Chassis Based Rifles and Precision Expectations

[Henryrifle]

I view the Accurate Shooter forum(s) as a cross-section of people rooted in competition shooting and the demands of competition. To me, that means relatively long strings of fire against time and environmental factors. The rifle as a system, its load and supporting devices needs to be reliably consistent and accurate in order to allow the trigger puller to interact with external factors to achieve desired results.

For some (a lot) people involved in competition shooting sports, shooting for 'fun' is an enjoyable pastime and a way to reconnect with the fun that got them into competition in the first place. There are many flavors of shooting for fun and I won't try to define those here but, most competitors I know who are shooting for fun also want thier fun rifles to perform at a very high level. I know I am not alone in that.

For the most part, I want my fun rifles to be lighter, suppressed and require nothing more than a bipod, shooting mat and a squeeze bag. I enjoy wood stocks and laminate stocks and wanted to try chassis systems.

When using wood or laminate stocks I always pillar and glass bed the actions to the stocks and am often rewarded with good groups from relatively inexpensive equipment like Remington actions, Criterion barrels and Jard triggers. In this case a good group is the ability to shoot a .2 or .3 5-shot group reasonably consistently at 100. At 1000, .6 or better on a consistent basis keeps it fun.

Lately I have put together some projects using two chassis that I acquired pretty inexpensively. One is a trued Remington 700 based action 6.5X47L in a Cadex chassis and the other is a stock Tikka T3X based 6mm Dasher in a KRG Whiskey 3 chassis. Both have Bartlein barrels. I am using a ThunderBeast suppressor that has produced accurate and repeatable groups in the past.

Neither of these 'fun' rifles are any fun at all. They look interesting but the fun stops there. Both shoot on average in the .6s at 100. Yes they will both shoot a .2 or a .3 every now and then but they will also shoot a .9. I know if I've made a bad shot and that is not what is happening here. For load development I go through the full routine, using a rear bag, F-Class front bipod, good components and all the care I would use in brass prep, sorting and quality control for competition.

Is diminished precision or repeatability what you would expect from a chassis? I know some bed the recoil lug in a chassis but I am thinking that I am going to want to sell the chassis at some point and don't imagine most folks will want one that has been modified--I wouldn't.

What are your thoughts on chassis based rifles and accuracy?

Thank you,
Henryrifle

 

[GenePoole]

In my opinion, ANY rifle should be bedded. Don't worry about resale; a heat-gun and a putty knife make short work of removing bedding from a chassis.

 

[Ironman308]

I think that a chassie offers better tuning of the rifle to the shooter but I prefer a conventional stock mainly because of the way they look (old school). I have a KRG and can shoot it as well as the conventional stock but it took me some time to get use to it. I have not bedded the KRG nor have I bedded the Manners Mini chassie stocks I have. My McMillans are bedded. Give it some time to get use to and you may end up improving you groups. Bedding can improve most any rifle stock but with the chassie I am not as concerned as I would be with a non chassie system. I should add that I only have one rifle that I try to get under 3/8 MOA and that one has the action glued into the stock.

 

[DaveTooley]

I have a good bit of experience with chassis based rifles. They are a different animal. Techniques used for wood or fiberglass don't always produce the same results. I'll go out on a limb and say I don't have the same level of confidence in a chassis rifle as I do in a more conventional rifle.

 

[NZ_Fclass]

I have no experience with KRG etc, but I use a British Dolphin chassis for FTR.
Lesson 1 - Using a Rem 700 - it needed bedding. There was certainly gaps - not perhaps the chassis makers fault - but skim bedding cured that,
Lesson 2 - changed to a Barnard S action. Had to remove the bedding. It just fit.
Lesson 3. Get the torque right. Vertical improved with change. Tighter helped, now running at 65in/lbs.

Anecdotally, the Dolphin is better with 155g projectiles, but I have no first hand knowledge as I have not tried anything over 168, due to 13 twist tube,

 

[mauser284]

I view the Accurate Shooter forum(s) as a cross-section of people rooted in competition shooting and the demands of competition. To me, that means relatively long strings of fire against time and environmental factors. The rifle as a system, its load and supporting devices needs to be reliably consistent and accurate in order to allow the trigger puller to interact with external factors to achieve desired results.

For some (a lot) people involved in competition shooting sports, shooting for 'fun' is an enjoyable pastime and a way to reconnect with the fun that got them into competition in the first place. There are many flavors of shooting for fun and I won't try to define those here but, most competitors I know who are shooting for fun also want thier fun rifles to perform at a very high level. I know I am not alone in that.

For the most part, I want my fun rifles to be lighter, suppressed and require nothing more than a bipod, shooting mat and a squeeze bag. I enjoy wood stocks and laminate stocks and wanted to try chassis systems.

When using wood or laminate stocks I always pillar and glass bed the actions to the stocks and am often rewarded with good groups from relatively inexpensive equipment like Remington actions, Criterion barrels and Jard triggers. In this case a good group is the ability to shoot a .2 or .3 5-shot group reasonably consistently at 100. At 1000, .6 or better on a consistent basis keeps it fun.

Lately I have put together some projects using two chassis that I acquired pretty inexpensively. One is a trued Remington 700 based action 6.5X47L in a Cadex chassis and the other is a stock Tikka T3X based 6mm Dasher in a KRG Whiskey 3 chassis. Both have Bartlein barrels. I am using a ThunderBeast suppressor that has produced accurate and repeatable groups in the past.

Neither of these 'fun' rifles are any fun at all. They look interesting but the fun stops there. Both shoot on average in the .6s at 100. Yes they will both shoot a .2 or a .3 every now and then but they will also shoot a .9. I know if I've made a bad shot and that is not what is happening here. For load development I go through the full routine, using a rear bag, F-Class front bipod, good components and all the care I would use in brass prep, sorting and quality control for competition.

Is diminished precision or repeatability what you would expect from a chassis? I know some bed the recoil lug in a chassis but I am thinking that I am going to want to sell the chassis at some point and don't imagine most folks will want one that has been modified--I wouldn't.

What are your thoughts on chassis based rifles and accuracy?

Thank you,
Henryrifle

Chassis made from alloy are not at all any more accurate or consistent in any rifle sport that is not fired from a bench! Once you are shooting in what I call practical shooting F/Silhouette/PRS/X-Course none of that stuff matters beyond the basics like pillar/glass bed, free floated barrel and blue printed action!

More BR matches and records have been won and set with less than exotic wood stocks often made at home by the shooter.

You ever ring a big cast brass bell or cymbals? Think about the harmonics of all metal on metal. We are very good at tuning rifles that have been bedded into a wood stock. We even have some look on heavy synthetic stocks but not so much on chassis stocks.

I have yet to use a chassis that fit the human being as well as other stocks made from more conventional materials.

If I had to go to war especialy if re-supply and armorers were in short supply I would love an alloy chassis for my rifle but for anything else not so much. When talking about one designed to be shot by a human I have not seen them make any real difference in my area. No one is setting any records or lighting the sport on fire.

Sadly they are too expensive for the rifles they would be fantastic for like a truck gun or tractor gun or the like. Most of them are too heavy and awkward to make a light weight mountain rifle out of either.

"Too much Tacti-Cool not enough Practi-Cool"

If it does not produce marked results in competition than it is a great idea that looks cool but does not produce results! If it produced results everyone in competition would be using them or lobbying for their use if not allowed by rules!

My experience is admittedly limited to small sample size and I do not do this for a living. I have not seen much of an impact locally. You see them around but nothing to write home to mom about. I will say that I see them in the hands of the "Mall Ninja" types more than in the hands of serious, well trained, experienced shooters.

 

[dc.fireman]

I sought out a chassis for several reasons, the main one being that it would mimic my smallbore position rifle. One thing I learned from the smallbore gun (a Feinwerkbau 2700 Alu), is that torque matters. FWB specifies 5NM for their actions.

I have not bedded the PDC Custom chassis for the 300M rifle - it locks up solidly. I have re-torqued it from time to time, which has helped when groups mysteriously grow.

For me, the most important key to shooting well, is how the gun 'fits' me, and then following the rules of position shooting: position, breathing, sight picture, trigger discipline (shot execution + follow through).

-tc

 

[DaveTooley]

Here's a light weight chassis type gun. I have one which I rebarreled. It's accurate and I actually like it. 2.5-10X32 NF on it. Handy package.

SIG CROSS RIFLE – Bolt Action Hunting Cross Rifle

SIG SAUER bolt action hunting rifles are designed for precision long-range and extreme backcountry hunting. Elevate your hunting experience today!

www.sigsauer.com

 

[FeMan]

I shoot chassis (XLRs), synthetic stocks (McMillan, Manners and KMW), and wood (X-ring and stock factory). They all shoot well and I have no strong preference. I bed everything I shoot no mater what it is.

I had one chassis that shot terrible from the factory. The pad for the rear tang was quite a bit below where it needed to be and it took several turns of the rear action screw after contact to get it to torque. Once I bedded the action for a stress-free fit, it shot amazing. I want my chassis' to get to torque within a quarter turn or so after contact with the action. Any more than that is suspect IME.

I would suggest bedding the chassis. I would not hesitate to buy a bedded stock of any kind. Im going to remove some or all of what's in there anyway.

 

[tobnpr]

I, too would bed the chassis. Might not be the issue- but properly done and stress-free, it can only help.

One more thing to consider is the human element and the shooting ergonomics of the chassis system vs conventional stocks. Do you feel as comfortable driving the chassis?

 

[Sniper338]

I shoot a eliseo chassis rifle alot. Not competition tho. I wouldnt hesitate to build an F class rig on one if that was my goal. They are just as accurate as anything else set up correctly. I have no experience with other chassis.

With the eliseo, it is very rigid and stiff. It is less forgiving when it comes to hand grip pressure if any. The AR/vertical style grip can easily move a bullet on paper. Ive found pinching the trigger and guard with no grip to be the most accurate, same with an AR-15... with a round forend, tracking and horizontal alignment are more difficult to maintain.

Yes they are just as accurate, but much less forgiving. And again this just pertains to my experience with an eliseo chassis set up as a hunting rig in 284 win.

 

[Henryrifle]

Thank y'all for the feedback. I'm going to bed it and see.

Henryrifle

 

[Dave Marshall]

There is a lot stuff going on every time you fire a rifle. Most of it can be measured and adjusted for.

For me there’s also something intangible that I simply feel. I don’t think I’ve fired a chassis mounted rifle yet that I’ve really enjoyed. They just feel sterile to me.

My Tubb T2k is hands down my favorite rifle to shoot. It’s hard to explain, it just feels really good touching off a round with it whether from the bench, slung in prone shooting, or playing PRS. It just feels good to me.

 

[Henryrifle]

To follow up on this thread, I used a cutoff wheel, some stones and other grinding bits to grind away some of the anodizing and rough up the aluminum stock. I should have ground away more--much more. In this chassis, there is a lot of empty space between the sides of the stock and the sides of the action. It was my intention to fill that area and I mixed up a lot of Marine-tex. I was more than a little disappointed with the results after I pulled the barreled action out the next day. I thought I had put a lot more epoxy in there than I ended up with. The action does lock into the bedding tightly but looks like crap.

I may redo this but, as it is, it's shooting much better. I shot 6 groups of 5 shots and all but one group was in the .3s at 100. If it continues to shoot like this it will meet my goals for a just-for-fun rifle. Thank you for the help and while I know it isn't much to look at, I will be happy to read any feedback you might offer.




Henryrifle

 

[boltfluter]

As long as it shoots, it will never be seen! Looks a lot like one of my bedding jobs! Embarrassing to look at, but shoots tiny groups ! Shoot it and forget it. I have seen some beautiful bedding jobs that would not shoot. The target is all I care about! Carry on.

Paul