Chassis Systems - Why Not?

[Phil3]

Perhaps not the best shooting forum for this question, but why aren't rifle chassis systems more popular than they seem to be? If one wants cheek height, LOP, and cant adjustability, magazine capability, and avoidance of gunsmith bedding labor, they look like a pretty good deal. As an example.

Manners MCS T2A Stock (adjustable cheek rest): $710.90
CDI Bottom Metal: $209.99
AICS 10 Round Mag (large caliber): $74.00
Bedding Labor: (estimated) $200.00
Total: $1194.89

XLR Industries Chassis System: $750
AICS 10 Round Mag (large caliber): $74.00
Total: $824

Not everyone needs a magazine, some may not like pistol grips, or perhaps they are OK with laminate stocks that can cost much less than the Manners. I understand that, but if one does want a tactical style weapon, with mag, I have a hard time seeing why one would opt for the synthetic stocks. Are the chassis systems inherently less accurate or have some other downside?

Phil

 

[butchlambert]

Sounds like you want the cheapo. Just buy it and let us know how it works.

 

[Phil3]

It is not about what I want. I am asking a question on why chassis systems are not so popular vs conventional setups. - Phil

 

[MNFinn]

This is just personal opinion, but I find them ugly

 

[treeman]

some chassis systems are pretty pricey is part of the reason. some up and coming companies are making good products and there will be competition among manufacturers which will bring the prices down. xlr industries makes a very good product for just about any action made and several guys in our tactical matches swear by them. if I didn't make my own stocks I'd buy one with out hesitation.

 

[brian427cobra]

At this site Chassis aren't that popular, over at Snipershide they are, I think it depends on what type of shooting your doing.

 

[Phil3]

depends on what type of shooting your doing.

Something that is a rather confused state of affairs... I like the feel of tactical style rifles and the shooter/rifle engagement they offer (vs BR), but am looking for pretty good accuracy shooting off a bench, the only shooting arrangement reasonably available to me.

Phil

 

[Lapua40X]

some chassis systems are pretty pricey is part of the reason. ...

You can say that again. I'm building a tactical rifle and the total for McMillan stock and Remington LA together don't cost as much as this:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2898212709/accuracy-international-ax-chassis-system-ax-aics-folding-adjustable-stock-remington-700-short-action

[quote author=treeman]...Are the chassis systems inherently less accurate or have some other downside? [/quote]
I don't think so. IMO you could pillar bed an action to a well seasoned hardwood 2x4 and free float the barrel and still get pretty good accuracy.

 

[audredger]

many sling shooters like a chassis stock... I went for one because of my long arms... even the semi custom stocks came up an inch too short

 

[Scott Harris]

I just sold my MAK tube gun. I wanted a rifle that could be used for many activities: hunting, tactical matches, F-Class. I found the tubegun to be a compromise for every activity. Now I have a switch barrel, switch stock rifle: enables the rifle to be configured perfectly for each activity. I did REALLY like the fact that no bedding was required in the tubegun. But all my stocks have a Whidden V-Block now....replicating that same advantage.

 

[Phil3]

some chassis systems are pretty pricey is part of the reason. ...

You can say that again. I'm building a tactical rifle and the total for McMillan stock and Remington LA together don't cost as much as this:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2898212709/accuracy-international-ax-chassis-system-ax-aics-folding-adjustable-stock-remington-700-short-action

Yes, ssome are expensive, but the XLR Industries basic model is $750. That is $39 more than a Manners stock which has an adjustable cheek rest, but it is still missing LOP and cant adjustment, needs inletting for AICS mags, and still needs bedding.

Phil

 

[Killshot]

Are the chassis systems inherently less accurate or have some other downside?

The Field Precision guys bought them because they're the latest in Tacticool.

Accuracy? I shoot alongside several guys using them in F-Open and they are as accurate as any other properly set-up stock. Am also seeing them used by the Slingers, too.

 

[medic727]

IMHO best bang for the buck chassis, plus top shelf customer service: Mcree's Precision.

 

[BoydAllen]

The suitability of a given stock design really depends on what it is being used for. In your original post you did not say how the rifle would be used. I believe that you specified "tactical style" There are tactical stocks that have become popular with prone shooters, but is should be remembered that what makes a good prone stock may not be the best for off the bench shooting. There is also the matter of accuracy standards. For many types of shooting factors other than absolute raw accuracy are more important. Take a prone rifle to a benchrest match, or the other way around, and you will find out all about that. What are you actually going to use the rifle for? That would be the key question. It may be that a chassis stock is the best, or if may not be. I would look at who is winning in the type of shooting that you will actually be doing to make that determination.

 

[ovenpaa]

Chassis systems are becoming more common and are being produced in various forms by a few manufacturers around the world with the USA and UK having some notable examples. At first glance a chassis should be offering significant advantages over a factory or even semi custom stock in that a thoughtfully designed chassis should give the shooter the ability to adjust the rifle to perfectly fit his stature, discipline and needs, in fact if the chassis cannot be adjusted to fit the shooter it then it is no better than a factory stock. I do wonder how many manufacturers are building for the market as opposed to for the shooter, by that I mean chassis are being built to conform to the perceived market interest. The word ‘Tactical’ springs to mind, yet there are many tactical chassis that are at best a bad fit.

A chassis system can offer many advantages and should offer adjustable LOP, offset and cant, cheek piece position across X,Y and Z axis, be of a reasonable weight, easy to unload, remove the bolt and clean/maintain. Be stable in all conditions without resort to bedding compounds and most importantly to me have the ability to functionally port to alternative disciplines so as an example an F/TR orientated chassis should be capable of being swapped to Bench Rest (BR) or even Target Rifle (TR) with minimal if any tools in a speedy manner.

 

[Steve3]

As suggested, I would go hang out at Sniper's Hide and read all you can. This is a popular topic among them folk.

 

[Phil3]

The suitability of a given stock design really depends on what it is being used for. In your original post you did not say how the rifle would be used. I believe that you specified "tactical style" There are tactical stocks that have become popular with prone shooters, but is should be remembered that what makes a good prone stock may not be the best for off the bench shooting. There is also the matter of accuracy standards. For many types of shooting factors other than absolute raw accuracy are more important. Take a prone rifle to a benchrest match, or the other way around, and you will find out all about that. What are you actually going to use the rifle for? That would be the key question. It may be that a chassis stock is the best, or if may not be. I would look at who is winning in the type of shooting that you will actually be doing to make that determination.

Boyd,

Thanks for the comments. In answer to your question, the rifle will always be used off a bench, but with two different setups. First, in a front mechanical rest and heavy rear bag for load development. Once that is done, then bipod and rear squeeze bag. Despite shooting off the bench, I have no interest in shooting formal "benchrest" where the shooter hardly touches the rifle and fires free recoil, with the rifle riding in a mechanical rest and heavy rear bag.

The XLR chassis I am looking at has an optional bag rider front plate and a stock that rides in a rear bag. I thought that with these options, and the adjustability of the chassis, it could perform well in a BR arrangement as well as the bipod/squeeze bag "tactical" arrangement, both setups being off a bench. There is a remote possibility I would shoot prone. I know the XLR works fine from a prone position, but less certain off a bench.

Phil

 

[Phil3]

Chassis systems are becoming more common and are being produced in various forms by a few manufacturers around the world with the USA and UK having some notable examples. At first glance a chassis should be offering significant advantages over a factory or even semi custom stock in that a thoughtfully designed chassis should give the shooter the ability to adjust the rifle to perfectly fit his stature, discipline and needs, in fact if the chassis cannot be adjusted to fit the shooter it then it is no better than a factory stock. I do wonder how many manufacturers are building for the market as opposed to for the shooter, by that I mean chassis are being built to conform to the perceived market interest. The word ‘Tactical’ springs to mind, yet there are many tactical chassis that are at best a bad fit.

A chassis system can offer many advantages and should offer adjustable LOP, offset and cant, cheek piece position across X,Y and Z axis, be of a reasonable weight, easy to unload, remove the bolt and clean/maintain. Be stable in all conditions without resort to bedding compounds and most importantly to me have the ability to functionally port to alternative disciplines so as an example an F/TR orientated chassis should be capable of being swapped to Bench Rest (BR) or even Target Rifle (TR) with minimal if any tools in a speedy manner.

It is the chassis adjustability that first drew me to this kind of stock in the first place. I am frustrated with stocks that feel too small and are designed with combs too low to work with a scope. Those shortcomings can be fixed through custom stocks and/or additional options, which when combined with gunsmith stock bedding, ultimately cost more than the chassis. It has become apparent to me that I am not a good fit behind my two rifles and work is needed. Before I build the third, I want to be sure all elements are in place to assure a good range of adjustability. I have yet to find any stock that can do that with the exception of a chassis.

There is a wide range of chassis available, but far fewer for the Howa action I intend to use. XLR Industries looks to be the best fit for my budget and functional needs, but even it is not perfect. But, it is $750 (no options), vs $711 for a Manners w/adjustable cheekrest, and it still needs a LOP option, bedding, and does not have a detachable mag (the chassis has an AICS setup). Doing all that to the Manners pushes the cost to near $1,300.

More importantly for me is whether the chassis pistol grip arrangement works better or worse for me than a conventional rifle. It doesn't seem to matter to me, but perhaps one does deliver better accuracy for me, vs the other. I really don't know.

Phil

 

[vervi1jw]

I run a pdc custom chassis on my f-open rifle. It is rock solid, heavy, and ugly but the rifle shoots very well. One really nice thing is if your can machine or have friends that machine (as is my case) replacement parts can be made very easy. Such as 3 inch forearms, cheek pieces, sandbag ski's, etc.

 

[jelrod1]

Very happy with my new 6br in an XLR.

ETA: I actually like a pistol grip better. I shoot "open handed" only pulling rearward with a few fingers to my shoulder and I do that better with pistol grip stocks. My first pistol grip was a KMW Sentinel and when shooting it open handed I shoot much better.