Help LS Wild design the new stock!

[BLJ]

How short is too short?

I feel like I’ve said this to myself but never read this to myself…………….

 

[Schmo]

Rokstok Lite stock short. Mby do a short and a regular to cover everyones desires?

I'll echo Wind Gypsy's comments on it.

We’ll only be doing one length, but with laminate, guys can cut it down very easily.

 

[43.6N]

We’ll only be doing one length, but with laminate, guys can cut it down very easily.

If that’s the case, just make sure an OG on a 16” barrel will fit with clearance.

 

[BLJ]

If that’s the case, just make sure an OG on a 16” barrel will fit with clearance.

Agree with this.

Determine a benchmark by using a setup that will be very common for your customers.

OTB on a 16” barrel would be a good max for forearm length.

 

[BBob]

We’ll only be doing one length, but with laminate, guys can cut it down very easily.

I'd aim towards an alternative for the Rokstok, not a lite. The lite is aimed more narrow for the few that are into the really short compact lite thing. Rokstok is more general use but still highly functional. But that's your job to suss out which would be the most desired???

 

[Schmo]

I'd aim towards an alternative for the Rokstok, not a lite. The lite is aimed more narrow for the few that are into the really short compact lite thing. Rokstok is more general use but still highly functional. But that's your job to suss out which would be the most desired???

I understand what you’re saying. We do have to limit some dimensions just to hit an acceptable weight.
This will be a Rokstok alternative, not a copy. It will not look like a RS

 

[2buffalo]

How short is too short?

This is why nobody should take you or LS Wild seriously on this.

 

[Schmo]

This is why nobody should take you or LS Wild seriously on this.

The purpose of this entire thread is to get input from potential users. My opinion of too short and yours might be two very different things. I want to see what the consensus is.

 

[Escalante11]

There is only so many ways to design a stock optimally…

However, to be fair- that is exactly how it started. “I want to copy a ROKStok in wood or laminate and sell it cheaper”. LS Wild got called out in that thread for exactly that by others, and then functionally said he didn’t care and had no problem with copying items and making a cheaper version.
That’s whatever- it isn’t patented so people can do whatever they feel good about. But, don’t obfuscate and try to say it wasn’t exactly that. The original intent was “I want to make a cheaper version of a wood ROKStok, or a derivative therof, and sell it from my business”. That was the stated goal.

Lol what?! That is literally the exact same narrative you and your S2H partners have been talking about for over a year with the new S2H scope! That all started with you guys claiming you could deliver a Nightforce esque scope at 1/2 the price with some added subtle improvements (e.g., reticle).. I don't see Nightforce mumbling on online forums about the new S2H scope.

 

[Mik123]

Lol what?! That is literally the exact same narrative you and your S2H partners have been talking about for over a year with the new S2H scope! That all started with you guys claiming you could deliver a Nightforce esque scope at 1/2 the price with some added subtle improvements (e.g., reticle).. I don't see Nightforce mumbling on online forums about the new S2H scope.

Which nightforce model are they copying exactly?

 

[Escalante11]

Which nightforce model are they copying exactly?

They aren't "copying" anything, but S2H is bringing to market a scope that performs as a Nightforce, but at a much more attainable price point. That goal has been repeatedly stated. Ok with Form and his S2H partners.

Now, LS Wild is trying to bring to market a wood stock that performs similar to a Wood RokStok, but at a much more attainable price point.. Not ok with Form.

And while I don't know for certain who produces the new S2H ZeroTech Scope, it's probable that it is LOW... Or in other words, a majority of the components may be produced by the same manufacturer that is building Nightforce scopes... That'd be like LS Wild contracting Stocky's for the manufacturing. You just can't make this stuff up

As a consumer, I love that S2H brings great ideas/products to affordable price points. And I applaud LS Wild for trying to do the same on here of late.

 

[BBob]

Now, LS Wild is trying to bring to market a wood stock that performs similar to a Wood RokStok, but at a much more attainable price point.. Not ok with Form.

IMO He didn't really say that exactly. IMO he said a copy knockoff would be not okay. Now he did go on about some aspects that I don't think are proprietary ideas at all even if he stated those were goals of a Rokstok at the outset. Some of them were already being asked for prior to the Rokstok. I'm talking negative comb, short trigger reach for two.

 

[nm.otter]

while I don't know for certain who produces the new S2H ZeroTech Scope, it's probable that it is LOW

It's not probable -- it's confirmed, and has been since the original discussion.

in other words, a majority of the components may be produced by the same manufacturer that is building Nightforce scopes... That'd be like LS Wild contracting Stocky's for the manufacturing.

Not really. LOW is strictly an OEM and does not sell under its own brand.

 

[Formidilosus]

My memory aint perfect but I recall a time when rokstok was a concept because gunwerks was unwilling to sell component stocks for tikkas or really at a general volume/availability to fit the market. I didn't see that as foul as it was a hole in the market that gunwerks wasn't interested in filling. I see this similarly.

Partly, but no.

I personally have been trying to get a company to make a version of what the ROKStok became for a decade and a half. I went to McMillan in 2010 the first time about it. Again to McMillan and Manners in 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019. The concept design characteristics of the ROKStok is a mix of AR15, biathlon rifles, Scandinavian prone “skyting” rifles, and the Master Sporter- but, in a sporter style.

Concurrently to trying to get the stock made, I sought anything close to it. The original Gunwerks LR1000 (I believe) was better than any other, the Clymer was the next- Gunwerks was asked repeatedly to make a Tikka version. They declined for 7’ish years.

Then Ryan tried talking to all the companies about making a stock again, all declined or offered a ridiculous price for the mold. Stocky’s came into the picture and was willing to make whatever design we wanted. So, the original characteristics were the choice.

 

[hereinaz]

Did I not address that exactly in the first paragraph of the post you quoted?





Where did you learn about the importance of trigger reach- be honest.




Where do you learn that from- be honest.




Where do you learn that from- be honest.




It is not unethical for you to make a stock. It’s skuzzy to take the product of the owner of the site that you be selling it on, and make a cheaper version and then sell it. Again- less (potentially) to do with you, more with the pattern of what happens, and trying to revise it.

The project has material differences. I have been drawing, thinking about, and messing with stock designs for years.

Everything about the Rokstock was floating in my mind for years, except the negative comb, because I realized a soft jaw weld is all that is needed for precision. Years ago I gave up adjustable cheek pieces and didn’t like the Rokstock I tried cause the cheek is too high.

Functionally, the extra buttpad that comes with the Rokstock to take it over bore is overrated in my mind as well. It doesn’t fit my philosophy of use or the way I shoot. I know others that love it for their purposes and style.

Overall, the origin for me came from conversations with another member about making a Mastersporter style stock. Months ago I looked into stock copying jigs because of the demand I saw for it. The member also sold me on the shootability. I had no desire to copy the Rokstock, but that comparison is part of the story.

Schmo wanted a copy, yes, but when I tagged in it was to make a stock with desirable features, and with the Mastersporter build already in mind.

The Mastersporter plus features I want is what I am building. It may share features with the Rokstock, because it incorporates good design.

You asked how I learned. The negative comb was from the Rokstock. Everything else was not new to me.

I don’t know why the assumption is made that I was ignorant of any of the other features.

McMillan A10 had short trigger reach, I saw that and realized the awesome fit when it released at SHOT years ago. Since, I added to grips. Bravo has it too.

Many stocks have had the butt hook with a flat toe. Benchrest and FClass have had flat toe and forend for bag riding. Mastersporter has had fairly flat toe. Newer stocks like the Clymer, Bastion, and others have been moving to flatter toes for the same reason the Rokstock did.

PRS chassis where I did most of my learning years ago had the flat vertical grip, flat toe, adjustable butt plate to put above bore line on chassis. I added adjustable butt plate to explore raising the butt pad over bore years ago when I was a Neanderthal shooting Savage rifles...

There are more places to learn these things than Rokslide. My understanding and preference for stock design was solidified before I became aware of the discussion on Rokslide.

As far as I am concerned, Rokstock did put together element in a unique way, but the element are not unique. Others use it as a shorthand to describe the features. I could describe everything about the features of the Rokstock with reference to long existing designs I knew about before the Rokstock was a thing. The final design will be able to point to many other stocks with similar design features.

To anyone who wants a Rokstock, this won’t be it.

As I made clear it will not be a copy, and in good faith to the forum owners, this process has been open and transparent.

I am not hiding or being sneaky.

Like I said, I think it’s bad business to straight up copy. All it takes is a call from the powers that be and I will shut it down or modify.

But, for me this is a Mastersporter/Bravo inspired design.

There are far more opportunities to develop gear, cooperate to build community, and increase awareness. It isn’t a zero sum game.

 

[Escalante11]

It's not probable -- it's confirmed, and has been since the original discussion.


Not really. LOW is strictly an OEM and does not sell under its own brand.

It's irrelevant whether Stocky's and LOW sell under their own brand and I don't have time to debate specifics. All I'm trying to do is call out the hypocrisy of a S2H representative crying foul for someone bringing a non-patented product to market at a lower price point, and with some added improvements/changes, when S2H does the same thing.

 

[Escalante11]

The project has material differences. I have been drawing, thinking about, and messing with stock designs for years.

Everything about the Rokstock was floating in my mind for years, except the negative comb, because I realized a soft jaw weld is all that is needed for precision. Years ago I gave up adjustable cheek pieces and didn’t like the Rokstock I tried cause the cheek is too high.

Functionally, the extra buttpad that comes with the Rokstock to take it over bore is overrated in my mind as well. It doesn’t fit my philosophy of use or the way I shoot. I know others that love it for their purposes and style.

Overall, the origin for me came from conversations with another member about making a Mastersporter style stock. Months ago I looked into stock copying jigs because of the demand I saw for it. The member also sold me on the shootability. I had no desire to copy the Rokstock, but that comparison is part of the story.

Schmo wanted a copy, yes, but when I tagged in it was to make a stock with desirable features, and with the Mastersporter build already in mind.

The Mastersporter plus features I want is what I am building. It may share features with the Rokstock, because it incorporates good design.

You asked how I learned. The negative comb was from the Rokstock. Everything else was not new to me.

I don’t know why the assumption is made that I was ignorant of any of the other features.

McMillan A10 had short trigger reach, I saw that and realized the awesome fit when it released at SHOT years ago. Since, I added to grips. Bravo has it too.

Many stocks have had the butt hook with a flat toe. Benchrest and FClass have had flat toe and forend for bag riding. Mastersporter has had fairly flat toe. Newer stocks like the Clymer, Bastion, and others have been moving to flatter toes for the same reason the Rokstock did.

PRS chassis where I did most of my learning years ago had the flat vertical grip, flat toe, adjustable butt plate to put above bore line on chassis. I added adjustable butt plate to explore raising the butt pad over bore years ago when I was a Neanderthal shooting Savage rifles...

There are more places to learn these things than Rokslide. My understanding and preference for stock design was solidified before I became aware of the discussion on Rokslide.

As far as I am concerned, Rokstock did put together element in a unique way, but the element are not unique. Others use it as a shorthand to describe the features. I could describe everything about the features of the Rokstock with reference to long existing designs I knew about before the Rokstock was a thing. The final design will be able to point to many other stocks with similar design features.

To anyone who wants a Rokstock, this won’t be it.

As I made clear it will not be a copy, and in good faith to the forum owners, this process has been open and transparent.

I am not hiding or being sneaky.

Like I said, I think it’s bad business to straight up copy. All it takes is a call from the powers that be and I will shut it down or modify.

But, for me this is a Mastersporter/Bravo inspired design.

There are far more opportunities to develop gear, cooperate to build community, and increase awareness. It isn’t a zero sum game.

Appreciate you trying to bring a good product to us hunters and at an attainable price point.

 

[Helislacker]

I disagree with many here. We have a grown man caught with open, blatant plagiarism that resorts to rationalizing and denial to overcome owning his error and assessing his shortcomings.

I’m not perfect either, but if you get caught, at least own it, give yourself an honest self assessment and avoid obfuscating.

If you made a one off stock or a few for yourself, that’s one thing. However, this is a product marketed to the same people as the real deal on the platform that exists because of those who designed the real deal.

This is completely absurd and completely avoidable if people were honest with themselves and their intent.

 

[Formidilosus]

Lol what?! That is literally the exact same narrative you and your S2H partners have been talking about for over a year with the new S2H scope! That all started with you guys claiming you could deliver a Nightforce esque scope at 1/2 the price with some added subtle improvements (e.g., reticle).. I don't see Nightforce mumbling on online forums about the new S2H scope.

No. Not even remotely true. Ever. At no point was it stated the goal was to make a Nightforce at half the price.

They aren't "copying" anything, but S2H is bringing to market a scope that performs as a Nightforce, but at a much more attainable price point. That goal has been repeatedly stated. Ok with Form and his S2H partners.

Now, LS Wild is trying to bring to market a wood stock that performs similar to a Wood RokStok, but at a much more attainable price point.. Not ok with Form.

And while I don't know for certain who produces the new S2H ZeroTech Scope, it's probable that it is LOW... Or in other words, a majority of the components may be produced by the same manufacturer that is building Nightforce scopes... That'd be like LS Wild contracting Stocky's for the manufacturing. You just can't make this stuff up

As a consumer, I love that S2H brings great ideas/products to affordable price points. And I applaud LS Wild for trying to do the same on here of late.

No. As above. You do not understand what you are writing.


“I need a scope that does certain things that no one anywhere is making”.

Goes to multiple companies and no one will make a thing they aren’t already making- for years.

ZeroTech says “we will”. Same as the ROKStok. Neither on of them is “let me make the same thing cheaper”. That you even state is a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of what has been written or said, or a purposeful misconstruing of reality.

 

[Schmo]

I disagree with many here. We have a grown man caught with open, blatant plagiarism that resorts to rationalizing and denial to overcome owning his error and assessing his shortcomings.

I’m not perfect either, but if you get caught, at least own it, give yourself an honest self assessment and avoid obfuscating.

If you made a one off stock or a few for yourself, that’s one thing. However, this is a product marketed to the same people as the real deal on the platform that exists because of those who designed the real deal.

This is completely absurd and completely avoidable if people were honest with themselves and their intent.

Wait, what? What about our concept is plagiarism of a Rokstok?