Assuming that they are built by a reputable gun smith do all quality stocks (McMillan, manners,sentinel, etc) and chassis (xlr, whiskey 3, jae, etc) produce more or less the same accuracy? Is one design for mounting an action inherently more accurate than another (bedding, pillar, chassis system machined for the action)? Is it more about how the stock fits you and your comfortablity with it than anything else? Thanks for the input just wondering what avenue I should take for an upcoming build and trying to be more educated.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Chassis-stocks-and accuracy
- Thread starter PRScustom
- Start date
Having used both, I think the differences have more to do with aesthetics, weight, cost, and feeding reliability than their impact on precision. Both systems will free float the barrel and provide a solid fit to the receiver. The more features you go with on either, the more you will pay.
The most important pieces of the rifle I was told were , action, barrel and trigger.it seemed to make good sense to me.so my current project is a 338 lapua,28 inch Krieger #10 bull barrel in 1:10 twist.ial be using the factory hs stock that came on my original lapua except I've added lop , adj. cheek rest and reformed the palm swell to fit my big paw perfectly.i just talked to Woody today at Accurate Ordnance and he thinks they might have my upper done in about 4 weeks.btw it's a stiller tac 338 block.guess in a month I should know if a high dollar stock is in order or is it the fill in your hand that's more of a game changer than the bucks spent.btw Iam going with a timney elite trigger.
Last edited:
It is my opinion that regardless of method, having a non-moving, stress free interface between the barreled action and its host stock is the key.
You want BOTH the ability to shoot good groups AND the ability to retain zero. You need both to have true accuracy potential in a rifle.
If your chosen system can provide a solid, consistent mate without any induced stress between the two, you will have what you need.
I believe that if you have a setup that stresses the action, you may shoot good groups but encounter zero shifts because of temp changes. The better systems out there do very, very well with no bedding. Almost all of the complete rifles I build now use the IMB in the SENTINEL stocks. My customers nor I can see any difference in performance between that and good pillar bedding.
FWIW.
Be safe,
Terry
You want BOTH the ability to shoot good groups AND the ability to retain zero. You need both to have true accuracy potential in a rifle.
If your chosen system can provide a solid, consistent mate without any induced stress between the two, you will have what you need.
I believe that if you have a setup that stresses the action, you may shoot good groups but encounter zero shifts because of temp changes. The better systems out there do very, very well with no bedding. Almost all of the complete rifles I build now use the IMB in the SENTINEL stocks. My customers nor I can see any difference in performance between that and good pillar bedding.
FWIW.
Be safe,
Terry
You definitely want a solid fit between the action and stock, which almost any good stock with aluminum bed block or chassis will provide but it also needs to fit you comfortably (or you need to be able to fit to it) so that it recoils consistently every time. Its not as evident at short range, but it definitely affects shots on the 1000yd line. I used to think stocks that had adjustable cheek height, lop, cant, etc was just so they could charge you more, but it actually does help consistency a good bit.
Terry, what does IMB mean?
OP, from what I've read, and have limited experience with, a glued in action gives the most consistent accuracy.
It might be that the 3 dedicated benchrest rifles I had tracked so well in the Edgewood rear bag and Farley front rest which enabled superior accuracy. It might be the cartridge too, 6ppc and 6br in two of them. I'm unable to produce the out right consistency off a bipod/tactical rifle that I did with the BR rifles.
OP, from what I've read, and have limited experience with, a glued in action gives the most consistent accuracy.
It might be that the 3 dedicated benchrest rifles I had tracked so well in the Edgewood rear bag and Farley front rest which enabled superior accuracy. It might be the cartridge too, 6ppc and 6br in two of them. I'm unable to produce the out right consistency off a bipod/tactical rifle that I did with the BR rifles.
Steve, TRAAV pretty much got it. IMB is for my Integrated Mounting Block. It is a big chunk of 6061-T6 aluminum permanently bonded into the stock. Direct bolt-in.
I hated the idea but had to come up with a "no bedding" system on a contract about 5 years ago. Final versions have worked so good that I actually rarely bed any new builds.
Best,
Terry
Is the manners mini-chassis a "non-moving, stress free interface between the barreled action and its host stock"?
This topic interests me also. I have made a few phone calls to various custom smiths (gap, tac ops, gruning precision) and the general consensus that I am gathering is that traditional bedding is the more consistent ie accurate of the two.
Because stress free bedding of an action guarantees a custom fit to that action, an integral block that has not been bedded is a one size fits all and “may” stress the action leading to shift as terry noted above. An integral block may be perfectly machined, but is your action?
Niles Coyote is right. My MDT LSS had a very nice machined bed area. Problem is , my Rem 700 AAC did not fit it! The action was just cut too tight and my action never reached the bed area until I releived it. Fits nice now and shoots very good. Now I am considering skim bedding it but not sure how much benifit it would be. Like I have heard before, a glass bed job can't hurt!
Alman, basically what Niles said is what they told me. My specific question was between manners mini chassis and traditional bedding. Ken at gap said that traditional bedding is the most stress free way and therefore consistent method. Probably nothing drastic IMO, but...
