Custom chassis - advice/feedback appreciated

[SENZA PARI]

Recently I've started designing a new chassis/stock for my Remington 700. I've incorporated features that I've found useful in my own personal experience, as well as some from existing rifles. Some of them are funtional, some are purely for asthetics (full-length forend falling into both categories). By no means is the model anywhere near complete, so please do excuse the lack of detail in some areas, and completely incorrect geometry in others (some of the parts have been carried over from previous desings which I have yet to update for this build). There are a number of features/hardware/etc. that are not yet in the model, but the overal shape and design is pretty well set.
As many minds are better than one, and as many of you have expreience that I will never have, my qeustions is... is there anything I'm missing, or should consider? I'm happy with the overal design, but I'm sure I've overlooked some things.

A few things to take into consideration:

-The walnut pistol grip, cheek peice and forend (not yet shown) are a must. Although I wear gloves more often than not while shooting, the feel of wood cannot be replaced. It's warm, and looks pretty.
-Weight is not a real priority. Rarely will I be walking miles lugging this around. If I am, well... I'll have to deal with it.
-This will not see any sort of active duty or combat. Long range shooting and hunting only.
-It will use AI 5 and 10 round mags.
-I may incorporate a folding mechanism in the rear. Currently the butt-stock is a seperate section which unscrews...


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr

Some of the adjustability shown:


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr

Please feel free to give any and all input, good or bad! I will update this thread with photos of the moel as features/details are added.

 

[SENZA PARI]

A little further along... The top rail has been modified to fit this build, along with the front supports. I revised the rear to use spacers for LOP adjustment instead of the clamped rod, for simplicity. Flush cup mounts have been added to the forend and rear.


REM700 BUILD 2.0 1 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 4 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 2 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 3 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 5 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr

And with a Liberty Victory suppressor for fun


REM700 BUILD 2.0 6 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr

 

[Walsh]

Personally, it looks way too bulky, I could maybe see merit as a pure benchrest stock. I do not like rectangular forends, at all, they do not conform to the human hand, of course, I loath the bench and always try to avoid it, so my use would be of a more active style, think scout rifleish.

Designing is very fun though, I enjoy it myself, but like I said, my use would be vastly different than what you said.

 

[D_Lamz]

Looks very cool and very European.

 

[Alpine Gunworks]

I can't stand monopods. I'll take a rear bag and an angled buttstock over a monopod, but that's just me. I designed my own system too and had a bunch of fun doing it. Ended up with exactly what I wanted and currently working on gen 2 chassis now with switch barrel technology. Good luck and have fun with it!

 

[Vargmat]

While I like the futuristic look of your design, overall the proportions seems off. That forend and barrel are huge compared to how small the pistolgrip is.
Also, what is your thought behind the super long forend?
And the double support for the picatinnyrail looks way overkill.

 

[sulcop96]

Is this something that your building for yourself, basing it on your likes, dislikes and shooting style? If so, nice, drive on and post photos when its done. If your looking for a market with it, define your market and base variations on that market. I am a huge chassis guy, I am LE SWAT and do tactical and SWAT sniper comps in my area. Your design would be of no interest to me and what I do with my rifle. Now a BR guy (or girl) may love it, but again define your market. If you just ask the collective here "what do you think" your getting 1000 different opinions for everyone from F-class, BR's, hunters, tactical guys all the way down to the guy who just wants something that looks cool.

That said, I applaud your efforts and look forward to seeing the final product if you go through with it.

Sully

 

[SENZA PARI]

This is something that I'm doing for myself, currently... I should have worded my original post a little better to reflect that. I guess what I was looking for as far as feedback is (which I know it's greatly dependent on what you do with your rifle) what are some of the features that people look for in a target/tactical chassis? What are some that you avoid, or dislike? For those of you who have designed or built your own stock or chassis, what were some of the challenges and/or work-arounds that you came across?
I wanted to design and machine a chassis that incorporated the things that I've personally liked, or have wanted in a chassis. Now, obviously the look isn't for everybody. We all have different needs and uses for our rifle. I spend most of my time at a range, shooting from a bench and hunting, so weight isn't really one of my concerns. I won't be hiking miles with this on my back. Nor is having something that is sleek and low profile.
I wanted something that was extremely rigid, stable, and well supported. I also wanted the barrel to be protected, or shrouded for most of it's length. I also happen to like the look of the overly-long forend. I couldn't tell you why, or quantify it... it's simply visually appealing to me. I would imagine that most would feel otherwise. As for the two rail supports, I would have preferred to use only one, however it would have been much to flexible given its length. So, two were needed.
The proportions of the rifle are correct, or... I should say that all features are correct in dimension. The barrel in the original photos was a heavy contour fluted barrel. The barrel in the new photos use the stock Remington 700 Varmint for comparison.

The forend has been slimmed up some, and given some countouring for a grip (Vargmat, I agree... the front was very bulky originally without further detail). I've also revised the grip to to a more traditional style as opposed to the straight-up target grip. I'm still not 100% on what I want to go with just yet. I do know however that I have personally never like the AR grips, so although an easy solution, it isn't an option for me. Maybe if I went into production... but that would mean I'd have to first make something OTHER people would also want

There is still quite a bit of detail that isn't yet in the model, but its getting there.


REM700 BUILD 2.0 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 8 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 6 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 11 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr

 

[Lukas Koukal]

I know what it reminds me off, haven´t really noticed last time I checked the pics - the fron is almost like the original Erma SR100, while the stock/spigot design is along the lines of the current DSR-1. Both great designs of their time.

I wonder what weight will your design end up if you try to make it into real life. As it is now, it looks terribly front heavy as there´s almost no meat in the back. I also don´t see any practical use for a forearm going any further than you can actually reach without breaking the shooting position (adjusting bipod and NV alike).

Just some random thoughts, keep up that work!

 

[SENZA PARI]

The last time I checked the weight of the stock (before any real detailing or weight reduction was added) it was just over 7 pounds in 6061 aluminum. I would imagine it's now around 5.5 or so. Also, the front end is pretty well hollowed out, so it looks heavier than it is.
The long front forend is primarily for resting on bags/other surfaces, or for attaching a bipod to at any point. I have been in shooting positions where I've had to rest the barrel on a surface, or haven't had as stable of a position as I would have liked because I didn't want to use the barrel as a rest (the thinking being to never apply pressure to the barrel). These situations are not common, but for the few that I've been in the long forend would have been ideal.

 

[BillyGoatMachine]

If your building it for yourself do whatever the hell you want to it. Imho all the picatinny rails just make it look kinda silly. Especially the 2 feet of it on the for end. Not my cup of tea as it reminds me of those pneumatic air rifles. I do like the incorporation of the wood. Cool project though and don't take my criticism in a negative way.

 

[SENZA PARI]

The center of mass, or gravity (taking all components of the rifle into consideration, not just the stock) is currently an inch and a half below the bore centerline, and about two inches in front of the front face of the recoil lug, putting it in the center of the front grip well. This will make for a very balanced feel.
Ive skeletonized the pistol grip plate, and added the two wooden side plates. These will obviously be removable with a few small screws (as any traditional pistol grip), and I will more than likely make a set of grips from carbon fiber. I've done some carbon work for automotive applications, so this will be another good excuse to get resin out. I will do the same for the cheek rest as well.
The front forend has been additionally lightened, and flush cup pockets and mount points have been added. Threaded holes have been added to the bottom of the forend for additional rails or bipod mounting. I'm not going to get away from the ultra-long forend, as this is something I personally want, but I will design another version with a much shorter front end and top rail (more traditional).
I'm currently working on a revised rear stock section which incorporates an adjustable monopod similar to that found on the AW50 and the newer TRG's. The bottom of the monopod arm will also double as a surface in which to ride a rear bag, which is one of the features that has come up more than once (not just in this thread).
I will update with photos shortly.

 

[SENZA PARI]

Welcome to Flickr!

http://m.flickr.com/lightbox?id=13227399283

http://m.flickr.com/lightbox?id=13227251995

 

[Vargmat]

The ISMS mount is backwards. They always open on the right side. Just saying!

 

[SENZA PARI]

The ISMS mount is backwards. They always open on the right side. Just saying!

Ha, good eye. I noticed that a few weeks back but haven't flipped it in the model yet.

 

[SENZA PARI]

A few better shots in a couple different color combos.

The top rail is long, yes, but its there if I/anyone should need it. It's also detachable, so a traditional receiver mounted rail can be used if desired. I will more than likely have the chassis itself made first, and the top rail and supports later on down the line. As for the side rails being unnecessary... I've been surprised by the number of things I've seen hanging off the side of a rifle. Some of it, obviously, has been for the sake of being "tacti-cool", other times it is for legimate use. Either way, the rail supports are needed, so I utilized the side surfaces for rail attachments. They are there if need be.


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


Untitled by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 1 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr

 

[Randoman5]

The huge free float on the fore end looks cool but I think it makes the supports for the rail bigger than they need to be. If it were a little closer you could use smaller and lighter supports. Also having a thick fore end like that with such a big distance between the bottom and the barrel will likely make it less stable when using a bipod. I'm not sure what you need such a long top rail for, if to be used for night vision a single support with night vision mount would be simpler and lighter. Also, What's with the trigger guard?

Other than those things it looks pretty cool. If it's just for you build it the way you want it.

 

[SENZA PARI]

Although the actual weight of the rifle is well balanced and centered, visually the front looks much heavier than the rear. Anyone who has seen this so far has said the same thing more or less... the front end looks heavy. In order to give the rear a little more "weight", I took a page out of AI's and TRG's book and revised the monopod from the original threaded peg to a cantilever style(is there an actual term for this sort of monopod?). So far I'm happy with the result. It also provides a surface in which to ride a rear bag, if preferred, in the upright position.

I've also done a bit of lightening to the front forend. I'm not 100% on the layout or look of the cutouts in the side of the forend just yet.... I'll give them a few days. I've placed slots in the underside forend, along with provisions for mounting a rail.

I may decrease the height of the front rail, and close the gap a bit as I reel in the design. As for the trigger gaurd... it's a work in progress


REM700 BUILD 2.0 REAR 4 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 REAR 3 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 FOREND by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 LEFT by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr


REM700 BUILD 2.0 BOTTOM by SENZA PARI #1, on Flickr

 

[Hennig]

Looks pretty cool bud. Not sure if its the most practical thing in the world, but Id own one just for something different.

 

[SENZA PARI]

You are %100 correct. It is not the most practical chassis by any means, but it is something that I've wanted to build, and is tailored to my need (wants?) more so than the general public. Even with the limited feedback I've gotten, I do appreciate it, and it honestly has made for a better end product to date. It makes me second guess, or at least rethink certain areas/features to the point where I do revise them for a better outcome. So yes, please do criticize... It will not be taken offensively!