Remington 700 stock/chassis ideas?

[patsat]

I'm gonna be heading over to the British Shooting Show next month (I'm from Ireland) and I am gonna be on the look out for an aftermarket stock or chassis for my 700 to replace the standard Hs precision stock that it has. Heres a few pointers to give ye an idea what I'm looking for.

 

- Don't want a wooden stock

- Has to be ambidextrous cause I'm a leftie shooting a right handed rifle

- Looking for something with an adjustable cheekpiece

 

Of course the Aics is an obvious choice but just want to know what other options there is? Is an Ax chassis worth the extra cost over an Aics?

 

If I don't see anything I like I'll get an E-tac built once I'm back in Ireland but want to see whats on offer! So is there anything I should be keeping my eyes open for??

 

Thanks

[20series]

AX has a true pistol style grip over the older Aics thumbhole which means you have a better chance of getting your finger on the trigger comfortably unlike the old one.

 

just my tuppence worth

 

Alan

[gbal]

I'm gonna be heading over to the British Shooting Show next month (I'm from Ireland) and I am gonna be on the look out for an aftermarket stock or chassis for my 700 to replace the standard Hs precision stock that it has. Heres a few pointers to give ye an idea what I'm looking for.

 

- Don't want a wooden stock

- Has to be ambidextrous cause I'm a leftie shooting a right handed rifle

- Looking for something with an adjustable cheekpiece

 

Of course the Aics is an obvious choice but just want to know what other options there is? Is an Ax chassis worth the extra cost over an Aics?

 

If I don't see anything I like I'll get an E-tac built once I'm back in Ireland but want to see whats on offer! So is there anything I should be keeping my eyes open for??

 

Thanks

GRODAS (Jackson rifles) is genuine L hand , fully adjustable but laminate.

[tackb]

just get an e-tac , the brilliant.

[patsat]

To be honest the E-Tac is top of my list at the moment, just not gonna rule out everything else before I get the chance to see look at them.

 

I have no experience with an Ax so the jury is out on that but I'd prefer the E-Tac over the Aics.

 

I see that Krg, the lads who do the whiskey 3 chassis have a dealer in the Uk. What's the chances they will have their chassis at the show?

[Hatzi]

I liked my Etac and i also sometimes shoot lefty with a rh gun and there were no issues with it.

[Elwood]

KMW Sentinel

[gbal]

I'm gonna be heading over to the British Shooting Show next month (I'm from Ireland) and I am gonna be on the look out for an aftermarket stock or chassis for my 700 to replace the standard Hs precision stock that it has. Heres a few pointers to give ye an idea what I'm looking for.

 

- Don't want a wooden stock

- Has to be ambidextrous cause I'm a leftie shooting a right handed rifle

- Looking for something with an adjustable cheekpiece

 

Of course the Aics is an obvious choice but just want to know what other options there is? Is an Ax chassis worth the extra cost over an Aics?

 

If I don't see anything I like I'll get an E-tac built once I'm back in Ireland but want to see whats on offer! So is there anything I should be keeping my eyes open for??

 

Thanks

My R700 VSSF in 308 with the factory stock is way too light for competition shooting.The Etac seems to be 700(+optional 2000 gm weight-still seems light (grodas eg is about 1900.g) E tac saying 'more likely to see bullet impact' is perhaps technically true,but you won't,I don't think,by some margin!Have you fired one? I don't mind recoil-but loss of bullet impact just spoils the experience,except on paper.

george

[patsat]

No I have not fired an E-Tac so can't comment on the light weight being an issue. But at the moment the rifle is only a .223 so recoil management isn't as important as it would be shooting a .308. In the future I will be changing up to a larger calibre so I suppose I should keep it in mind.

 

Also I have a Pse lightweight hunter stock on my Tikka .25-06 with lead inserted into the comb to help the rifle handle better in recoil. This made a fairly significant difference to seeing bullet strike on that rifle so I presume the heavy cheek piece option would help if the problem arose.

[tackb]

felt recoil isn't just a function of weight , it's a lot to do with stock design/shape . My etac allows me to spot my hits (head shot munti off sticks at 60m this weekend for example) no problem.

[gbal]

felt recoil isn't just a function of weight , it's a lot to do with stock design/shape . My etac allows me to spot my hits (head shot munti off sticks at 60m this weekend for example) no problem.

Design is a factor for recoil,agreed.What cartridge are you talking about-I can well believe head shot small deer drop down visibly. Bullet splash is much more an issue if you miss-I mean like a small stone 700 yards away,in longish grass.Moderator helps a lot,but weight always helps,even if not optimally efficient.

george

[gbal]

felt recoil isn't just a function of weight , it's a lot to do with stock design/shape . My etac allows me to spot my hits (head shot munti off sticks at 60m this weekend for example) no problem.

Design is a factor for recoil,agreed.What cartridge are you talking about-I can well believe head shot small deer drop down visibly. Bullet splash is much more an issue if you miss-I mean like a small stone 700 yards away,in longish grass.Moderator helps a lot,but weight always helps,even if not optimally efficient.

 

No I have not fired an E-Tac so can't comment on the light weight being an issue. But at the moment the rifle is only a .223 so recoil management isn't as important as it would be shooting a .308. In the future I will be changing up to a larger calibre so I suppose I should keep it in mind.

 

Also I have a Pse lightweight hunter stock on my Tikka .25-06 with lead inserted into the comb to help the rifle handle better in recoil. This made a fairly significant difference to seeing bullet strike on that rifle so I presume the heavy cheek piece option would help if the problem arose.

 

Thanks-223 esp with a moderator isn't such an issue-though 25-06 can be a bit barky/muzzle flippy. I would not want to carry a heavy rifle,but long range plinking-700 y+ is much aided by actually seeing bullet splash,and that can be difficult to see,under less than optimal conditions(white chalk cliff backstop!) with any recoiling rifle.The HS on my 308 actually 'rings 'a bit hollow too-rather disconcerting,despite the quite heavy barrel.No mod though-obviously needs one,but were not competition legal.....even if shooting between two 338Lmags (or more) with muzzle brakes-what fun!

george

[ejg223]

but weight always helps,even if not optimally efficient.

george

wrong. Weight only helps if it is in the right position. Best approach is normally a light stock, make up the weight with a suitable barrel as the weight would be on the line of recoil. Just hit a nail off-centre on the head...ain't gonna drive the nail in straight.

I think each rifle should be individually "balanced" if you start with a light stock you have more options, like a light F1 car, they also prefer light.

Newest target stocks that we are building for the worlds are ultra ultra light. Even getting the cheek pieces down to 70 grams. These can be replaced with a heavy cheek of up to 500grams if needs be.

Generally it is so much easier to make a light stock heavy than a heavy stock lighter.

edi

[tackb]

Design is a factor for recoil,agreed.What cartridge are you talking about-I can well believe head shot small deer drop down visibly. Bullet splash is much more an issue if you miss-I mean like a small stone 700 yards away,in longish grass.Moderator helps a lot,but weight always helps,even if not optimally efficient.

george

 

sorry i should have said , 260rem (140 amax@ 2850)

 

i have to say that long range plinking at rocks gives you a second to reaquire your sightpicture at 700yds plus so i've always found that actually easier to spot splash?

 

and yes a mod helps loads.

[patsat]

So any other ideas of what might be worth looking into at the show?

 

At the moment I'd choose E-Tac over any of the similar Manners,McMillan etc designs.

 

Is that Krg Whiskey 3 chassis gonna be at the show or anything like it?

[baldie]

If light guns make accurate rifles, why are the worlds most accurate rifles around 20lbs scoped ?

[tackb]

If light guns make accurate rifles, why are the worlds most accurate rifles around 20lbs scoped ?

 

nobody said the most accurate rifles were light ?

 

arn't the most accurate rifle the ones where the squidgy fleshy bit holding the rifle is the least involved , like rail guns for example (i think there called that ? you know the benchrest things without a stock ?)

[ejg223]

If light guns make accurate rifles, why are the worlds most accurate rifles around 20lbs scoped ?

Yes, but where is the weight ideally situated?

If one has 20lb to play with one would not invest 15 into the stock and put a sporter barrel on ...or?

I'm sure we'll see developments in the F-Class in the next years going towards better weight distribution.

We could make a 25lb stock if we wanted to, that would not be a problem...just nobody has ordered one yet.

The heaviest we have made so far is a sporter stock at a little over 2kg, that one had the weight in the top section.

edi

[baldie]

Yes they probarbly are Tack.

 

My point being, if you have a reasonably pokey cartridge in a stock that weighs nothing, 9 times out of 10 you wont see your hit. Its simple pshysics. Recoil is recoil, regardless of how a stock is designed. The best are the ones that allow the gun to recoil straight back, and these do help with shot spotting, the old AICS being a great example.

 

Balance plays a big part.

Sit 18lbs of barrelled action and scope on top of a 400 gramme stock, and you have something akin to a cannon ball balanced on a razor blade.

barrel/action torque in the stock then becomes very important indeed.

 

Weight [or lack of it] is very important to a stalker, far more so than the ability to hold a 1/4" group at 200 yards....minute of deer is a lot bigger.

 

The opposite is true in a target rifle of course, weight is a big advantage.

If i sit back and think about half a dozen of the most accurate rifles i,ve ever built or owned, that all were big, heavy guns.

I am ,however, talking about long range accuracy here,not deer shooting ranges.

 

No one has yet found the grail , but one stock i do like and appears to address most of these problems is the Manners F class stock .

[baldie]

Yes, but where is the weight ideally situated?

If one has 20lb to play with one would not invest 15 into the stock and put a sporter barrel on ...or?

I'm sure we'll see developments in the F-Class in the next years going towards better weight distribution.

We could make a 25lb stock if we wanted to, that would not be a problem...just nobody has ordered one yet.

The heaviest we have made so far is a sporter stock at a little over 2kg, that one had the weight in the top section.

edi

To me Edi, it has to be somewhere equal, or perhaps the weight in the stock in the bottom half of it, from an iceberg balance principal.

 

Large target calibres torque in a stock something rotten , the stock has to be able to tame that. It can only do it by distributing the torque evenly, which usually means width being extended.

 

Look at the pendulum bipod and also all the ftr bipod principals.....wide.

[gbal]

sorry i should have said , 260rem (140 amax@ 2850)

 

i have to say that long range plinking at rocks gives you a second to reaquire your sightpicture at 700yds plus so i've always found that actually easier to spot splash?

 

and yes a mod helps loads.

 

wrong. Weight only helps if it is in the right position. Best approach is normally a light stock, make up the weight with a suitable barrel as the weight would be on the line of recoil. Just hit a nail off-centre on the head...ain't gonna drive the nail in straight.

I think each rifle should be individually "balanced" if you start with a light stock you have more options, like a light F1 car, they also prefer light.

Newest target stocks that we are building for the worlds are ultra ultra light. Even getting the cheek pieces down to 70 grams. These can be replaced with a heavy cheek of up to 500grams if needs be.

Generally it is so much easier to make a light stock heavy than a heavy stock lighter.

edi

Edi,the man to ask is a Mr Newton,who set down the basiclaws of action/reaction.I did say'optimally efficient'' notice-that might be what you mean by the odd use of 'balance',but in a reasonablely designed rifle,weight reduces felt recoil-though it's actually muzle jump,and maybe a little torque,that is my 'problem' in losing sight picture.The 'F1@ analogy is quite spurious-the reason for F1 lightness has a lot more to do with pwer/weight etc,and F1 cars bear little resemblance to everyday cars(cf everyday rifles)-and nails do go in if hit at less than optimal efficiency,and thumbs bleed too-please don't try it ! Bench Rest rifles like lots of weight in the receiver,and the barrel-as thats where the bulle goes,and barrels vibrate etc.They are not against heavy stocks-I haven't seen any that were flimsy,or even close to sporter weight,but it's more because of the overall weight limit,and that is better spent somewhere else-so long as the rifle rides the bags well-slides straight in recoil.Well fitted shotguns-like very wll fitted- help felt recoil-one reason the 500+ a day shooters spent so much on bespoke stocks-,but the parameters there are quite different.,though I daresay it helps not to lose sight of the second pheasant,having shot the first!I don't disagree about the general design point,though I am not sure stocks are fully developed to optimum yet.And I'd like an optimally designed stock,that isn't made of balsa wood,to push your 'argument/assertion, a bit! (about as silly as balsa F1 cars!) We don't disagree as much as you seem to think,because I was trying to reduce loss of sight picture,not 'kick' per se-I note the standard measure for recoil does not say much about design,by the way.But then few stocks are actually long sharp nails.Within current general fairly decent,not optimal,design,weight is a demonstrable factor.,and more to the point,we have some choice.I look forward to the perfected recoil 'balancer',though in my experience a moderator is more effective than a

modified ,but equally light ,stock.I note too that Mr Litz expresses the upgrade in rifle needed in various calibres to equal the shootability of 'standard 6.5x284' in weight terms.Perhaps you think his physics are erroneous;at the very least,his solution is achievable-make rifle heavier.I am in favour of the better mousetrap,but 'the little nipper' still seems the available best solution.!!

george

.

[Major Disorder]

I've got an MDT-TAC21 http://mdttac.com/shop/tac21/ . I've not shot it yet as it's still being built with a LH 700 action but it feels a good weight and very well finished

[ejg223]

Edi,the man to ask is a Mr Newton,who set down the basiclaws of action/reaction.I did say'optimally efficient'' notice-that might be what you mean by the odd use of 'balance',but in a reasonablely designed rifle,weight reduces felt recoil-though it's actually muzle jump,and maybe a little torque,that is my 'problem' in losing sight picture.The 'F1@ analogy is quite spurious-the reason for F1 lightness has a lot more to do with pwer/weight etc,and F1 cars bear little resemblance to everyday cars(cf everyday rifles)-and nails do go in if hit at less than optimal efficiency,and thumbs bleed too-please don't try it ! Bench Rest rifles like lots of weight in the receiver,and the barrel-as thats where the bulle goes,and barrels vibrate etc.They are not against heavy stocks-I haven't seen any that were flimsy,or even close to sporter weight,but it's more because of the overall weight limit,and that is better spent somewhere else-so long as the rifle rides the bags well-slides straight in recoil.Well fitted shotguns-like very wll fitted- help felt recoil-one reason the 500+ a day shooters spent so much on bespoke stocks-,but the parameters there are quite different.,though I daresay it helps not to lose sight of the second pheasant,having shot the first!I don't disagree about the general design point,though I am not sure stocks are fully developed to optimum yet.And I'd like an optimally designed stock,that isn't made of balsa wood,to push your 'argument/assertion, a bit! (about as silly as balsa F1 cars!) We don't disagree as much as you seem to think,because I was trying to reduce loss of sight picture,not 'kick' per se-I note the standard measure for recoil does not say much about design,by the way.But then few stocks are actually long sharp nails.Within current general fairly decent,not optimal,design,weight is a demonstrable factor.,and more to the point,we have some choice.I look forward to the perfected recoil 'balancer',though in my experience a moderator is more effective than a

modified ,but equally light ,stock.I note too that Mr Litz expresses the upgrade in rifle needed in various calibres to equal the shootability of 'standard 6.5x284' in weight terms.Perhaps you think his physics are erroneous;at the very least,his solution is achievable-make rifle heavier.I am in favour of the better mousetrap,but 'the little nipper' still seems the available best solution.!!

george

.

 

George I think you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

The overall ammount of recoil is just about the same for any rifle of the same weight. of course... but how does a rifle recoil?

If you have a heavy stock......just about nothing of the stock is above the bore so almost 100% of the stock weight is below the line of recoil and the bore.

Your scope will compensate for that somewhat but if it doesn't, then your rifle will have it's centre of gravity below the line of the bore.

What happens when the reoil sets in? The rifle swivel around the centre of gravity which is below the bore meaning you will have muzzle flip and you will have muzzleflip before the bullet leaves the bore...this is only physics.

A rifle of the same overall weight that is balanced or in other words has it's centre of gravity on the line of the bore will have no or just about no muzzle flip until later recoil gets taken up by the shoulder. The position of recoil take up on the shoulder will dictate if muzzle flip accures or not, at this stage the bullet will most likely have left the barrel.

If you want to keep sight picture you need to work on reducing muzzle flip. Reducing initial muzzle flip will also increase accuracy.

 

I don't know why you mention Balsa wood?

Balsa wood in combination with carbon fibre sandwich is one exceptional high preformance material. Very hard to beat with any man made core material. It could make a lot of sense within a F1 car.

 

edi

[Dr. Strangelove]

You can get left handed stocks for a Remington 700! You have to go for a folding version though, not fixed.

[gbal]

I've got an MDT-TAC21 http://mdttac.com/shop/tac21/ . I've not shot it yet as it's still being built with a LH 700 action but it feels a good weight and very well finished

Yes,MD,I looked at these-but it's more just a chassis-by the time a magpul added etc it was more £1k and essentially untested...But it will be interesting to see how the rifle shoots ..I asume you have the 'before TAC21' groups for comparison.Thee is no shortage of stocck options,Edi and I are really trying toi find some common ground about weight/design-I think the differences are more to do with actual purpose/useage.We shall see,but do post the TAC21 results-the aesthetics will attract some,not others-performance is important too,and shooting comfort-to me the standard R700 308 isn't pleasant to shoot,although performance is excellent for factory rifle.

george