M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Gentleman,
First let me apologize for my confusing post. I am the inventor of the Delta 14 chassis and looking for people to look it over and let me know what they think. 3 years ago I decided the JAE, Voltar, and others chassis/ stock ideas were not what I was looking for. Some looked like the M1A plastic stock modified with an AR grip and others looked heavy and bulky. Because of this I went through more than 8 iterations to make what you see on the website. Rather than the AR style stock this uses any Mossberg stock and drops the profile so you can use the iron sights. This is because at the end of the day I trust the iron sights over anything but if your cheek can not get down low enough on the stock you have to use optics. Yes it is plastic, matter of fact this is not glass filled Nylon like the factory plastic stock but rather a resin plastic that is used in prototype bumpers. The plastic is strong but can take the action impact without issue. From a molding standpoint it is much less expensive than an injection mold. This type of feedback is really what I need to understand and it helps me taylor my idea to you the consumer. If you are a high user of a Socom 16 or a Socom II and want to test the chassis to see what you think please let me know. From a business standpoint the price could be much lower if I did not think I would have to use any distribution because they want so much just to sell a product. If I lowered the price would that help or would you think it was cheap? Let me know your thoughts.
PS, I am new to this forum stuff, my SOP is reading informtion and not posting so I am not even sure if I needed a new thread or if I should have replied to the old one.
Thanks again for your feedback
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Here is an example picture

This chassis has the ATI standard 6 position tactical stock on it. Note the cheak rest profile. There are more examples on the website in the photos section. The hardest part I have with this chassis is, with all the Mossberg stock manufactures and styles on the market I dont have the ability to list them all. Tapco, Mako, ATI, and Phoenix to name a few have each better than 4 styles. Now I have with and with out the rail kit. Add in the rifle style, Socom 16, Socom II, Scout ect. The matrx can be large and then put on broom sticks, lights, optics. My goal was to keep the chassis simple with a high amount of flexibility.
PS, thanks Bamban on the link to post a picture
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
I like the look of the stock for a "Walter Mitty" set-up.
I guess the big question is how flexible the front of the stock is.(the main complaint with USGI and SAI synthetic stocks.)
I noticed you have a more angular fore grip which should help rigidity. With the rails installed that should help shore up the stock too.
The next issue would be bedding. How well the receiver mates to the stock. With so many different receivers that might be another doubt.
I am going to have to think about this one.
It is an intriguing stock.

Thanks for sharing your product,
Glenn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Flexibility

Yes you are correct that the stock does exhibit flexibility on the front. The rails do help and if you use the Socom II then it is not a problem because of how the Voltar system ties into the rifle. In all my work I did find plastic that would be rigid but the problem was the stocks broke due to the recoil.
To answer your other question on bedding, I made the interior very close to the standard Springfield plastic stock. to my knowledge they do not bed and I have been able to fit this into a few rifles without issue. I am sure it is not perfect but my thought was to make a battle rifle stock not a sniper stock. Not that I am in mass production but rather a stock that will function for most right out of the box without fitting.
Thanks for the questions
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
Gentleman,
First let me apologize for my confusing post. I am the inventor of the Delta 14 chassis and looking for people to look it over and let me know what they think. 3 years ago I decided the JAE, Voltar, and others chassis/ stock ideas were not what I was looking for. Some looked like the M1A plastic stock modified with an AR grip and others looked heavy and bulky. Because of this I went through more than 8 iterations to make what you see on the website. Rather than the AR style stock this uses any Mossberg stock and drops the profile so you can use the iron sights. This is because at the end of the day I trust the iron sights over anything but if your cheek can not get down low enough on the stock you have to use optics. Yes it is plastic, matter of fact this is not glass filled Nylon like the factory plastic stock but rather a resin plastic that is used in prototype bumpers. The plastic is strong but can take the action impact without issue. From a molding standpoint it is much less expensive than an injection mold. This type of feedback is really what I need to understand and it helps me taylor my idea to you the consumer. If you are a high user of a Socom 16 or a Socom II and want to test the chassis to see what you think please let me know. From a business standpoint the price could be much lower if I did not think I would have to use any distribution because they want so much just to sell a product. If I lowered the price would that help or would you think it was cheap? Let me know your thoughts.
PS, I am new to this forum stuff, my SOP is reading informtion and not posting so I am not even sure if I needed a new thread or if I should have replied to the old one.
Thanks again for your feedback
Web5253, I really appreciate you letting us know your association with Delta14, i think alot of us are very intrigued with the stock and the posibilities, my interest in these stocks is definitely weight and ergonomics, im very curious to try your chassis with a spec ops recoil reducing stock
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,529 Posts
Yes you are correct that the stock does exhibit flexibility on the front. The rails do help and if you use the Socom II then it is not a problem because of how the Voltar system ties into the rifle. In all my work I did find plastic that would be rigid but the problem was the stocks broke due to the recoil.
To answer your other question on bedding, I made the interior very close to the standard Springfield plastic stock. to my knowledge they do not bed and I have been able to fit this into a few rifles without issue. I am sure it is not perfect but my thought was to make a battle rifle stock not a sniper stock. Not that I am in mass production but rather a stock that will function for most right out of the box without fitting.
Thanks for the questions
I appreciate your statement about a battle rifle not a sniper stock, however the general mindset most people like to squeeze the best accuracy out of any platform.

How have the rilfes you tested perform in the accuracy department?

I am waiting to see how rifles perform in the collapsible and folding stocks as possible application for my hunting needs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,685 Posts
Personally I would have standardized on the remington 870 adapters... much more to choose from and many such as the mesa tactical are of better quality.

Furthermore, by going with an adapter that is set up to use ar-15 components you give your customers even more customization options.

Also by making the cut in the stock behind the reciever the same as the 870 you can also make stocks that are compatible with SAGE int'l rear ends... even more customization.

This looks like a SAGE mod 0 rear end, however its their 870 rear-end. By going this route, you gain modularity. It would be a simple thing to change from a mod 0 rear end to a mod 1 rear end and gain untold amounts of customization.

By doing so you can gain a portion of sales from those that look at the sage mod 1's and are like "man, I really like how i can interchange grips and butstocks but I really dont like the the weight"... Since you've already got the rails figured out and your stock is somewhat light weight I think by getting away from the cheap plastic one piece adapters you might be able to find a niche market...
You absolutely need to change your adapter choice to one that allows interchangable grips and buttstocks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Weight and accuracy

With regard to weight the stock and chassis have almost the same weight as the factory plastic. Your wild card is the stock style you put on the Chassis. The folding stock is heavier than the 6 position tactical standard. The chassis weight is just over a pound so the balance of the other weight is at the rear. The pistol grip sure makes you think the stock is lighter but the reality is you have better leverage.

Accuracy question, I am a MI hunter and a 100yard shot is a long way for us because of obstructions in Northern MI. At that distance on a bench I could keep the ammo in the 8 ring with no problem. I never set the stock in a vise to run it but this is what I know.

The action and firing system are tight in the stock. Because of the material I had intentional made it a little high to deflect the stock and bite the barrel and action. I do check each stock against a rifle to insure fit as well.
Hope this helps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
With regard to weight the stock and chassis have almost the same weight as the factory plastic. Your wild card is the stock style you put on the Chassis. The folding stock is heavier than the 6 position tactical standard. The chassis weight is just over a pound so the balance of the other weight is at the rear. The pistol grip sure makes you think the stock is lighter but the reality is you have better leverage.

Accuracy question, I am a MI hunter and a 100yard shot is a long way for us because of obstructions in Northern MI. At that distance on a bench I could keep the ammo in the 8 ring with no problem. I never set the stock in a vise to run it but this is what I know.

The action and firing system are tight in the stock. Because of the material I had intentional made it a little high to deflect the stock and bite the barrel and action. I do check each stock against a rifle to insure fit as well.
Hope this helps
thanks for the info greatly appreciated, when you get a chance can you tell me the weight of the rifle (socom) with your fully equipped stock rails etc
thanks again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Weight and picture

I have a Socom 16, this has a knight broomstick bipod, red dot Bushnell, empty mag, ATI Talon stock, full rail kit, and heavy duty sling, surefire 9V light. The rifle is just over 12lbs (without ammo) Let me know what you think
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
781 Posts
Personally I would have standardized on the remington 870 adapters... much more to choose from and many such as the mesa tactical are of better quality.

Furthermore, by going with an adapter that is set up to use ar-15 components you give your customers even more customization options.

Also by making the cut in the stock behind the reciever the same as the 870 you can also make stocks that are compatible with SAGE int'l rear ends... even more customization.


This looks like a SAGE mod 0 rear end, however its their 870 rear-end. By going this route, you gain modularity. It would be a simple thing to change from a mod 0 rear end to a mod 1 rear end and gain untold amounts of customization.

By doing so you can gain a portion of sales from those that look at the sage mod 1's and are like "man, I really like how i can interchange grips and butstocks but I really dont like the the weight"... Since you've already got the rails figured out and your stock is somewhat light weight I think by getting away from the cheap plastic one piece adapters you might be able to find a niche market...
You absolutely need to change your adapter choice to one that allows interchangable grips and buttstocks!
That is one sick looking stock set up. I think I might be in love
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
New pricing

I talked to another member and he is interested in testing the stock out. What I am condering is running a promo price for the chassis,spacer, ATI talon stock, and rail kit for $250.00 with $5.00 shipping. Let me know if this generates your interest and I will adjust the website. I am not looking to get rich on this idea but rather share the idea and recop the inverstments I have made. PS yes this is in patent pending status becasue the feds take more than a year to clear a patent. From my patent search there is nothing like this one.
FYI
thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
I am the inventor of the Delta 14 chassis and looking for people to look it over and let me know what they think.
OK, you asked for it...


I decided the JAE, VLTOR, and others chassis/ stock ideas were not what I was looking for. Some looked like the M1A plastic stock modified with an AR grip and others looked heavy and bulky.
Given the number of people on this forum creating something like this in their garage, I think you're not the only one...


Rather than the AR style stock this uses any Mossberg stock and drops the profile so you can use the iron sights.
I understand your rationale for doing this, and the cheek rest looks good.

On the other hand, as CNelson mentioned, a lot of people are going to want to use AR-compatible buttstocks.

Would there be some way to attach a mil-spec AR receiver extension?


From a business standpoint the price could be much lower if I did not think I would have to use any distribution because they want so much just to sell a product. If I lowered the price would that help or would you think it was cheap?
The price seems about right to me: this costs about the same as the ProMag Archangel, right?

You're undercutting the JAE/Sage/VLTOR stocks, but you're also offering a lot less — this isn't really a "chassis" as much as a plastic stock.


First let me apologize for my confusing post... Let me know your thoughts.
One last thing: If you want people to think that you're smart and legitimate, then proofread your posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Bimmer,
I still thank you for your honesty and like to hear the good, bad and ugly.
To address your questions,
Yes there are adaptors that will convert the Mossberg 500 to use standard AR pistol grips and tube assemblies. This will also work on this chassis. Below is a link to one of them. They copy wrote their pictures so I can’t put it in.

http://www.nokick.com/Mesa_Tactical_LEO_Stock_Adapter_for_Moss_500_590_p/mesa tactical 93170.htm

Yes the price is lower, Vltor is a plastic Springfield stock converted. It is not undercutting them but rather I don’t have all the overhead. Mine is plastic as well but if you can hold a group well with the factory plastic then you can do the same with this stock. Not sure how my offering is less but please explain. I would like to know because what I am offering is different. The Vltor does not have rails on the front for example. Again the reason for the plastic is weight. In the next iteration my plan is to investment cast this in Al but will warn the users of mass. This is meant to be a battle stock not a long range sniper stock. No other stock offers the user the ability to change out the styles of stocks to the main chassis.
As for proof reading you could not be more correct. I would like to offer a nice excuse but no good BS comes to mind so I take the blame for being lazy and not proofing my work.
Thanks again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
Yes there are adaptors that will convert the Mossberg 500 to use standard AR pistol grips and tube assemblies.
This is a BFD. If you want to sell these, then show one with the Mesa adaptor and a MagPul PRS or CTR stock and MIAD pistol grip...


Not sure how my offering is less but please explain. I would like to know because what I am offering is different...
I'm not familiar with the VLTOR, but the appeal of the JAE and the Sage is that they basically rigidly clamp the receiver in aluminum blocks, in lieu of bedding.
They're heavy and expensive, but they promise dramatically better accuracy. Full disclosure — I've been lusting after a JAE for years.

In that your stock doesn't do this, it's offering "less," at least IMHO. And I'm not sure of the semantic difference between a "chassis" and a "stock," but what you're offering sounds like a "stock" to me.

None of this is bad, it's just what it is.

If anything, it's impressive that your stock will match the price point of the ProMag. I think these are going to sell like hot cakes...
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top