M14 Forum banner

Things you would want to see come standard on an M14 Sopmod V2

  • AR buffer tube stock with folder instead of Sopmod/EBR style stock

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Bolt Release (Sadlak)

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Extended Magazine Release (Sadlak)

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Adjustable Gas Plug (Schuster)

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Adjustable Trigger (Shooting Sight) Choose this or option 6

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Match Grade Tigger Group (Modified Bula) Choose this or option 5

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • Extended Magazine Release (Sadlak)

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • None let the user decide. What to add to the rifle. (brings cost down too)

    Votes: 4 44.4%
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Alright the chassis material has been decided on. However that is only the beginning. Other than chassis material there are physical changes that will be made to the chassis. In terms of aesthetics only some of them will slightly change the appearance of the Sopmod V2 in comparison to the Troy Rock Sopmod. However, overall if all these changes are made, the chassis will still look relatively the same.

Below I have a crude drawing that I surprisingly did in MS Paint to show how the new beveled magazine well will look.

The chassis front sight may be removed. But more than likely it will be upgraded by being made thinner.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Why remove the front sight? Cost?

If one isn't using a Bula XM21 receiver, what are the options for a front sight if this one is removed?

The other changes look prudent to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I am not a huge fan of the cheek rest and how it locks in. I am thinking of changing it to something similar to the EBR or just phase it out altogether and use an AR style buffer tube stock. But that would change the look too much. I like the idea of having the rear threaded to accept an AR stock if the user wants to use one. But have it come standard with something similar to what came standard on the Sopmod. However if the sopmod collapsing stock was phased out, an AR stock would probably be lighter.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Why remove the front sight? Cost?

If one isn't using a Bula XM21 receiver, what are the options for a front sight if this one is removed?

The other changes look prudent to me.
Well the original front sight that came standard on the sopmod was very fat and pretty useless imo. If not removal of it altogether, what I may do is thin it to .72 or .62 instead of what seems like 1.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Well the original front sight that came standard on the sopmod was very fat and pretty useless imo. If not removal of it altogether, what I may do is thin it to .72 or .62 instead of what seems like 1.0
A thinner sight blade would be an improvement. The front sight's omission might not be.

Just my 2¢.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
A thinner sight blade would be an improvement. The front sight's omission might not be.

Just my 2¢.
That's why its great for me to ask a bunch of questions and do polls. I want this to be the greatest it can be for the M14 Community. Something I may not be interested in may be wanted by many others such as the front sight. That's why I am striving to get as much input as I can. I still got a ways to go. I will most likely do the best of both worlds and improve the front sight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,951 Posts
Do you intend to use a CF handguard? Since you seem to be encouraging member questions, I took a look at a pic of the Bula XM21 receiver, (never handled one) It appears to me that their integral rail height is lower than that of my SOPMOD. On my gun, It looks to me like there's maybe .100" between the bottom of the Aluminum Smod rail and the top of the receiver at the front. Not sure if your going to be able to get the hand guard rail low enough using a lug sandwiched between the barrel and receiver. Have you looked at those heights on your SOPMOD? I'm thinking you might need to have a handgaurd with rail attached, that bolts to the bottom chassis on the sides, omitting the barrel lug, in order to get low enough to match the Bula rail height.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Do you intend to use a CF handguard? Since you seem to be encouraging member questions, I took a look at a pic of the Bula XM21 receiver, (never handled one) It appears to me that their integral rail height is lower than that of my SOPMOD. On my gun, It looks to me like there's maybe .100" between the bottom of the Aluminum Smod rail and the top of the receiver at the front. Not sure if your going to be able to get the hand guard rail low enough using a lug sandwiched between the barrel and receiver. Have you looked at those heights on your SOPMOD? I'm thinking you might need to have a handgaurd with rail attached, that bolts to the bottom chassis on the sides, omitting the barrel lug, in order to get low enough to match the Bula rail height.
I am waiting for the height dimensions from Bula on the XM21 receiver. I plan to use a CF handguard. I may have to bolt it down to the chassis similar to the sage ebr. I believe bolting it to the chassis and not using a barrel lug is the superior way to do that anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,951 Posts
Different schools of thought on this one, but if you affix the handguard/rail to the lower chassis, will you omit the front lug between the barrel and receiver? Personally, I believe that the front lug, along with the oprod guide, both of which are bolted to the chassis, contribute to the accuracy of the design. I know that many NM armorers say that the front lugged receivers don't shoot any better than the single lug NM guns, but those are bedded conventional rifles without the bolted in oprod guides, and I believe that they rely on draw pressure and barrel harmonics to shoot well. I think that you'd do well to retain the front lug in your design, even if you don't attach the rail to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Different schools of thought on this one, but if you affix the handguard/rail to the lower chassis, will you omit the front lug between the barrel and receiver? Personally, I believe that the front lug, along with the oprod guide, both of which are bolted to the chassis, contribute to the accuracy of the design. I know that many NM armorers say that the front lugged receivers don't shoot any better than the sungle lug guns, but those are bedded conventional rifles without the bolted in oprod guides, and I believe that they rely on draw pressure and barrel harmonics to shoot well. I think that you'd do well to retain the front lug in your design, even if you don't attach the rail to it.
I see where you are coming from. I would rather keep the design as close to the original as possible and make it as accurate as it can be. Keeping it at Sub MOA was a requirement for the SOPMOD and will be for me too. I will be taking advice from anyone that has any ideas or changes for accuracy. Once I get the dimensions of the XM21 receiver from BULA we will know how much the rail will need to be changed on the chassis and go from there. As usual I will run any plans or changes with the community for input. And hope people like you have things to say so we can make this chassis as great as it can be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
If anyone has any more input, opinions, advice, or suggestions big or small let me know. The more info we can get the better.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top