Will the chassis eventually dominate?

Just skimmed the last page of comments. I must say my personal experience doesn't match the comments.

My chassis rifle is extremely accurate. It has no perceivable flex, but is also the heaviest.

My manners with chassis are also accurate with less weight.

Ironically my bedded rifle is the lightest but the least accurate of the bunch.

All are custom actions, barrels etc.

To each their own but broad stokes as previously posted are not rules of thumb.

Rockfish Dave,

This is also one of those contentious topics from the standpoint that everyone here has very definitive ideas about what is right and what does not fit into their own little world of acceptable. It's no different than asking about the .30-06 Springfield and any other cartridge as to which is the best. Or .45 ACP vs. 9mm in pistols.

Click to expand...

This is a reply I posted on page 3, back aways.

These topics will always be contentious and there will never be an all-inclusive agreement. You will read from some that their opinions are absolute but reality says that they are without bearing at all, it's just an opinion.

But that's what brings us back for more discussion and explanations, being interested in reading what other know or have found out. The ability to or privilege of disagreeing is a great thing, present in most of our public forums. Pick and choose what's important to you and enjoy!

Regards.

Rockfish Dave said:

Just skimmed the last page of comments. I must say my personal experience doesn't match the comments.

My chassis rifle is extremely accurate. It has no perceivable flex, but is also the heaviest.

My manners with chassis are also accurate with less weight.

Ironically my bedded rifle is the lightest but the least accurate of the bunch.

All are custom actions, barrels etc.

To each their own but broad stokes as previously posted are not rules of thumb.

Click to expand...

I think your reply 100% vindicates my statements . Just skimming the posts does not give you a good understanding of what is said by anyone .
You said Heaviest is " extremely accurate , lighter just " accurate " and lightest "least accurate " . You can not perceive any flex while shooting under recoil you have to film the shot and play it back in super slow motion . How much recoil the cartridge has is also a big factor in how stiff a stock needs to be to squeeze out all the accuracy you can get all other things being equal and best practice . Some people shoot a .5 group and it's real good accuracy for them others would be pulling there hair out wondering what has gone wrong . Long range hunting still needs top accuracy and the targets and conditions usually worse than say target shoooting on a range .

I'm not a long range competitive shooter or per say a long range hunter. I prefer bow hunting which means I like my prey up close and personal. That being said I like to practice with my bow and rifles at long ranges to make the close shots chip shots. Most of my shooting in the field is done from a sitting position. I have a number of rifles with thumb hole stocks and manner stocks and they work well. As I am always looking for the better mouse trap I am putting a xlr carbon chassis on my newest coyote gun to try and improve my long range shooting from a sitting position. I went to the facility in grand junction and spent a couple hours with Matt and it just felt really nice. It will be interesting to see what I think after a few hundred rounds have been shot. I don't feel that it will replace my traditional stocked guns but maybe perfect for coyote hunting. I think you have to be wiling to try something out of your comfort range every once in a while to find that one thing that really improves your shooting maybe this chassis will be it. Maybe not only time will tell

But if the question is will chassis stocks for hunting ever replace the traditional shape rifle stocks I think the answer is no.
I have an Ruger Precision Rifle competition chassis rifle in 6.5 CM and a Ruger American Predator hunting rifle in 6.5 CM. I really like my traditional stocks (both the factory plastic and my Boyd's Classic laminated) for the RAP. And a nice carbon fiber stock on the RAP would be nice B/C lighter is better and I ain't gettin' any younger.

But for competition I like the chassis stock because I can quickly change it for a particular position if necessary.

Different stocks for different purposes.

Eric B.

Will chassis eventually dominate? I think so. Particularly because of how modular they can be to custom fit the consumer.

It has been a long and interesting read. I agree with many of the statements of chassis being too heavy. As i get older i look at my rifles and get irritated at all the extra weight there and lately i have been somewhat obsessed with lightening my gear. Maybe its the back surgery i had last year but i dont want to drag around a 10-12 lb rifle anymore and frankly with the technology and composites out now i shouldn't have to.

I think if someone could apply the Magnesium Aluminum alloy that Mag Tac used to use on their AR lower recieivers to a chassis system we would really be onto something. Also the areospace industry and a few Universities have done some interesting things with Honeycomb metal as in lighter than expandable foam! Any combination of these two methods could produce a 50% lighter chassis without sacrificing much ergornomics. I am shocked that no one has made a magnesium alloy chassis yet!

MuleHunter said:

I am shocked that no one has made a magnesium alloy chassis yet!

Click to expand...

Hello,

They have ☺
KRG Habu chassis comes to mind but price is crazy lol

THEIS

Interesting. Well thats a start but i wouldn't call a 3.6 lb chassis lightweight!

MuleHunter said:

Will chassis eventually dominate? I think so. Particularly because of how modular they can be to custom fit the consumer.

It has been a long and interesting read. I agree with many of the statements of chassis being too heavy. As i get older i look at my rifles and get irritated at all the extra weight there and lately i have been somewhat obsessed with lightening my gear. Maybe its the back surgery i had last year but i dont want to drag around a 10-12 lb rifle anymore and frankly with the technology and composites out now i shouldn't have to.

I think if someone could apply the Magnesium Aluminum alloy that Mag Tac used to use on their AR lower recieivers to a chassis system we would really be onto something. Also the areospace industry and a few Universities have done some interesting things with Honeycomb metal as in lighter than expandable foam! Any combination of these two methods could produce a 50% lighter chassis without sacrificing much ergornomics. I am shocked that no one has made a magnesium alloy chassis yet!

Click to expand...

Magnesium has a bad habit of cracking and when it does you are done as it cannot be repaired. If you try to weld it, it burns up.

It can be alloyed with aluminum and other metals to make it stronger while retaining light weight and strength. It may not be the one solution but something has to change for me personally for the chassis to gain traction. Out should only weigh 2lbs IMO

MuleHunter said:

It can be alloyed with aluminum and other metals to make it stronger while retaining light weight and strength. It may not be the one solution but something has to change for me personally for the chassis to gain traction. Out should only weigh 2lbs IMO

Click to expand...

Aluminum as far as I can see is the way to go, just too many problems with magnesium. The problem is the expense involved in all the machining. CNC machining make it much cheaper than doing it by hand but those machines are expensive and it takes a lot to pay for them.

Good discussion. Will the chasis eventually dominate... Long range hunting? I don't see it. Let's look at it from a materials science point of view;

Relative to conventional 'stock' materials (laminates, hardwoods, Fibreglass, Kevlar) Aluminum possesses inferior thermal characteristics. Al. has a higher thermal transfer coefficient, meaning if it's hot out, the rifle will burn you. If it's cold out the chassis will freeze you. Aluminum also has a higher thermal expansion coefficient than 'traditional' materials, meaning the receiver/chasis relationship is going to fluctuate more with temperature changes. Also aluminum is not known for it's rigidity...

Until someone (using additive manufacturing technology) can print a chassis made of titanium, it really is an unfair comparison. As far as having something that is strong, rigid, light, and perhaps most importantly 'inert' with respect to temperature and humidity, it will be very hard to compete with composite technology, especially when cost is considered.

sable tireur said:

Rockfish Dave,



This is a reply I posted on page 3, back aways.

These topics will always be contentious and there will never be an all-inclusive agreement. You will read from some that their opinions are absolute but reality says that they are without bearing at all, it's just an opinion.

But that's what brings us back for more discussion and explanations, being interested in reading what other know or have found out. The ability to or privilege of disagreeing is a great thing, present in most of our public forums. Pick and choose what's important to you and enjoy!

Regards.

Click to expand...

Re read the entire thread. Not sure what you got from my post.

Just to clarify. The custom bedded rifle is not the only one I have owned, it is the only one I still own.

No I haven't shot the rifles with a slow motion camera filming and then reviewed the footage, ever... what normal person does?

My current stable consists of 3 Manners composite folding stocks with thier mini chassis, and one McKree chassis. Calibers range from a 375-338 Lapua Magnum Improved to a 6.5 SLR Improved. All are similarly spec'd and extreemly accurate. By accurate I mean well under half MOA. The only pictures I have are on photobucket and were taken for a thread on the 6.5 SLR-S Impoved on the testing of my new wildcat. So safe to say I have a fair amount of expirience.

The McKree was the least expensive at $700 and the most expensive was twice that. The McKree is also the heaviest of the bunch.

All the rifles are used for hunting and shooting at my place out to 1,000... (yes even the Lapua)

My expirience has been consistantly positive with chassis, but my expirience with pillar bedded rifles has not. The pillar bedded seemed more tempormental in my expirience than the chassis rifles, hence moving to chassis rifles almost exclusively.

The only down side has been that with a chassis you pay a weight tax, which has led me on my journey to find a lighter chassis to replace the McKree. A stong candidate is the chassis by Christiansen Arms. They are also offering full rifles as light as 7 pounds if memory serves. The rep told me the chassis will be available sometime in 2018 by it's self.



It's just my expirience though...

Bullet bumper said:

I think your reply 100% vindicates my statements . Just skimming the posts does not give you a good understanding of what is said by anyone .

You said Heaviest is " extremely accurate , lighter just " accurate " and lightest "least accurate " . You can not perceive any flex while shooting under recoil you have to film the shot and play it back in super slow motion . How much recoil the cartridge has is also a big factor in how stiff a stock needs to be to squeeze out all the accuracy you can get all other things being equal and best practice . Some people shoot a .5 group and it's real good accuracy for them others would be pulling there hair out wondering what has gone wrong . Long range hunting still needs top accuracy and the targets and conditions usually worse than say target shoooting on a range .

Click to expand...