Lead Star Arms “RAVAGE” Lightweight AR-15 Stock

Lead Star Arms has introduced a lightweight AR-15 stock called Ravage. It is CNC machined out of a solid block of 7075 T6 aluminum and weighs only 6 oz! It is a fixed stock, that is to say, a non-adjustable one. The way it attaches to the buffer tube (or receiver extension, if you will) is that it clamps on it. So you need to slide the Ravage stock onto the buffer tube and tighten the screw to fix it in place.

When attached to a carbine length buffer tube, it makes the overall length of the stock (from lower receiver to the butt pad) 9.5″. The stock also features a slot for sling attachment. Perhaps it would be better if there was a QD socket, too. It is also Type III Class 2 hard coat anodized and comes in different color options: red, blue and black. The last color looks more like gray to me, but maybe it is just me. The Ravage stock is available on Lead Star Arms’ website at an MSRP of $89.99.

I am a huge fan of reducing weight wherever it is possible without altering the action and compromising the strength and rigidity of the firearm. The Ravage stock does just that! However, it also has a feature that I am not a fan of at all, which is the metal parts contacting your face. Now, if you are less likely to find yourself in an extremely hot and/or cold environment, then maybe that is not something to be concerned about.



Hrachya H

Being a lifelong firearms enthusiast, Hrachya always enjoys studying design, technology and history of guns and ammunition. His knowledge of Russian allows him to translate and make Russian/Soviet/Combloc small arms related information available for the English speaking audience.
Should you need to contact him, feel free to shoot him a message at Hrachya@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • DwnRange

    hummm……weights more than the MFT Battlelink, does not adjust and costs almost 3 times more – and $30 more than the indestructible BCMGUNFIGHTER……….

    No thanks.

  • Waskoley Wallababy

    What’s the length of pull?

    • DwnRange

      If the 9.5″ dimension is correct above, you are looking at roughly a 13″ LOP, (measured on my BCM rifle here set at 9.5″)

      • Marcus D.

        Are the people who buy these stocks have short arms or something? I mean, isn’t the average rifle stock have a 13.5 to 13.75″ LOP?

        • DwnRange

          It’s not about arm length, but more so about gear, plate carriers, mag pouches, etc….. That is why we have collapsible stocks – so we can adjust the stock to compensate for the LOP needed. Otherwise you find your eye-position changes on your stock, behind your scope, irons or red-dots – which in turn affects your POI downrange. It’s why smart folks “zero” their rifle with their gear on and “mark” that point on their buffer tube, so they know their rifle is set properly before the SHTF..

          • Marcus D.

            Gottcha., I never ran into that problem, not being an operational operator, and at my age never expecting to be either.

          • DwnRange

            I have hunting ARs and SHTF ones, but professionals like Paul Howe, Frank Procter etc… along w/ 3 gun shooters prefer a fully extended stock for more leverage, and faster target acquisition when engaging multiple targets or at varying ranges.

            That said if you put on a plate carrier, vest or in some cases a big winter coat one might need to shorten the stock to maintain eye-position behind your sights. At fifty yards the POI difference won’t be much, but at 2, 3, or 400 yards ya could miss a plate, deer or coyote. Same as one’s “draw/anchor point” when shooting a bow – to be consistent across the course, eye position is important.

          • raz-0

            There are other factors besides armor and such. It also depends on stance. Going with a more squared up stance is very useful for run and gun games.

            I’m 6’7″ with long arms. When I started shooting ARs, I went with an a-2 lenght stock with a 3 way djustable butt pad and a spacer to get the “right” length of pull based on people’s advice. And that worked for a VERY bladed stance you’d use with the NRA traditional 3 position shooting way of thiking.

            Now that I have moved on toe 3-gun style shooting and a stance that is closer to moder iso, I use an a1 length stock setup. People with shorter arms are going to want even shorter than that.

  • Taylor Hardin

    Is it lighter then a traditional M4 stock? Not to mention those GI M4 stocks are $25.

    • DwnRange

      Depending on the brand, you are looking at 14.3-14.6 ounces. So the answer to your question is YES, it is lighter.

      (FWIW, the product above weights 0.2 tenths of an ounce more than the MFT Battlelink mentioned above by me)

      • Flounder

        how are you getting 14oz for a mil spec stock? even with the buffer tube that is too much…

        14oz is what an ACS weighs. The version with the battery compartments. Even GI M4 style stocks with a rubber pad on the back don’t weigh that much!

    • Flounder

      This is about the same to a max of 3oz lighter. There is a lot of variance in the GI M4 stocks. But there are much lighter options if you are going for a fixed stock, which this is.

  • Marcus D.

    What else is out there in a fixed stock configuration. (Kind of an important thing for those of us in California converting to a featureless build.) For me, weight is not as much of an issue; it is a range rifle with a nearly 3 lb Hbar, and I wouldn’t mind a little counter weight to the whole thing.

    • Samuel Millwright

      Just so you know companies like strike industries and several others actually sell blocker plates that can turn most adjustable stocks into fixed stocks WRT being Cali Compliant.

      I’ve seen these in the $10-$15 range and they allow you to pick and use a stock you actually like rather than spend $90 for something like this.

      While i hate the California legislation with a passion, i do still try and keep an eye out for solutions that can at least partially mitigate the sting for California shooters.

      • Marcus D.

        Yeah, I’ve seen that, but I am leery, since it is as easy to pull the rubber plates out as it is to put them in. and the stock still looks like an adjustable stock. I have one of their fin grips, but I am not really happy with that either. It feels “off.” But as bad as these are, they are better that the CF that is the registration debacle.

  • Paul Rain

    Damn, that looks good.

    Apart from looking like a racing bike part.

    Cardio kills gains.