Bipod broke my stock!!! Ever seen this?

[jpndave]

If you attempt the repair, keep in mind that whatever is used to reinforce the front end needs to contact the original skin. If you bed in some arrows (I have done this to a wood stock with good success) if it is just in the foam you are headed to another failure. I would bond the pieces back together if it will go cleanly. Make sure it is stiffened up enough to keep the shape by temporarily reinforcing the outside. Then hollow out the inside foam down to the skin (easier than it sounds if you know what you are doing) and either lay some carbon cloth on inside of the forend all the way back to the recoil lug or you could go carbon shafts and then a lightweight epoxy fill rather than foam. It will add a few ounces but it won't break again. Bondo, blend and refinish. A bit of work but if you like the rifle might be worth it.

If they replace it you will be right back here in time if not reinforced. There is little to no strength to the foam other than holding the skin apart/together. The holes added would only weaken the forend minimally unless you fractured that skin then all bets are off as that is really marginal to start with the way that was laid up.

 

[Patton243]

Any company can suffer a quality control problem and out of spec parts get to to the customer. I hope that is all this is. A new guy on the night shift can cause a lot of headaches.

I think the main point is the garbage company in general won't refund or replace his stock. That's **** poor customer service on their part. Nothing worse than a company that doesn't stand behind their products. My HS stocks you could use for baseball bats IMO that's how sturdy they're. This stock in general he has should be marked fragile LOL.

 

[Philward]

Cooper sacrificed weight for quality, plain and simple. Poor design to ensure strength and durability. I would not want another one like it.

Not really, they made a really lightweight rifle to carry and hunt with, the primary design criteria. The stock was no doubt contracted out to a stock manufacturer to meet a price point and weight specification.

 

[flyguy1]

flyguy1: I would bet this would have happened if it was a bipod just attached to the original sling stud

You may "bet" this but have no of knowing whether your bet is accurate or not. I've seen a fair number of Model 92s with bipods attached to the sling swivel stud and never heard of this before.

 

[VLD Pilot]

Not really, they made a really lightweight rifle to carry and hunt with, the primary design criteria. The stock was no doubt contracted out to a stock manufacturer to meet a price point and weight specification.

Yep it met every criteria except strength and durability. Think I'd be looking for another contractor for stocks. If that stock fell and landed on the forearm, it would have broke just as it did shooting it from a bipod. Would have broke at the sling stud.

 

[DeathstalkerDan]

Well I certainly see no point in owning one that you can't put a bipod on...they obviously didn't advertise that fact anywhere

Obviously they did advertise. He knew it. He also altered the stock. He did it to himself.

 

[VLD Pilot]

No doubt about it. For sure user error BUT lesson learned.

 

[Bob2650]

Glad I never had a Cooper. I do most of my own gunsmithing so I have a very low tolerance for junk parts. A one MOA guaranty used to be a big deal but not so much now for a rifle that will set you back nearly $4,000!

 

[Philward]

Yep it met every criteria except strength and durability. Think I'd be looking for another contractor for stocks. If that stock fell and landed on the forearm, it would have broke just as it did shooting it from a bipod. Would have broke at the sling stud.

Very possible. Strength and durability being relative to intended and expected use.

 

[WiscGunner]

Obviously they did advertise. He knew it. He also altered the stock. He did it to himself.

If you read through the thread, no where did they tell him not to use a bipod (website, owners manual, stickers, etc). Only after he broke the stock did they tell him not to use a bipod.

It is quite clear from the OP photos that the clumps of fiber leave areas with almost not skin material while other areas are fill skin material with absomutely no fiber reinforcement. Extremely fragile stock due to manufacturing process and QC. A properly made stock would not be remotely this fragile at this weight.

 

[beto]

But you bought it knowing this & still did it

Unfortunately I doubt there would be any recourse from the manufacturer.

Still I find it odd that if they don't recommend a bipod being mounted that they installed a hole/stud in the 1st place

Why install them if you dont want people to use them??

Maybe for a sling ?

 

[DeathstalkerDan]

But you bought it knowing this & still did it

Unfortunately I doubt there would be any recourse from the manufacturer.

Still I find it odd that if they don't recommend a bipod being mounted that they installed a hole/stud in the 1st place

Why install them if you dont want people to use them??

They are called sling studs because they are for slings.

 

[aushunter1]

Maybe for a sling ?

Ah great point. Still be a bit of pressure on that point from using a bipod to though!

Still I'd say the weakness would have come from the OP's own modification ??
Just have a look at the spikes in the new nut fitted that would have penetrated the skin for one!_

 

[bigngreen]

What happened is he took all the flex out of that area and put all of it at the weakest point in that stock, a light 300 win mag will move violently braked or not and it will drag the crap out of that bipod, where the flexing or pivot point in that stock now that it was modified, right were it broke!!