’t divert time and resources to mastering a technique that would have very limited application?

I will, though, try the two methods while wearing armor, so that could make a difference, and mine doesn’t have side plates either. If I find that greater exposure of my arm to return fire nevertheless permits more natural faster and accurate target engagement, I will probably be willing to run that risk.

Military doctrine could be somewhat different from my theories because of attitudes about unaimed, suppressive-type fire with automatic weapons. But as I say, it’s something to experiment with, and I am always more than willing to change my mind when warranted.

You can fire more than one round when folded with Law Tactical or no buffer tube at all if you want.
All you need to do is cough up $390
https://www.lawtactical.com/ar...ier_ARIC_p/99367.htm

I bought a Law Folder when I did the 9mm AR thing.
It added to the LOP which made the stupid brace not so bad and when folded it fit in my range bag with room to spare, fit in a backpack also.

I kept it when I sold the 9mm upper and tried it on one of my other rifles.
Made no sense for what I do with them and regretted not selling it with the upper.
It took a bit and I had to take a hit on it but I eventually got rid of it.

The chicken wing seemed problematic to me, because the circumstances that have someone employing these techniques are likely extremely close quarters, where that chicken wing is more a problem of hindering movement in/around your surroundings and potential teammates, than it is a problem of getting hit by an incoming round. Also, the shoulder method has the bore nearer to the shooter's sightline, which may promote more natural aiming. And finally, it has the weapon tucked naturally and tightly, when the muzzle is down, and requires a natural upward sweep to bring the weapon to bear; the armpit requires the shooter to employ more movements, unless a modified high-ready is used. Just my thoughts; I am not invested in either technique, and have yet to try the armpit. I think it's important to keep in mind the very close quarters applications; if one method proves more accurate than the other at, say, ten yards, does it really matter, when the technique will only be employed inside five?

My next time to the range, I intend to run the gamut: shoulder, armpit, and folded stock. The armpit and shoulder will be performed with a suppressed 16" AR15, and the folded stock will be with a suppressed 16" SIG 550.

I'm an over-the shoulder guy for cramped quarters. The AR-15 in 5.56 produces such mild recoil that it is very controllable even in this position, and like others have said it allows the ability to actually use the sights, unlike the "under the armpit" approach. I've shot over the shoulder both from inside a car, and on the move, and while it's not quite as ideal as a traditional shouldered hold, it's perfectly workable especially in the cqb-type situations in which it's likely to be employed.

In so much as folding stocks are concerned, I agree with the OP...I think they offer more utility for storage than they do for actual shooting. In fact, even when extended, I find the vast majority of them to be less ergonomic than an AR-style stock. The biggest benefit I've seen to guns that employ them is that they tend have shorter recoil systems that are completely contained in the upper receiver. The ones I've shot, like the MCX, offer softer and flatter recoil than the buffer tube system, IMO, but I'm not sure it's enough to justify the added bulk and expense.

I'm a folding stock kinda guy, but only on guns that left the factory with them. This whole LAW folder on an AR thing is strange. Think Sig 55x, Bren, Galil, AK, etc. I like when I deploy the stock the LOP will be the same every time. The only time the stocks are folded is when working in vehicles. Very helpful in making a 16" rifle manageable in a very cramped space, especially wearing kit.

JonDaddy82, do you see the foldability, in your use case, as a legitimate-enough advantage that you opt for a non-AR because of it? It seems pretty well everyone is in agreement that the LAW is bogus. Perhaps if vehicle work surpasses a certain percentage of the total workload, a folder is advisable, if one would like to retain a longer barrel. If a longer barrel isn't a priority, would a short-barrel AR be preferred, for the overall lighter weight and less bulk, even if working inside a vehicle? One thing I'll say, when it comes to LOP, is that I was long of the opinion that the adjustable LOP on an AR was a one-and-done thing, and i was likewise never bothered by non-adjustable folders. However, since I have begun shooting more with a Leupold 1-6, I have found LOP adjustment very useful, as I'll shorten it if most of what I'll be doing is squared-up shorter range shooting, or lengthen it if I am in the prone, shooting further precision shots.

I did some shooting with the two guns I mentioned previously.

quote:

My next time to the range, I intend to run the gamut: shoulder, armpit, and folded stock. The armpit and shoulder will be performed with a suppressed 16" AR15, and the folded stock will be with a suppressed 16" SIG 550.

Results were surprising.

First, some relevant rifle stats:
AR length is 38" completely collapsed, 41" fully extended, and 39.5" where I most often have the LOP adjusted (which is where I kept it for the shooting). Broken down and silencer removed, into "transport mode", the AR takes up 23".
SIG length is 40.5" extended and 30.5" folded, with the stock folded and silencer removed, "in transport mode", the SIG takes up 24".
Both silencers add the same length past a bare muzzle. That being said, the SIG transport length would be a bit longer, if it used the SF can from the AR, and the AR would be a bit shorter in that mode, if it used the YHM can.

Sigfreund was right. With the AR, it seems the armpit is the way to go. Shots were performed from between five and seven meters, with a 4" square bullseye taped out on the center of a piece of cardboard being the goal. More shots were outside of that square, than inside, across all three methods and both guns, but the armpit had the best, most repeatable accuracy of the session.
The over-the-shoulder AR method presented multiple issues: It lacks stability if the support hand is needed for a task. It can put brass in your face; in attempting to remedy the brass issue, by orienting the rifle more upright, the safety becomes very hard to manipulate. Finally, as mentioned, it didn't seem as inherently accurate. The AR armpit method had none of those problems. The only real draw back to the armpit is the chicken wing I mentioned in another post, along with the rifle not being quite as easily oriented in a downward direction, while still being quickly brought to bear. The low port isn't quite as low, and the high port just isn't quick. But, the pros outweigh the cons, for the AR armpit vs over-the-shoulder, in my experience during this session.
The SIG with stock folded wasn't as accurate, though this is arguably trainable for both a folded stock, or the over-the-shoulder AR. The SIG also consistently presented higher than the AR did in either method, causing a few shots to miss the cardboard entirely, at the 12 o'clock.

One interesting take-away is that the SIG does not permit a smaller overall profile than the AR, even though the weapon OAL is 9" shorter. When shooting the AR, with either method, your longest dimension is dictated by the rifle, because it's under your armpit, or over your shoulder, and you're somewhat "bladed", relative to the weapon. The SIG lends itself to a more squared position, with the rear of the receiver on your sternum; the thickness of your trunk is making up the OAL difference, and trying to squeeze more out of that reduced OAL, by applying the armpit method to a folded rifle, has the fire control too far aft to be practically usable. *EDIT* The armpit method is longer than the length of the rifle, due to the chicken wing elbow extending beyond the end of the stock. So, considering this is all assessed in the name of being small, perhaps the armpit is ruled out, even though it has favorable performance otherwise.

So, the conclusion remains (largely) unchanged: A folding stock is only of real value when on a very small rifle, in a vehicle-based role. A regular-use rifle or carbine sees no added value. One extremely niche case that may see the value of a folder on a regular rifle or carbine is a scenario that requires regular transport in a discreet manner, with the ability to quickly deploy. This has us in QD silencer discussion territory though; how quick does stuff like this really need to happen? Putting an AR upper and lower together is pretty fast. Also, it's worth noting that, unlike the vehicle role, this doesn't require that the rifle be able to fire while folded. The chicken wing effect of the armpit approach potentially has your overall length the same as conventionally shouldering; the over-the-shoulder approach has drawbacks, but is usable; the folding stock has advantages, but considering the action required to fold/unfold as the situation requires, might a shooter be better served by leaving his folder extended, and popping it over his shoulder?

Also, I think the potential use of a RDS in the over-the-shoulder method is a moot point, considering the ranges at which these techniques are employed. The potential brass to the face and other cons aren't worth a red dot sight picture when it's not needed anyway. Another note on this position is it's taught as "compressed ready". However it doesn't seem that it's teachers advocate shooting from the compressed position; it's only for movement in tight places; the weapon is popped back into the shoulder, when firing is required.

This is a highly subjective topic, as everyone's body mechanics and rifle setups are different enough that results will likely vary greatly. I recommend trying it out; that's the only way to know for sure; it'll make for a fun range session anyway.

On the topic of weight/bulk, when comparing piston folders to ARs: the AR I used in this session is 12LBs loaded, while the SIG is 10.8LBs loaded. The SIG is equipped with an Aimpoint CompM2; the AR has a Leupold 1-6, light, laser, and railed handguard to accommodate them; the SIG has a plastic handguard. So, to kit the SIG like the AR would likely have it over 13LBs; maybe knocking on 14.

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

My favorite folder is my Valmet tube folder, the stock folds to the left unlike most fold to the right … in my experience the stock is much easier to deploy and because the charge handle and safety is on the right side they are completely unencumbered by the stock. I do like the AK triangle stocks, the only improvement I could suggest would be to fold to the left. Like the Valmet tube, the triangle is smooth and large enough diameter to be comfortable in the cheek. Also the side folder on the AK AMD-65 is is a steel rod, it’s tolerable.

The under-folder on AK’s are uncomfortable on the cheek, almost as bad as as the HK retractable stocks.

The rod on the retractable stock for the SiG MPX & CTX are also tolerable.

When the paperwork comes back, I'll have two - a Bren 2, and a Scorpion. They come that way from the factory, so that's what I'll be doing. It will almost certainly just be a convenience for compact transportation. Can an AR be broken into two pieces and assembled just as quickly? I dunno, I guess. I also own AR's, and I won't be putting folding stocks on them, so I definitely don't see it as a necessity. Shooting the Bren with the folding brace sucks, but that's almost entirely because of the rubber wrist cuff thing not being a stock, as much as everyone including the ATF has decided it is. Not sturdy, not comfortable, can't pull it tight to my shoulder. I do have plenty of experience shooting an HK91 with the collapsing stock, enough for a lifetime. Never again. There's no good way to shoot it, and that thing is almost entirely just for compact transport and getting in and out of vehicles and not at all intended for lots of prolonged use.

Regarding high ready and stock on the shoulder and all that, I wandered across this clip. I haven't watched all of it yet, but it was on topic, so here it is: