LooseRounds.com
5.56 Timeline
Weaponsman.com

What ever happened to the DuoStock?

If I do a quick image search for “Army M4” I get results that look like this:


With the exception of the Marine in the last photo, all the other shooters only have the toe of the stock in the shoulder. One of the awesome aspects of the AR15 and the 5.56×45 round is the low recoil and great control-ability. It allows you to get away with these less than optimum shooting positions.

Around 2007ish, someone came up with an answer for the question no one asked. They came up with a stock that would work well with this style of shooting. Here came the Duostock.

Duostock made the worst mistake that an accessory can make. That is, it was (and still is) considered to look stupid.

Some people called it the lima bean stock. I don’t really see the resemblance, but I do find that funny.

Yet there are people out there using this stock and liking it. I’ve read comments from a handful of people who actually use it, and like it.

I’ve never fired a rifle with a Duostock installed, but I have handled one. It does what it is suppose to do, but I’d just assume run a standard stock.

A couple of years ago a picture showed up of a SEAL using a Duostock. Some wondered if that would be enough of an impetuous to drive up popularity for it. Didn’t seem to garner any real attention.

It does seem like it is a decent product that does what it is suppose to do. But it is ugly and people don’t like how it looks.

The companies website doesn’t seem to exist any more. But many distributors seem to still have them in stock. I’m surprised we never saw a gen 2 Duostock that would be a little more subdued design with a rubber buttpad.

I’d guess that the lesson of the story is that if you are going to sell a “tactical” product, make sure it looks cool.

4 thoughts on “What ever happened to the DuoStock?”

  1. I got one of those when they first came out and ran it for a while. It was tougher than it looked/felt and it took and held paint pretty well. Let my buddies try it, nobody wanted a picture of them shooting it, the consensus was it looked ghey but it worked. My biggest complaint was it was bulky and it wound up in one of those boxes of parts/gadgets that we all have and then got sold at a loss some time later.

  2. A properly designed rifle would have a cheek riser or something similar, so as to allow the shooter to achieve a reliable and repeatable cheek weld, while having the butt of the rifle mounted on the shoulder properly.

    In this area, the AR family of rifles is an embarrassment of ergonomics.

    • What torques me off is that big game-style rifles have been sold without open sights (i.e. intended only for use with a scope) for 20 years now, but stock combs are still set at a height for open sights.

      I’ll say about this what I said about the Beretta 92 safety: do the people who designed this actually use these firearms? Do they have necks? Do they duct tape sponges to their stocks? Savage seems to be the only company that has come up with a solution to this that works for a hunting rifle, that is to say not one of those janky thumbscrew risers like they put on precision-style rifles.

      • You’re exactly right on the big game rifles. This was one of the issues where Weatherby thought ahead on their Mark V – they put the “Monte Carlo” comb on the stock, which raised your eye line to where the scope would be above the bore.

        I wish hunting rifles would go back to having a decent set of irons on them. There are times when a scope is worse than useless – eg, hunting elk in tight timber here in Wyoming.

Leave a Comment