PDA

View Full Version : Review: Luth-AR MBA-1



Josh S.
9 January 2016, 19:31
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd443/Pigman_Jr/AR15/BD596736-4AAA-4814-B4B6-1092B6B057B2_zpsoruxdkd9.jpg (http://s1220.photobucket.com/user/Pigman_Jr/media/AR15/BD596736-4AAA-4814-B4B6-1092B6B057B2_zpsoruxdkd9.jpg.html)


Company Background

Luth-AR LLC was founded in 2013 by Randy Luth, the former owner/founder of a company you may have heard of called DPMS. After 22 years with DPMS, Luth sold the company to Freedom Group in 2007 and announced his retirement. The retirement was short-lived, however, and he decided to make a return to the firearms industry and bring a much desired alternative to the AR "stock market".

Features & Specifications (straight from the Luth-AR website)

- Modular buttstock assembly for the AR
- Interchangeable with standard A1 or A2 buttstocks or any aftermarket buttstock with overall length of approximately 10.5″
- Length: 10 3/8″ ( 11.5″ extended )
- Fully Ambidextrous and can be comfortably used shooting off either shoulder (Cheek piece pre-installed for right handed shooters but can be installed on either side for right or left hand shooters)
- Not interchangeable with carbine rifles with telescoping assemblies.
- Length of Pull (LOP) – Extended: 14 3/4″
- Length of Pull (LOP) – Collapsed: 13 5/8″
- Overall Length Extended: 11 1/2″
- Overall Length Collapsed: 10 7/8″
- Weight: 1.26 lbs

First Impressions

Upon the initial handling of the stock, I was very impressed with the features. Unlike the Magpul PRS, the cheekpiece and buttplate do not move while rotating the knobs. The knobs are made of metal, have knurled edges, and serve as tension knobs rather than true adjustment knobs. The user loosens the knobs, adjusts the cheekpiece or buttplate to the desired height or length, and re-tightens the knobs to lock the cheekpiece or buttplate in place. When first attempting to install the MBA-1 on a BCM buffer tube, it was a VERY tight fit. It would only slide over the tube halfway and I figured it must use a proprietary buffer tube similar to the Magpul UBR, but it eventually went on. It may take quite a bit of effort like mine did, but rest assured, the MBA-1 does use a standard rifle extension. The MBA-1 also has a slot at the rear for a sling swivel as well as two QD swivel mounts on each side. The stock is fully ambidextrous so you can move the knobs to either side with the provided allen wrench and you can see in the pictures below that Luth even incorporated a slot within the stock which securely holds the allen wrench for quick accessibility. You can also mount the backing plates for the cheekpiece/buttplate tension knobs in any of the holes seen in the pictures, allowing you to move the cheekpiece/buttplate further back or forward.

My only complaints at this point were 1) there is no mounting option for a monopod and 2) the cheekpiece is only attached on one side, allowing for a little up and down movement. However, the MBA-4 and MBA-3, which are Luth-AR's carbine offerings, do accommodate rail-mounted monopods. Also, if they were to attach the cheekpiece on both sides, it may hinder the stock's ambidextrous or customizable features.


http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd443/Pigman_Jr/AR15/9B1610BC-132C-4291-A685-6B660D80B9E7_zps4rigt0ux.jpg (http://s1220.photobucket.com/user/Pigman_Jr/media/AR15/9B1610BC-132C-4291-A685-6B660D80B9E7_zps4rigt0ux.jpg.html)
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd443/Pigman_Jr/AR15/772AE6E5-5AE4-4D0A-B164-EDCE8D5C5C16_zps23yz1ham.jpg (http://s1220.photobucket.com/user/Pigman_Jr/media/AR15/772AE6E5-5AE4-4D0A-B164-EDCE8D5C5C16_zps23yz1ham.jpg.html)
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd443/Pigman_Jr/AR15/DE624DDE-0C86-4DD1-9CF9-054AE3A30DBB_zps6peutmdg.jpg (http://s1220.photobucket.com/user/Pigman_Jr/media/AR15/DE624DDE-0C86-4DD1-9CF9-054AE3A30DBB_zps6peutmdg.jpg.html)
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd443/Pigman_Jr/AR15/6B3F0991-D4D1-4588-A05F-59541BF72B77_zpsc1juyary.jpg (http://s1220.photobucket.com/user/Pigman_Jr/media/AR15/6B3F0991-D4D1-4588-A05F-59541BF72B77_zpsc1juyary.jpg.html)
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd443/Pigman_Jr/AR15/A7421953-0616-40C1-BE9D-AD13F99A0E63_zpsthsk4eze.jpg (http://s1220.photobucket.com/user/Pigman_Jr/media/AR15/A7421953-0616-40C1-BE9D-AD13F99A0E63_zpsthsk4eze.jpg.html)


At the Range

The testing rifle was a Rock River lower paired with a complete Noveske 18" upper. Between the new Sprinco green spring, 5.2oz rifle buffer, and the Luth-AR MBA, this rifle has never shot softer. I shot about 150 rounds and only had one issue with the stock itself, which was partly my fault. If you prefer to use your off-hand to support the stock in the hook, you may have an issue with your fingers inadvertently loosening the tension knobs, primarily the knob for the cheekpiece. This happened to me a couple times, but although the knob had come loose, the cheekpiece never collapsed or even moved its position. Other than that, the stock is very comfortable to shoot with and allows the shooter to maintain a consistent and near-perfect cheekweld. The cheekpiece on this stock is slightly flared giving it the edge, in my opinion, over the cheekpiece on the Magpul PRS. If you are a fan of the cheekweld on stocks such as the SOPMOD, STR, ACS, etc., you will probably find the cheekweld on this stock to be very comfortable as well.


http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd443/Pigman_Jr/AR15/1A2932C6-7D84-4390-AA2A-4EEFF69CAECF_zpsfkeizime.jpg (http://s1220.photobucket.com/user/Pigman_Jr/media/AR15/1A2932C6-7D84-4390-AA2A-4EEFF69CAECF_zpsfkeizime.jpg.html)


Conclusion

There have been countless people on other forums who have said that this stock is half the weight and half the price of the Magpul PRS, and as far as I can tell, this is false. The Luth-AR MBA-1 retails for $139.95 and weighs 1.26 lbs, while the Magpul PRS retails for $255.00 and weighs 1.68 lbs. Although the MBA-1 does cost and weigh less, it is certainly not half the weight and price. All-in-all, I would highly recommend this stock to anyone looking for a comfortable fixed stock with user-friendly features and at a great price. Would I take this stock to war? Nope. Would I take this stock to the range, hunting, or for competition use? Absolutely!

I hope y'all find this review helpful and please let me know if you have any questions about anything I may not have covered.

- Josh

Dave Timm
9 February 2016, 05:00
Great write up! I am looking forward to hearing how your use goes. I share your experience. I had one on a 3 gun rifle and I while I liked it, a lot of stuff started to loosen up. I had to take everything apart, Loctite, and re-torque. Disappointed the knobs and other fasteners loosened under use so easily. Another shooter who had one had the knob fall off during a match and was lost. Also the cheek piece seamed a little to flexible for me that I just couldn't warm up to it. With the next gen PRS coming out I am curious to see how the MBA-1 fairs with the newer offerings.

Thanks again for your info.

Josh S.
9 February 2016, 11:02
Great write up! I am looking forward to hearing how your use goes. I share your experience. I had one on a 3 gun rifle and I while I liked it, a lot of stuff started to loosen up. I had to take everything apart, Loctite, and re-torque. Disappointed the knobs and other fasteners loosened under use so easily. Another shooter who had one had the knob fall off during a match and was lost. Also the cheek piece seamed a little to flexible for me that I just couldn't warm up to it. With the next gen PRS coming out I am curious to see how the MBA-1 fairs with the newer offerings.

Thanks again for your info.

Thanks for the compliments, Dave! If I have any more issues other than what I previously noted I'll probably switch to a PRS, but so far I'm happy with the MBA. Only time will tell... I hope with future versions they will address the tension knobs. Maybe come up with some kind of spring-tension configuration where you have to pull the knobs straight out, turn them, then lock them back in place (think ADM mounts).

Regarding the Gen 3 PRS, I think Magpul took two steps forward and three steps backward. The flush cups, buttplate adjustments, and micro-adjustments are great upgrades, but they only shaved off ~.12 lbs, ditched the picatinny monopod mount for MLOK, and made the thing look like a bulky FAL stock. IMO the biggest drawback is the MLOK monopod attachment. I don't see Accu-Shot releasing an MLOK mounted monopod any time soon, and if Magpul thinks they're going to enter the monopod market and compete with them they are sorely mistaken.

Jerry R
10 February 2016, 08:52
Very nice, detailed review. Thanks Josh.

SINNER
10 February 2016, 09:32
Thanks for the compliments, Dave! If I have any more issues other than what I previously noted I'll probably switch to a PRS, but so far I'm happy with the MBA. Only time will tell... I hope with future versions they will address the tension knobs. Maybe come up with some kind of spring-tension configuration where you have to pull the knobs straight out, turn them, then lock them back in place (think ADM mounts).

Regarding the Gen 3 PRS, I think Magpul took two steps forward and three steps backward. The flush cups, buttplate adjustments, and micro-adjustments are great upgrades, but they only shaved off ~.12 lbs, ditched the picatinny monopod mount for MLOK, and made the thing look like a bulky FAL stock. IMO the biggest drawback is the MLOK monopod attachment. I don't see Accu-Shot releasing an MLOK mounted monopod any time soon, and if Magpul thinks they're going to enter the monopod market and compete with them they are sorely mistaken.

Funny I have the same opinion about ditching the pic rail.

http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum/showthread.php?8807-Magpul-PRS-Gen-3&highlight=Magpul

I do not have the same opinion of the Luth-AR stocks though. Flimsy feel to them and absolutely hideous. For the slight cost increase I'll stick with the PRS stocks.

Josh S.
10 February 2016, 10:06
Thank you Jerry.



Funny I have the same opinion about ditching the pic rail.

http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum/showthread.php?8807-Magpul-PRS-Gen-3&highlight=Magpul

I do not have the same opinion of the Luth-AR stocks though. Flimsy feel to them and absolutely hideous. For the slight cost increase I'll stick with the PRS stocks.

Haha I doubt we're the only ones who share that opinion. It MIGHT be fine if they would include a rail section with the stock, but having to spend an extra $20 for a rail after dropping $250 on a stock just doesn't sit right with me. Especially since it could've been avoided.

To each his own, but personally I like the look of the MBA-1, and ONLY the MBA-1 lol. I don't care for any of their other stocks. I didn't like them at first, but after Falkor blew up my Instagram feed with pics of their rifles equipped with MBA's they started to grow on me. They are flimsier than the PRS but it's not bad enough for me to go back to Magpul....yet. Btw, you don't know what flimsy is until you've had a Command Arms buttstock. I got one as a gift a few years back and couldn't get rid of it fast enough haha

SINNER
10 February 2016, 17:06
I bought one after I saw the Falkor rifles. Hahaha. Maybe I'll revisit it one day. I used it on a bolt action chassis so a semi platform might change my opinion some. It was on a .280 A.I. that has a pretty good amount of recoil.

And I had a CAA folder on a junk AK once. It snapped off at the trunion the first time I used it below freezing. [BD]

Josh S.
10 February 2016, 17:20
I bought one after I saw the Falkor rifles. Hahaha. Maybe I'll revisit it one day. I used it on a bolt action chassis so a semi platform might change my opinion some. It was on a .280 A.I. that has a pretty good amount of recoil.

And I had a CAA folder on a junk AK once. It snapped off at the trunion the first time I used it below freezing. [BD]

I've shouldered bolt guns with a chassis/AR stock setup and didn't like it that much. I think I prefer the chassis' actual buttstock.

I guess you do know what "flimsy" is haha. That sucks that happened to you, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Things could go south real quick if it were to break on someone and they lost control of the rifle. I don't know how they haven't gone under yet...

Eric
10 February 2016, 20:55
Thanks for the review and photos Josh. Well done. At $140 for the complete kit, the price-point is okay. For bench work it might work, but too many moving parts for anything that will see heavy use.

WHSmithIV
11 February 2016, 18:18
I was looking at those a month or two ago. Why wouldn't you take it to war? What would you put on a rifle to take to war?

Josh S.
11 February 2016, 18:27
I was looking at those a month or two ago. Why wouldn't you take it to war? What would you put on a rifle to take to war?

Too many moving parts and the tolerances on those parts aren't nearly as tight as those on a PRS. It's a very comfortable stock and in my opinion, better served on a gun for recreational use. And I have no personal experience with it, but I would probably choose an A2 buttstock. No moving parts to worry about and the KISS principle applies.