• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more
  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

Jered Joplin

Gunny Sergeant
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
MeatStickSmall.jpg



This prototype was built along with a few others and used for two years in the field to make sure we really liked the in's and out's of the package. The official rifle will bear the APA Genesis hunting action. It's name speaks for itself. It's meant to be a bar none working field rifle.

The one thing I'm contemplating is the adjustable cheek piece. Personally I feel like I can't live without it but I'm curious to hear what you guys think.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mclevela</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I want mine with the adj. cheek and would prefer the Terry Cross hardware for the adjustment of the cheek but not a deal breaker. </div></div>

My thoughts are in tune with this statement. Keep it, just improve the hardware. Good luck!
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

I'll be the one who says that the adjustable cheekpiece should go. For a pure hunting rifle I care more about weight. There are so many variables when taking a shot in the field that there is very little chance that I'd even notice whether or not it was there, so to keep the rifle a bit lighter, a bit less complicated and a bit cheaper, shitcan the adjustable feature.

And shitcan the brake too...last thing I need is that kind of ear ringer in the field.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

Get rid of the brake and get McM to build an A1-3 with it's current rear end and put the HTG forearm on it…then no need for the adj cheekpiece.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

I have a rifle nicknamed "meat stick", also have nicknamed boom stick LOL.

I say do away with the adjustable cheek piece. Less weight would be better for the purpose of this rifle IMO.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

Rumor is Jered, that its hard to beat your Meat..........Stick


Anyways, why not just make the adjustable cheek piece & muzzle brake as options for this rifle - makes everyone happy!!
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BALLISTIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For a hunting rifle, I would say no brake, no adj. stock, and a barrel less than 22in. </div></div>


Exactly what I was getting at.

Brakes on hunting rifles is for girly-men. There's really not going to be any advantage in the field except banging ear-drums. "Meat sticks" aren't target rifles for pounding 100 rounds a weekend on steel with.

I've been down the road with hunting rifles and have gone from heavy barrels with lots of length for velocity. I didn't kill any more animals and ended up tired and had to fight the rifle the whole way.

Then I went with medium weight barrels at medium lengths. I ended up tired and had to fight the rifle the whole way.

Finally, I went back to my routes per se, with a normal sporter contour barrel cut "short". 20" for short action calibers is more than enough and 22-24" for long action calibers is more than enough. Guess what? I do kill more animals now because I'm not nearly fatigued and its much easier to get into position in trees or make long stalks. A lighter package is much easier for snap-shots.

When going hunting, I do realize the small, light rifle may not be ideal for long-range shooting, but most game is taken within 100 yards----I could do that with a .223 with irons. When I do hunt and may be in a place where a long shot is required from a fixed position, I take rifle up for that task. I've only ever used a long-range gun on game for three kills, while my sporter weight rifles have racked up dozens.

All you guys seem to be all about the adjustable cheek. As I understand it, the option adds 1 lb+. Odds are if you "need" the adjustable cheek, you've got the wrong scope on it anyway. A ten pound "meat stick" is very heavy, especially when you throw a 2 lb scope on it so big it needs an adjustable cheek.

Before you guys give the typical "man up" or "hit the gym" response, mind you a pack weighs much, much more than the rifle and if you'd like to post videos of yourself taking off-hand shots or out of position shots with a 14 lb rifle package while wearing a 60 lb pack, then be my guest.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

i vote to keep the adjustable cheek piece, if you dont like it, you can jsut keep it all the way down.
I also agree with others on the shorter barrel for hunting
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

Beautiful hunting rig. Keep the adjustable cheek and the barrel length. On hunting rigs the brake could be a option. BTW meat stick has a different meaning in these parts. Also pm me with the price point these are going to come in at.

thanks Rthur
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

As this is to be a meat stick I will give feed back based on that requirement.

I would swap the scope with a 1inch dia model and see how much lower I could get the scope to the bore line and then adj the cheek piece to see whether or not I would need it adjusted at all. Lots of folks use 1” tubes for hunting applications with bushnell, weaver or leupolds as optics. I use 30mm optics on my comp and tac rifles but only use 1inch on my hunting rifle.

2nd item the picatinny rail is it 0 degrees or 20 moa. Like others my hunting range is inside 500 yards and typically under 200. I like the rail idea and would prefer the slimiest 0 degree rails available. This will also affect scope height and conversely cheek height.

And I am not trying to offend anyone but I would pose this exact same question on a hunting specific forum to see what they would say. As this is a tactical forum first some things which may be must have here are for the majority of hunting only shooters seen as accessories options..

to answer yor question i vote <span style="font-weight: bold">no</span> on the adjustable cheek piece. I don't shoot prone when hunting and both my seated and standing position seem to raise my sightline so that i would not need the adjustment on my rifles set up.

Best of luck
Trevor
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

I think the "Meat Stick" is great how it is.

If you want a lighter rifle, without the Adj. comb, you offer the "Critter Get'r"

Both are nice, keep up the good work.

Now I need 2 new rifles, great.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

My vote would be keep the adj. comb. I personally like being able to adjust the stock to fit my needs without having to add a stock pack or build up the comb with foam. Also, the option of adding a break for those who would benefit from it is a nice feature. Outstanding looking rifle.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

How much weight does the adj. comb add?

If it's just onces, then I'd like to have it on a hunting rig.
If it adds a pound, then I'd pass on having it.

Good choice on making the brake optional.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

The adjustable cheek adds just over a pound. The idea for this rifle was a larger gun than the Critter Get'r and focused on longer range opportunities. No muzzle brakes aren't needed for hunting but they are imperative for consistently spotting impacts at distance in the field. There for it will be an option. I've taken my Critter Get'r to 700 50% of the time I take it to the range. and I'm only using the Z6i Swaro with BDC knob. I didn't want to even consider thinking about MOA etc on that rig. There it is........hit the color dot on the knob and dump the bullet down range. With the Meat Stick I wanted more rifle. Something a little more fine tuned if you will for ranges beyond 500 where you really better start paying close attention to wind. Basically you won't be in a situation where your rifle is the weak link. It will go everywhere and do most better. If you are hiking miles and miles in a given day you'll want something different. I packed mine over 10 miles a day over some BS terrain. I would have traded my left testicle for the Critter Get'r at the time but when I laid down behind it to take the shot I was glad I had it with me.

Other names that didn't make the cut:
Trouser snake
One eyed Willie
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

I like it just the way you have it. 10 pounds is not bad. I carry my match rifle. But if what they say is true one day i will get old and week. so that set up looks perfect to me. Oh ya like most have already said. keep the cheek piece or make it an option. It should take long to figure out how to stock your inventory. HA ha get it stock your inventory..
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

i think your right on point jered

like you said you make other options for those counting ounces

i will also say, my buddy has basically this same gun

apa built
adj htg
25in sendero

one of the best balancing all around rifles ive fingered
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RHutch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Get rid of the brake and get McM to build an A1-3 with it's current rear end and put the HTG forearm on it…then no need for the adj cheekpiece.</div></div>

This.
 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

Adj cheek rest will snag to much brush, even in open country. No big deal if you kill something opening day but carry a 10 lb rifle + scope, up and down a mountain for 6 days with 50 twigs a day yanking you backwards and you'll want to leave that hot rod back home in the garage. It would be fine from a stand or fixed position but chances are that if you don't have something down right away, your going to need to move.

I guess it depends upon where you hunt but if you hunt steep rough country, you'll appreciate a trim lean machine.

 
Re: Coming Soon The "Meat Stick"

They're both beauties. Given that you already have an offering in a lighter package, keep the adjustable cheek rest. I guess there's plenty of hunting scenarios that don't involve toting a heavier rifle for miles/days, side hill in slick conditions.