I tried a brand name chassis and did not like it; back to the Manners T4A. Of course this is a personal decision regarding what you can shoot best. For what it's worth, the tactical Manners and McMillans still dominate PRS shooting matches; excellent shooters who can use whatever they want and many free from sponsors. Shooter preference will still dominate the market over the long haul.
Will the chassis eventually dominate?
- Thread starter Greyfox
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
sable tireur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,480
bootsking,
That's what I and most others have stated all along. It is a consumer driven market as is most everything in this world today.
Since you brought up stocks and PRS, I thought it would be fun to see a comparison of this competitive format as far as choices in stocks are concerned. This graph covers 3 years from 2014 through 2016:
That's what I and most others have stated all along. It is a consumer driven market as is most everything in this world today.
Since you brought up stocks and PRS, I thought it would be fun to see a comparison of this competitive format as far as choices in stocks are concerned. This graph covers 3 years from 2014 through 2016:
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
I have an HS Precision in .300 Win mag built on a stainless Remington action.
The stock is only "OK" in that the moulded in aluminum bedding block is NOT perfectly aligned. So yeah, it's accurate but certainly not something that gives on "pride of ownership".
SO... I will likely put the barreled action in an MDT TAC 21 chassis. It has pretty much the straight line design of my Ruger Precision Rifle and like that a lot because it eliminates muzzle flip.
Eric B.
The stock is only "OK" in that the moulded in aluminum bedding block is NOT perfectly aligned. So yeah, it's accurate but certainly not something that gives on "pride of ownership".
SO... I will likely put the barreled action in an MDT TAC 21 chassis. It has pretty much the straight line design of my Ruger Precision Rifle and like that a lot because it eliminates muzzle flip.
Eric B.
Bullet bumper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,045
Popularity is also a factor of how much advertising pressure is applied and how many names in the game recommend it as better than the others. This is never a real objective way to work out what is best for you .
With the trend towards light weight in everything because that's what customers are always complaining about most alloy chassis are made a bit on the weak flexible side to say the least . If you want to carry it up a mountain then light is good and a useful compromise but if you want every bit of long range accuracy possible then rigid and heavy works best especially with big recoiling cartridges and just don't carry it too far .
On the lighter side I like the KRG Whiskey 3 chassis it has a lot of the right design features and my next one will most likely be similar to that .
With the trend towards light weight in everything because that's what customers are always complaining about most alloy chassis are made a bit on the weak flexible side to say the least . If you want to carry it up a mountain then light is good and a useful compromise but if you want every bit of long range accuracy possible then rigid and heavy works best especially with big recoiling cartridges and just don't carry it too far .
On the lighter side I like the KRG Whiskey 3 chassis it has a lot of the right design features and my next one will most likely be similar to that .
sable tireur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,480
Bullet bumper,
Personally, I am interested in reading about your methodology and analysis supporting your statement. Was this accomplished under controlled and repeatable laboratory conditions? If not, what's your point?
I don't want to be argumentative. I have clients who prefer a glorious piece of wood with the best checkering. Others have an appreciation for the chassis whether in competition or for the hunt. It makes no difference to me as long as they get what they want within their constraints and I am satisfied that I've done the very best I'm capable of.
We are all truly blessed with a huge range of components available for building and reloading. Nearly everyone can find some combination which not only suits them but brings pleasure in handling and confidence in accuracy.
Regards.
Personally, I am interested in reading about your methodology and analysis supporting your statement. Was this accomplished under controlled and repeatable laboratory conditions? If not, what's your point?
I don't want to be argumentative. I have clients who prefer a glorious piece of wood with the best checkering. Others have an appreciation for the chassis whether in competition or for the hunt. It makes no difference to me as long as they get what they want within their constraints and I am satisfied that I've done the very best I'm capable of.
We are all truly blessed with a huge range of components available for building and reloading. Nearly everyone can find some combination which not only suits them but brings pleasure in handling and confidence in accuracy.
Regards.
Bullet bumper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,045
My methodology is that the modern commercial chassis is light and flexible compared to a rail gun or some very large laminated long range stocks and the fact I have built my own chassis and found that I started too thin and weak on many parts because I copied certain modern chassis ideas and after years of experimenting found I was loosing accuracy to those flexible parts . As I rebuilt those chassis parts to be stronger the accuracy improved . That made them heavier .
All modern commercial chassis are basically a rough copy of what the Military are selecting and using because that is what people see as tacticool and they have very specific use criteria but in most cases .2 accuracy at 100 yards is not one of them .
The Military needs to carry the thing day in day out up and down mountains etc and weight is a huge criteria . If it shoots 1 MOA for most Military purposes except extreme range snipers that is all they need . They are not going to select that 20 lb chassis just to gain that slight extra accuracy they don't really need .
A commercial chassis has to be practical and appeal to the most customers .
So they are made on the lighter and therefore weaker side than is optimal for the best accuracy possible .
Most of the issues are around the cheek rest and butt area , any folding stock hinge and if the chassis has a joint of any king between the forend and the main part of the stock . I watch people at the range putting their heads down on the cheek rests of certain chassis rifles to shoot and I see the stock rail flex and droop down with the weight of their head . No one notices unless you are really watching closely . That's how I got some ideas by watching other chassis being shot . If people only listened to the main stream accepted ideas nothing new would ever be invented .
All modern commercial chassis are basically a rough copy of what the Military are selecting and using because that is what people see as tacticool and they have very specific use criteria but in most cases .2 accuracy at 100 yards is not one of them .
The Military needs to carry the thing day in day out up and down mountains etc and weight is a huge criteria . If it shoots 1 MOA for most Military purposes except extreme range snipers that is all they need . They are not going to select that 20 lb chassis just to gain that slight extra accuracy they don't really need .
A commercial chassis has to be practical and appeal to the most customers .
So they are made on the lighter and therefore weaker side than is optimal for the best accuracy possible .
Most of the issues are around the cheek rest and butt area , any folding stock hinge and if the chassis has a joint of any king between the forend and the main part of the stock . I watch people at the range putting their heads down on the cheek rests of certain chassis rifles to shoot and I see the stock rail flex and droop down with the weight of their head . No one notices unless you are really watching closely . That's how I got some ideas by watching other chassis being shot . If people only listened to the main stream accepted ideas nothing new would ever be invented .
Last edited:
Bullet bumper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,045
They are probably going for the Police market because to run up 20 flights of stairs with a rifle is hard work. In lighter recoiling rounds like the 6.5 Creedmore and 308 Win a lighter chassis is quite ok when you are not seeking that ultimate competition accuracy. I would like the whole forend a little stouter for shooting off a bi-pod and the cheek rest a bit stronger but it might work just fine for what it is designed to do .
sable tireur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,480
I looked briefly for the weight of this chassis but I did not find it. The chassis itself is a variation of the MDT-LSS chassis with the refinements being added by Drake and Associates. They have named it:
Drake's Hunter Stalker LWSS chassis which is not only used for the Savage Stealth but is available for purchase as a chassis alone. Again, I didn't see a weight immediately.
The entire rifle is 9.3 lbs.
Dgd6mm,
The MPA BA chassis comes in three variations:
Standard = 5.2 lbs.
Competition = 4.85 lbs.
Light = 2.9 lbs.
As an interesting aside, there is a $150.00 rebate from Savage Arms on the Stealth.
Tikka and Bergara have both released complete rifle chassis systems.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
This is just My opinion, so take it for what its worth.
I look at stocks differently than some and don't get caught up in retail hype.
To me, a stock has to fit me, I don't believe in adapting to a stock because the better the fit to a persons body , the better/more consistent he will shoot. The size and angle of the pistol grip, The length of pull, the height and position of the cheek well to the type of sights all make huge differences in my opinion.
As to the materials, strength has a large part to play in consistency and dampening of the harmonics also. Every chassis system that I have dealt with performed better after bedding. To me the reason was simple. No two actions are exactly alike thus the machined chassis will not fit as well without bedding. The chassis give you a good foundation and bedding it can only improve the fit between the action and the stock. Some chassis shoot well but not all.
The style of the stock makes no difference to me as long as it has the features that I mentioned. All things, accuracy, weight, looks, fit are important and as long as a stock/chassis has these things in the eye of the beholder, That's what counts.
As to the chassis replacing the other systems ? As long as there is different needs and likes I don't think it will ever happen.
J E CUSTOM
I look at stocks differently than some and don't get caught up in retail hype.
To me, a stock has to fit me, I don't believe in adapting to a stock because the better the fit to a persons body , the better/more consistent he will shoot. The size and angle of the pistol grip, The length of pull, the height and position of the cheek well to the type of sights all make huge differences in my opinion.
As to the materials, strength has a large part to play in consistency and dampening of the harmonics also. Every chassis system that I have dealt with performed better after bedding. To me the reason was simple. No two actions are exactly alike thus the machined chassis will not fit as well without bedding. The chassis give you a good foundation and bedding it can only improve the fit between the action and the stock. Some chassis shoot well but not all.
The style of the stock makes no difference to me as long as it has the features that I mentioned. All things, accuracy, weight, looks, fit are important and as long as a stock/chassis has these things in the eye of the beholder, That's what counts.
As to the chassis replacing the other systems ? As long as there is different needs and likes I don't think it will ever happen.
J E CUSTOM
LDHunter
Well-Known Member
We were told that the aluminum bedding block stocks would eliminate the need for bedding and I have yet to have one that didn't improve accuracy greatly after being skim bedded so I have no doubt that the chassis rifles will need it too. Accuracy is often decided by perfect fit in many areas of the rifle and bedding/mating the action to the stock whatever the stock type might be is likely the most important thing to affect accuracy in most rifles.
Preface by stating that I am not a competition shooter. I shoot paper and food. I am a bit old fashioned, preferring a nice walnut stock for pretty much everything except my prairie dog rifle. However, I have an old injury in my right arm, which reduces my ability to hold the "pistol grip" of a common hunting stock. For ergonomics, it's just easier for me to get behind a more vertical grip. I don't own a thumb-hole stock, they may be fine for me also.
Bullet bumper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,045
It a common issue that people have different requirements in stock fit and feel .
Those differences will always mean one size does not fit all . It has to feel comfortable or it's no good . I have broken my right wrist a few times and I also have difficulty gripping a normal straight grip stock now. A more vertical pistol grip is better for me also. Thumbhole stocks are good also but some timber ones are easy to break .
