I do a good bit of modifying, overhauling, customizing, re-purposing, or what ever the hell you want to call the make-overs I do with composite stocks. When I say the term "composite" I do NOT include plastic 'tupperware' stocks in the category. Having said that, I've 'operated' on just about all the current makes of composite stocks out there and therefore while I certainly don't consider myself and expert authority, I do consider myself a stockmaker of 40+ years of experience, which for years was entirely in wood. If there is way to "f-up" I've probably done it and even a moron with a 2-digit IQ learns from repetition. I would add that there's been nothing more educational than building my own stocks with the exception of 'forensically' dissecting the work of others who were/are most-assuredly smarter than I. So again, I stress that my opinion of the situation in which you find yourself, is not expert but experienced.
First of all, the manufacturer recommended NOT to use a bipod. That stock was designed to manage recoil-related stress loads only in the action area - the forearm was not designed - and therefore not reinforced - for the stress attributable to the bipod. It was designed to handle load attributable to carrying the rifle with a sling which would never exceed the weight (8-10 lbs) of the rifle under normal use. I don't recall if you said what caliber this was, but recoil of most medium-caliber rifles would manifest itself in a totally different direction, as a sudden, microsecond impact, and most likely at least twice that amount of force.
Ultra lightweight stocks - as you have there - have a composite shell with very rigid (strong-for-its-weight) open-cell polyurethane foam - there's no aluminum chassis or rigid-composite frame (running throughout the stock) with reinforced "stations" to attach external fixtures or equipment mounts nor absorb external pinpoint-concentrated impact loads. To do what you intended would require a larger-area base that could spread that load over a larger area of the stock. This modification in itself would be a contradiction (weight penalty) of the stocks primary purpose/objective. Not sure if it would've made much difference, but you would have been better off flattening the prongs of that T-nut - as each of those was like driving a screw driver into the stock with a hammer, and being driven through the inner shell and foam started a stress fault which became catastrophic crack/break when you shot it.
IMO, given the manufacturer's warning, in warranty "legalese" your actions qualify as misuse which frees the manufacturer from any liability.
Having said that, if would like to PM me, I would be happy to discuss further with you, and see what I could do to repair your stock 'gratis' . . . just one shooter trying to help another.
P-man
First of all, the manufacturer recommended NOT to use a bipod. That stock was designed to manage recoil-related stress loads only in the action area - the forearm was not designed - and therefore not reinforced - for the stress attributable to the bipod. It was designed to handle load attributable to carrying the rifle with a sling which would never exceed the weight (8-10 lbs) of the rifle under normal use. I don't recall if you said what caliber this was, but recoil of most medium-caliber rifles would manifest itself in a totally different direction, as a sudden, microsecond impact, and most likely at least twice that amount of force.
Ultra lightweight stocks - as you have there - have a composite shell with very rigid (strong-for-its-weight) open-cell polyurethane foam - there's no aluminum chassis or rigid-composite frame (running throughout the stock) with reinforced "stations" to attach external fixtures or equipment mounts nor absorb external pinpoint-concentrated impact loads. To do what you intended would require a larger-area base that could spread that load over a larger area of the stock. This modification in itself would be a contradiction (weight penalty) of the stocks primary purpose/objective. Not sure if it would've made much difference, but you would have been better off flattening the prongs of that T-nut - as each of those was like driving a screw driver into the stock with a hammer, and being driven through the inner shell and foam started a stress fault which became catastrophic crack/break when you shot it.
IMO, given the manufacturer's warning, in warranty "legalese" your actions qualify as misuse which frees the manufacturer from any liability.
Having said that, if would like to PM me, I would be happy to discuss further with you, and see what I could do to repair your stock 'gratis' . . . just one shooter trying to help another.
P-man
Last edited:
