Chassis vs wood/laminate for FT-R?

[Down South]

the look of the chassis doesn't bother me at all. wood is more appealing visually in most ways, but i also like the industrial no nonsense look of the chassis. to each his own, as they say.

View attachment 1014946

I like the look of this chassis.......

 

[Jdne5b]

We can easily make weight with an aluminum stock in 1k Br, its been done, its also been done in short range. The reason you do not see them on the line is damping qualities. Wood, fiberglass, foam, exc. have very good damping qualities. The stock has to absorb and transfer the harmonics out of the rifle and into the sand bags or ground. Want to know what happens when harmonics dont get absorbed from the rifle, shoot with you forend against a hard object. Bottom line, a wood or glass stock has more accuracy potential than an aluminum one of equal design. You will see some extremely large Heavy gun stocks. 60lb rifles. Pure mass is the damping quality there, same as with machine tools. How ever I do not believe a true heavy gun will agg with a good light gun. So my opinion is to stick to a wood or fiberglass stock, and stay away from carbon fiber layups. Some carbon stringers between wood wont hurt you but I would not order a Mc or Manners with the carbon fiber/graphite shell for a long range rifle.

Does shooting, say, FTR from a bipod change your suggestion/opinion any? By wood, do you mean solid wood, or laminate? ( if laminate, then with out stringers as first preference, but some wont hurt?)

There are quite a few who do very, very well in FTR with a scoville carbon fiber stock, or a very stiff McMillan.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Does shooting, say, FTR from a bipod change your suggestion/opinion any? By wood, do you mean solid wood, or laminate? ( if laminate, then with out stringers as first preference, but some wont hurt?)

There are quite a few who do very, very well in FTR with a scoville carbon fiber stock, or a very stiff McMillan.

Damping is damping. I prefer soft woods or glass. The Scoville (actually made by a good friend) are balsa wood inside, excellent damping. However I dont like stiff stocks, but thats another discussion. I am not saying you cant shoot a perfect f-class score with either. I really HATE using scores as a measure of accuracy. A world class wind reader with a 1 moa rifle could potentially shoot a 200. If we are not doing thorough group testing we have no idea how accurate a rifle is. Benchrest is all about the group and pure accuracy, you wont see a chassis there. I get to talk to a lot of shooters. Theres a mentality that you can give up a little accuracy for F-class. I hear it all the time, I just need to shoot this good or that good. I say BS. The goal should be 20 shots in the X. Thats requires the best accuracy available. The smaller you shoot the more error you can make with wind calls and gun handling. F-class requires the same accuracy as 1k Br if you are serious. Accuracy should always be the most important factor. The rest is on you.

 

[swadiver]

Certainly i agree, the best accuracy will always be helpful in any competition. I have got a ton of target pics that show these chassis bound .308s shooting 5 shot groups at 100 yds. the best group was .080", some are in the .1's", and many, many are in the low .2's" and .3's". not sure if a traditional stocked rifle is going to do much better.



it's not a benchrest rifle or caliber. it will never agg anywhere near this. but it will shoot consistently in the .2's" and .3's"

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Aggs are where its at, and the 308 was used for many years in hunter Br. It will agg very well. Bottom line, if you like a chassis and its shooting good enough for you, use one. Its best to keep an open mind and not try and convince yourself its as good or better than a wood or composite stock because you prefer it though.

 

[swadiver]

Alex I put my best shooting .308 in a PR&T laminate F Class stock as a test. normally has a 6BR in it. the stock is also set up for a Savage Target action with a Wiidden bedding block epoxied in. didn't shoot any better.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

How was your testing performed?

 

[Down South]

Damping is damping. I prefer soft woods or glass. The Scoville (actually made by a good friend) are balsa wood inside, excellent damping. However I dont like stiff stocks, but thats another discussion. I am not saying you cant shoot a perfect f-class score with either. I really HATE using scores as a measure of accuracy. A world class wind reader with a 1 moa rifle could potentially shoot a 200. If we are not doing thorough group testing we have no idea how accurate a rifle is. Benchrest is all about the group and pure accuracy, you wont see a chassis there. I get to talk to a lot of shooters. Theres a mentality that you can give up a little accuracy for F-class. I hear it all the time, I just need to shoot this good or that good. I say BS. The goal should be 20 shots in the X. Thats requires the best accuracy available. The smaller you shoot the more error you can make with wind calls and gun handling. F-class requires the same accuracy as 1k Br if you are serious. Accuracy should always be the most important factor. The rest is on you.

Totally agree with the mindset you have on accuracy. I want my loads the absolute best they can possibly be. I don't wanna be able to blame the gun/load for not winning matches.

 

[swadiver]

How was your testing performed?

Alex, shot the same loads in the same conditions at 100 yds. the chassis is shot off a SEB Joy-Pod, the PR&T stock is shot as pictured. both off the bench

 

[Ned Ludd]

The majority of F-Class shooters I know strive for the best possible accuracy they can attain during load development, at least the ones that are regularly winning matches. I've never heard any of these folks talk about giving up accuracy. They are likely not achieving BR precision, but that may have more to do with their setups, such as the bipod in F-TR, and/or requirements, such as maintaining good ES/SD over long strings of fire, which will help minimize vertical at longer range. To some extent, the differences between the disciplines is the reason that slightly different emphasis may be placed on load development approaches. It is not uncommon to see conditions during the course of a 20+ shot string of fire where it doesn't really matter if your load shoots 0.1 MOA, 0.2 MOA, or even 0.3 MOA; the wind conditions are by far the limiting factor because the speed of the target puller often dictates how fast you can send rounds downrange. Most of these folks will tell you that precision and consistency are key, but most will also acknowledge that pure precision is often not the limiting factor for scores when the conditions are challenging.

With the caveats of proper construction, stiffness, etc., I would also point out that the shooter also needs to think about being comfortable behind the stock. The importance of the "feel" might be more or less depending on your specific discipline, for example whether you use a front rest such as in BR or F-Open, versus a bipod in F-TR. Regardless, a setup that "feels" just right when you get behind it can add an intangible benefit. Within limits, it is certainly possible to adapt to using different styles of stocks. However, there are some extremes past which adaptation isn't going to help. I have always shot F-TR using a traditional bipod (LRA - basically a giant Harris/Atlas with a much wider footprint), loaded quite heavily. I own sled-/ski-type bipods and an eared rear bag, but my preference for tactical-style stocks like the A5, which has a noticeably angled toe, makes it necessary to push the rifle way forward after every shot to bring the muzzle back down on target. I've shot very good scores using these setups, but having to do this every shot during a match absolutely drives me insane. The alternative would be to switch to a stock with a less angled toe and/or a Joypod, but that means using a stock shape/design and/or technique different than what I am used to. So I stick with the bipod and rear bag setup has worked for me in the past. So in addition to the design, construction, and workmanship, there is also the consideration of how good the stock "feels" to the shooter. To some extent you should be able to adapt to a new stock over time, but the closer its feel is to "just right" from the start, the better off you will be. For me personally, chassis systems have never felt right, primarily because I'm used to something different. If at all possible, getting behind the type of stock you're interested in would be a worthwhile exercise. If it feels awkward or uncomfortable to you from the outset, it might not be your best choice, regardless of how well made or functional it may be.

 

[XTR]

When it comes to long range F-TR I do often advise new shooters to get out of the loading room and onto the range and find out what matters to you there and not on the internet.

F class doesn't require the same level of precision as BR, group size doesn't matter, and in most conditions a .1 rifle would agg no better than a .3 rifle at the end of to or three days of shooting in even the best shooters hands. In the hands of a beginner a .1 will likely agg no better than a .75 rifle, because an 8 is an 8 with either of them.

To the new shooter coming into the game and finding this site they can't tell what matters yet. Do I need to weigh primers, bullets and cases and sort them all? Do I need to turn necks? Do I need to measure case volumes?

I do none of the above, and when I've done proper load development and testing don't feel I have lost points to my loads or rifle. That is not to say that I've never been on the line with a rifle at didn't shoot up to scratch, but until I started consistently shooting scores above 190 in average conditions it would have been damned hard to tell, and that requires experience in wind reading.

Yes, I strive to achieve the best possible precision from my rifle, within reason for it's purpose, and I will always pick the load with higher precision over the load with a little more velocity and not as much. (Learned that one through experience)

As to stocks. I've seen people have success with almost all of the options out there. I also know some very good shooters who have tried chassis and didn't like them, and moved back to wood, and I've seen others shoot them very well. Personally I don't like the felt recoil of a chassis, and I like pretty wood. At this point I have my kit pretty well sorted so I can add to it and get pretty wood. Every rifle I shoot today started in either a McM or a PR&T laminate before they went to hardwood.

If you're shooting wide 8s and 9s it's not the stock. If you making the wind calls and you are getting vertical and losing them in the corners it's a possible that your setup isn't dialed yet, and the stock could be part of that.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

The majority of F-Class shooters I know strive for the best possible accuracy they can attain during load development, at least the ones that are regularly winning matches. I've never heard any of these folks talk about giving up accuracy. They are likely not achieving BR precision, but that may have more to do with their setups, such as the bipod in F-TR, and/or requirements, such as maintaining good ES/SD over long strings of fire, which will help minimize vertical at longer range. To some extent, the differences between the disciplines is the reason that slightly different emphasis may be placed on load development approaches. It is not uncommon to see conditions during the course of a 20+ shot string of fire where it doesn't really matter if your load shoots 0.1 MOA, 0.2 MOA, or even 0.3 MOA; the wind conditions are by far the limiting factor because the speed of the target puller often dictates how fast you can send rounds downrange. Most of these folks will tell you that precision and consistency are key, but most will also acknowledge that pure precision is often not the limiting factor for scores when the conditions are challenging.

With the caveats of proper construction, stiffness, etc., I would also point out that the shooter also needs to think about being comfortable behind the stock. The importance of the "feel" might be more or less depending on your specific discipline, for example whether you use a front rest such as in BR or F-Open, versus a bipod in F-TR. Regardless, a setup that "feels" just right when you get behind it can add an intangible benefit. Within limits, it is certainly possible to adapt to using different styles of stocks. However, there are some extremes past which adaptation isn't going to help. I have always shot F-TR using a traditional bipod (LRA - basically a giant Harris/Atlas with a much wider footprint), loaded quite heavily. I own sled-/ski-type bipods and an eared rear bag, but my preference for tactical-style stocks like the A5, which has a noticeably angled toe, makes it necessary to push the rifle way forward after every shot to bring the muzzle back down on target. I've shot very good scores using these setups, but having to do this every shot during a match absolutely drives me insane. The alternative would be to switch to a stock with a less angled toe and/or a Joypod, but that means using a stock shape/design and/or technique different than what I am used to. So I stick with the bipod and rear bag setup has worked for me in the past. So in addition to the design, construction, and workmanship, there is also the consideration of how good the stock "feels" to the shooter. To some extent you should be able to adapt to a new stock over time, but the closer its feel is to "just right" from the start, the better off you will be. For me personally, chassis systems have never felt right, primarily because I'm used to something different. If at all possible, getting behind the type of stock you're interested in would be a worthwhile exercise. If it feels awkward or uncomfortable to you from the outset, it might not be your best choice, regardless of how well made or functional it may be.

You would be surprised then. Prime example would be gluing an action. Most long range Br rifles I do are glued and screwed. I have seen it slightly improve a rifle that was already at the record level. If there is even half a chance something will shoot better in Br guys want it done. I have very few open guys that will let me do that, some do though. I think its certainly headed in the right direction and the scores shot now in open or tr seriously impress me. Im out classed for sure.

 

[swadiver]

All very good points. How the rifle feels to the shooter via the stock/chassis definitely very important to the the F Class or F/TR (me) shooter. it is interesting and surprising that for me, it "feels good" behind this particular chassis. I have 4 of these chassis with different calibers, so i guess i am very used to the feel of them and how they shoot and recoil.

I shoot the F/TR .308's with very light shoulder contact and a very light grip hold. not really free recoil but surprisingly close. i have had very good results with this technique out to a 1000 yds. i use the SEB Joy-Pod which seems to work very well with this type of technique. i did experiment with various other techniques with this setup. it seemed the more and heavier contact i had with the rifle, the worse the results.

i have been shooting 200 gr Berger Hybrids at an MV of 2675 to 2700 fps. again, surprisingly, the felt recoil with this setup and technique is not uncomfortable at all. at the end of days of shooting competitions, i don't even notice any residual effects of recoil even with these heavier bullets/high mv's. the rifle weighs 18.1 lbs, so that helps i am sure.

i guess what works, works.

 

[Ned Ludd]

You would be surprised then. Prime example would be gluing an action. Most long range Br rifles I do are glued and screwed. I have seen it slightly improve a rifle that was already at the record level. If there is even half a chance something will shoot better in Br guys want it done. I have very few open guys that will let me do that, some do though. I think its certainly headed in the right direction and the scores shot now in open or tr seriously impress me. Im out classed for sure.

Not to get too far off the stock topic, but limiting sources of error have some importance in this discussion. The only F-Class shooter I personally know of that has also shot in BR is David Gosnell. My understanding is that he has done reasonably well shooting an Open rifle in some BR matches. Along the same line, I don't know any BR shooters that routinely participate in F-Open matches with their BR rigs. Not that these crossovers don't happen, I just don't know the folks personally and haven't discussed the topic with any. If it hasn't already been documented, it would be an interesting exercise to see how each setup and reloading routine would fare [without modification] in the other discipline. The 1000 yd BR shooters are currently consistently generating some almost unbelievably small groups at 1000 yd. The question is, how would those group sizes change if they were 20 shots fired over 15 to 20 minutes under typical F-Class match conditions. I doubt they'd be nearly as small as they currently are, if only because of the much larger number of shots. Likewise, it would be interesting to see how proven F-Open loads would agg at 1000 yd fired under standard BR match conditions. I have no good feel for how they may fare there, even if they may be capable of shooting cleans with high X-counts in F-Open matches.

Only by directly comparing both types of setups/loads under the match conditions used by the other discipline would it really be possible to determine whether something that might well be a limiting factor in one discipline is actually limiting in the other. As we spoke about the other day, I'm not inclined to go the gluing-in route, not because I don't think it would improve precision, but for other reasons of routine disassembly, trigger work, etc. that gluing in might make more difficult. The real question is whether the improvement in precision would actually translate to a significant increase in scores in F-Class. My guess is probably not, because the vast majority of points are dropped to conditions, rather than a lack of precision. But that's only a guess. I do know that even at the local level, it has become commonplace for F-Open shooters to score cleans with very high X-counts at 600 and 1000 yd in benign conditions, and the number of cleans observed in F-TR has also increased, although nowhere near the level that Open shooters are achieving. If it could be definitively [quantitatively] demonstrated that some of the advancements in precision routinely practiced in the BR, but not F-Class circles, directly translated to improved F-Class scores, I strongly suspect that many F-Class shooters would change their thinking.

I do all my load development from a bipod and rear bag, exactly the way I shoot in competition. If I've done my work properly, groups in the .2s, or on some occasions in the .1s, are the typical result. If I can't get a rifle to group under .4 MOA, it's back to the drawing board. These loads might shoot a tick better than that if I were to use a good front rest/eared rear bag setup, but probably not by much. With one possible exception, I doubt any of my F-TR loads would be anywhere near competitive in any form of BR shooting. In fact, I'd be lucky not to finish dead last. However, they are more than capable of shooting cleans with high X-counts at 600 yd, which is all I have access to currently. When I drop points, it's either due to a missed wind call, or because I did something stupid, which really doesn't impact this discussion. So even though they would fall far behind BR standards, I'm not at all sure I could actually improve my scores much if they grouped any tighter than they already do. The point I'm getting at is again the limiting source of error. Whatever that source of error may be, if it's something besides the precision of the setup/load and is significantly larger than the precision a given setup/load is capable of, improving the inherent precision of the rifle/load isn't going to make a noticeable difference in scores. Or at least, the difference would be very difficult to quantify definitively.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I would surmise then that for shooters of that caliber (D.G. and others), some of the BR precision refinements not normally found on F-Class rifles may actually provide a demonstrable benefit. Now, whether they may actually be able to overcome the mental hurdle of trying something new is another matter entirely .

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I would surmise then that for shooters of that caliber (D.G. and others), some of the BR precision refinements not normally found on F-Class rifles may actually provide a demonstrable benefit. Now, whether they may actually be able to overcome the mental hurdle of trying something new is another matter entirely .

You nailed it. We all have this problem to some extent.

 

[ballisticdaddy]

Any advantage to either? 600 yard FT-R is the goal.
Thanks,
Ken

Great question but what about a carbon fiber chassis? I am building an F-TR rifle in .223 utilizing a carbon fiber chassis from SJR. The only thing I might mention is that the traditional wood stocks do seem to absorb a little bit of the recoil energy / harmonics that the aluminum nor carbon fiber chassis probably would not. I am looking forward to the replies on this thread!

 

[Lucky6547]

So, resurrecting my own thread, I shot a chassis for a while, then switched to a Dima laminate. Both shot cleans, but the Dima stocked rifle had significantly more X’s.

 

[Ned Ludd]

So, resurrecting my own thread, I shot a chassis for a while, then switched to a Dima laminate. Both shot cleans, but the Dima stocked rifle had significantly more X’s.

Was the exact same barreled action used in the two stocks? Or was it two different barreled actions? If it was the former, did the load remain the exactly same? Obviously, it can be difficult to draw definitive conclusions with a sample size of "1", but an increased "X" count is usually a good sign that something has improved, whether it be the rifle setup, load, or the shooter themself.

 

[Lucky6547]

Was the exact same barreled action used in the two stocks? Or was it two different barreled actions? If it was the former, did the load remain the exactly same? Obviously, it can be difficult to draw definitive conclusions with a sample size of "1", but an increased "X" count is usually a good sign that something has improved, whether it be the rifle setup, load, or the shooter themself.

Not the same action; went from a trued 700 in a chassis, to a Borden BRM in the Dima FT-R stock. Both with 30” heavy varmint barrel tapers, same reamer, with ironically the same load. The club I belong to does a league where we take our six best 20 shot strings at 600 yards. With the 700, I shot a 1200-68x. The Borden I shot 1200-86x.