Introducing the AI Obsession Chassis

Looks good! I’m in the “afraid to debond” camp for now, but maybe down the road.

That having been said, if you could come up with a JAE/KRG W3 type chassis for an AI action, I’d be sorely tempted! A Manners PRS1 would be perfect, but I feel the JAE/KRG type route would be easiest. Heck, if either of those guys are watching...

Anyway, strong work, as with everything else you’ve done!
 
This system addresses virtually every complaint I have about my AT in it's current form for competition use. I'm not completely opposed to debonding my AT. I've even looked at the MPA more than once after a few drinks in the evening lol, but it didn't do it for me.

This does it for me, and baring some just over-the-top price point, I'm in. Fantastic work, Sam.
 
I’m currently shooting my AI AT in NRL competition. I am still very new to the competitive world of NRL, coming from the 3Gun side of things.
I REALLY like what you’re doing here.
I would be very, very interested in something like this. I’m not afraid of de-bonding, looking at some of the upsides this system offers.
I will ABSOLUTELY be watching this with an eye on possibly purchasing one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samb300
Just a heads up, I've got another cool product I've been working on! If any of you AX shooters have been wanting an anti-rotation QD sling mount, I've got the answer. This will work on all pre-14 and post-14 AX forends (AX, AX338, AX308, AXMC, AX-AICS), all you'll need is the correct mounting screw for your variant. Mounting screws will be available at the time of purchase if you need an extra pair.

The mount will be Black Nitrided steel, and comes in at only 0.36" H x 0.66" W x 1.85" L. It's super snag-free and much lower-profile than the factory picatinny/QD combo. It is anti-rotation, with sling positions at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock. Each position has about +/- 15° of rotation built in it so the sling isn't too locked into place.

These will be an Anarchy Outdoors exclusive product, and the estimate I've been given is 8 weeks for availability. Let me know what you think!

7043143


7043144


7043145


7043146


7043147
 
Hey guys,

Just wanted to give you all an update. I'm still working on getting the chassis updated and finalized, along with the accessories. I have gotten a couple quotes back for machining, and am thinking about how to proceed.

At this point I'd really like to get some feedback on how many people are interested...for REAL interested. Like, if this was for sale at the price point of a "regular" chassis ($1,000-ish plus accessories), would you de-bond your AI and try one?

It's looking like right now I might get a small prototype batch made of 3 total chassis. I would test one, and then I'd send the other two out to who ever was willing to install it with epoxy, test it, and give me solid feedback.

In order to even remotely break even I'd have to sell 10+ chassis, and even then it would be a lot of work to get there. I'm not doing a pre-order or asking for anything firm right now, more trying to get a feel of whether or not I'm crazy for even thinking this would be worth doing. In the end, I could certainly just have one made and prove that it's a feasible concept. I'd be out a good chunk of money but have something I've been dreaming about for the past couple years. Honestly though, I'd rather have a bunch of these out there in the wild being used at matches and in the field, in the hands of people that love AI's as much as me.

Let me know what you think!

Sam

01_Obsession_Chassis_Rev002.png


02_Obsession_Chassis_Rev002.png
 
I’m following this closely I’m really interested. I’m really Excited especially if I can use the AX buttstock with it that I just installed on my AT.

Either the AT or AX buttstock will work, the chassis has the same rear tang as the AT/AX.

As for Pale Brown, that might be an option, but it'll be a significant upcharge :LOL:
 
I have a ballpark based on some rough quotes from the online CNC "hubs" that offer one-off machining, but I'm not sure how accurate those are because it's just giving numbers from an algorithm. My guess is one chassis with the accessories is going to cost as much as a really nice optic or rifle build. There isn't really anything about it that's not manufactureable, and my background in tool design lends me to think with real life manufacturing in mind. That being said, I have no experience with machining so I can't exactly say if my design is "easy" or not to fixture and machine.

I own a machine shop and when I started reading your thread my immediate thought was a prototype should be somewhere in the $3k-$4k range. That should include any tooling that may need to be made in order to machine the chassis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLKWLFK9
any chance you would do a complete chassis, buttstock and all?
Honestly, I don’t think I could do a better buttstock than the AX without a TON of work. And getting the system integrated with an AR grip tang would have issues just like the MPA-AT because of how the AI trigger is installed. I thought the easiest solution was to integrate the existing grip, trigger, and buttstock into the chassis, rather than try to reinvent the whole system.
 
Any updates? I'm actually trying to make a few calls for you to machinists that might be interested. If you want to chat, shoot me a PM and I'll send you my number and we can bounce some things off each other.
 
Any updates? I'm actually trying to make a few calls for you to machinists that might be interested. If you want to chat, shoot me a PM and I'll send you my number and we can bounce some things off each other.

I have a formal quote in hand for a prototype run of the chassis. Just waiting for the shop to look at the spigot, weight kit, and NV bridge as well.

If you know of any shop(s) that would be willing/able to tackle something like this for a prototype and possible low-volume production run, I'd be open to it. But I'm still realistic that these won't be cheap and will take a good amount of programming and fixtures to machine a prototype.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLKWLFK9
I have a formal quote in hand for a prototype run of the chassis. Just waiting for the shop to look at the spigot, weight kit, and NV bridge as well.

If you know of any shop(s) that would be willing/able to tackle something like this for a prototype and possible low-volume production run, I'd be open to it. But I'm still realistic that these won't be cheap and will take a good amount of programming and fixtures to machine a prototype.

You should be getting a call from someone as i type this or shortly after. They already have your phone number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: b6graham
Update for everyone:

- CAD files are complete
- Files and drawings sent to machine shop
- Full 3D printed prototype of chassis and all accessories sent to machine shop
- Order is in for 3 complete chassis builds with accessories
- Timeline estimate is 8-10 weeks. Likely have to add another couple weeks for post-machine coating and painting

I'm excited! At the end of the day, even if I don't make any more than these 3, I think the work will have been worth it. And hopefully if people see the benefits and functionality of the new chassis outweigh the hassle of de-bonding/re-bonding their factory rifle, then I'll have a production batch made.

Thanks,

Sam
 
Man this is exactly what I need in my AX. You’re doing some really great things Sam and I’m very interested. I have no fear about debonding my AX.

I’ll be following closely.

Thanks for the kind words.

I initially thought about buying an AT for the project to debond, but I’m glad I went for it and used my AX. A bit scary at first to debond, but in the end it was invaluable to have certain dimensions from the AX chassis. Plus it didn’t hurt that I was able to buy a stripped factory AT chassis for about 5% of the price of an AT haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkside-Six
Took the newly RE-bonded AX out to the range last weekend. After removing the scope rail, Razor in Spuhr, barrel, buttstock, and de-bonding the chassis...once re-assembled and re-bonded, it shot within 0.2 mil (straight down) of my zero from last year. The AI system is ridiculous, and this at least proves there is no ill-effect of re-bonding the action back to the chassis. I have a lot of faith that my new chassis design will perform the same when assembled.

I then used the AX in a local match here in WI, ended up in 7th out of 80 shooters, a pretty good day overall for having taken 7 months off (4 of those months with the AX completed disassembled haha).

I'll keep you guys posted as soon as I hear some info from the machine shop.

Cheers!

Sam
 
What is the issue with the MPA-AT?

The AI trigger is installed into the chassis via two large vertical cap screws, vs the typical two horizontal small pins on R700 actions. It is designed to be serviced by removing the stock skins first and then removing the trigger, while the bonded action remains in place. The MPA-AT functions like a typical stock, where you have to remove the entire barreled action to access the trigger. Therefore you cannot approach it this way if you want to bond the action to the chassis. Having the action/chassis bonded together AND utilizing an AR trigger tang would be really hard to get to work (believe me when I say I've spent a lot of time thinking about it haha).

The AI folding stock hinge is peerless, there's no debate there. And I think the AX buttstock is miles ahead of the MPA buttstock (tiny set screws, anyone?). So utilizing the existing AI backend - including the grips, love them or hate them - made the most sense. My intent was always to design a chassis that represented what AI would do if they made a competition oriented front end. Going back to my "AIAC" concept from a couple years ago, my plan was always to have a bonded system just like AI has been doing, but with a forend that was in line with current competition design trends.

I'm an engineer, but have always gravitated towards industrial design. I like elegant solutions and products that have a unified design across multiple parts. That's why I tried to make the chassis "look like" AI designed it, and at the same time tie in with the other accessories I've already designed. I think the MPA-AT literally looks like an AI action dropped in an MPA, whereas I hope people see this chassis and think it's the newest rifle from AI. We'll see, I guess!

Sam
 
The AI trigger is installed into the chassis via two large vertical cap screws, vs the typical two horizontal small pins on R700 actions. It is designed to be serviced by removing the stock skins first and then removing the trigger, while the bonded action remains in place. The MPA-AT functions like a typical stock, where you have to remove the entire barreled action to access the trigger. Therefore you cannot approach it this way if you want to bond the action to the chassis. Having the action/chassis bonded together AND utilizing an AR trigger tang would be really hard to get to work (believe me when I say I've spent a lot of time thinking about it haha).

The AI folding stock hinge is peerless, there's no debate there. And I think the AX buttstock is miles ahead of the MPA buttstock (tiny set screws, anyone?). So utilizing the existing AI backend - including the grips, love them or hate them - made the most sense. My intent was always to design a chassis that represented what AI would do if they made a competition oriented front end. Going back to my "AIAC" concept from a couple years ago, my plan was always to have a bonded system just like AI has been doing, but with a forend that was in line with current competition design trends.

I'm an engineer, but have always gravitated towards industrial design. I like elegant solutions and products that have a unified design across multiple parts. That's why I tried to make the chassis "look like" AI designed it, and at the same time tie in with the other accessories I've already designed. I think the MPA-AT literally looks like an AI action dropped in an MPA, whereas I hope people see this chassis and think it's the newest rifle from AI. We'll see, I guess!

Sam


Maybe this was asked already...

Any thought on on doing the same for the AX AICS for the 700/Deviant/Impact etc but extending the forend instead of the spigot.?? Maybe a gofund me?
 
Maybe this was asked already...

Any thought on on doing the same for the AX AICS for the 700/Deviant/Impact etc but extending the forend instead of the spigot.?? Maybe a gofund me?

My plan next is to put the AT and AX-AICS chassis into CAD and see how they align compared to the factory AI chassis interface I've got now. My hope is to eventually have a Vudoo or a trainer rifle in a chassis that matches my AI chassis.

My buddy has an AX-AICS, I would need to get my hands on an AT-AICS to make that happen. Plus figure out what additional milling is needed to work with the popular chassis and triggers so the end user wouldn't have to do any machining on their own.

It's certainly possible to modify the forend length on a R700 version. Could complicate things a little for machining programming if using the AI chassis, but hopefully wouldn't be too bad. The question I keep asking (and maybe I'm an odball) is: why is everyone so hung up on having the bipod SO far out in front? I understand it's more stable the farther away it is, but when I lay down in prone I like to actually be able to reach the bipod in order to adjust it. I'm 6'0" with long arms, and the furthest I ever have my bipod on my AX is about 4" from the front of the 13" handguard. The ACC seems to have people obsessed with long forends. I think going closer to the bore (i.e. spigot) is more stable than simply going further out. I also don’t find myself wanting to waste time adjusting the bipod position on stages that go from prone to prop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS14
My plan next is to put the AT and AX-AICS chassis into CAD and see how they align compared to the factory AI chassis interface I've got now. My hope is to eventually have a Vudoo or a trainer rifle in a chassis that matches my AI chassis.

My buddy has an AX-AICS, I would need to get my hands on an AT-AICS to make that happen. Plus figure out what additional milling is needed to work with the popular chassis and triggers so the end user wouldn't have to do any machining on their own.

It's certainly possible to modify the forend length on a R700 version. Could complicate things a little for machining programming if using the AI chassis, but hopefully wouldn't be too bad. The question I keep asking (and maybe I'm an odball) is: why is everyone so hung up on having the bipod SO far out in front? I understand it's more stable the farther away it is, but when I lay down in prone I like to actually be able to reach the bipod in order to adjust it. I'm 6'0" with long arms, and the furthest I ever have my bipod on my AX is about 4" from the front of the 13" handguard. The ACC seems to have people obsessed with long forends. I think going closer to the bore (i.e. spigot) is more stable than simply going further out. I also don’t find myself wanting to waste time adjusting the bipod position on stages that go from prone to prop.

It is NOT for shooting prone. Some might be surprised first, how little the bipod is used in some PRS stations but how many times when it is, Having it close or even extend out far is a very nice feature, especially when using a full length dovetail.

having a spigot wastes time... and any "extra stability" isn't worth it.. I want to slide it in a place I can reach it so I can easily slide it off, back or to the front.. MDT figured that out with the ACC. BUT their butt stock is WAY to flipping long and the LOP is not going working for me. Oh and I do love the AX folder and adjustments.


PRS Tire.jpg
 
Last edited:
It is NOT for shooting prone. Some might be surprised first, how little the bipod is used in some PRS stations but how many times when it is, Having it close or even extend out far is a very nice feature, especially when using a full length dovetail.

having a spigot wastes time... and any "extra stability" isn't worth it.. I want to slide it in a place I can reach it so I can easily slide it off, back or to the front.. MDT figured that out with the ACC. BUT their butt stock is WAY to flipping long and the LOP is not going working for me. Oh and I do love the AX folder and adjustments.


View attachment 7097097

Makes sense. I can see where that would be beneficial. Though even on a stage like that mounting the bipod to the spigot would take about 10 seconds during pre-stage prep, and unless there's a rock or a rain barrel to shoot off of next, you wouldn't need to instantly adjust it down to the magwell. It's definitely possible to see that in a stage though. You could also shoot a few inches to the side where the front-to-back tire distance is shorter. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just playing devil's advocate to say there are different ways to approach any stage. Obviously the more options your chassis provides the more ways you can shoot the stage.

The chassis as it is now is 12.75" long from the action face, and approximately 14.75" from the front of the magwell (this is NOT including the 3" long spigot). The ACC is 18" from the front of the magwell, so roughly 3" longer. Honest question - is this difference meaningful and will it cause one to lose points at a match?

The main reason it is this length is so a user with a bonded action could still install a 16" barrel. Since the handguard would be fixed, this would leave 1.5" of barrel in front of the chassis to tighted by hand. Anything longer and it would preclude the user from shooting barrels they already have. I could make it longer with the disclaimer that only 20"+ barrels will work, but it was a conscious choice to not do that since so many people like shorty 308 barrels.

I could make an AICS version 3" or 30" longer if that's what the end user wants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkLeupold
Its a puzzle why EVERY manufactuere doesn't do this.

It's easier with the AI because the action sits up so much higher. But again, it was a conscious decision that was motivated in part by economics because I shoot LH and didn't want to pay to prototype a LH and RH chassis.

Initially I wanted to do the AX magwell where the mags have the front "lip" and rock into place. But there would be no good way to make that ambidextrous. So instead I chose to use AW mags (which all AT users have anyway), and design a giant flared magwell rather than having the cutout on one side.

Some of the other aspects that make it ambi are subtle, but needed in order to facilitate the folding stock on both sides and the bolt stop roll pin. Thankfully the Quick-Loc screw is on the same side of both the LH and RH actions haha!
 
  • Like
Reactions: garandman
It's easier with the AI because the action sits up so much higher. But again, it was a conscious decision that was motivated in part by economics because I shoot LH and didn't want to pay to prototype a LH and RH chassis.

Initially I wanted to do the AX magwell where the mags have the front "lip" and rock into place. But there would be no good way to make that ambidextrous. So instead I chose to use AW mags (which all AT users have anyway), and design a giant flared magwell rather than having the cutout on one side.

Some of the other aspects that make it ambi are subtle, but needed in order to facilitate the folding stock on both sides and the bolt stop roll pin. Thankfully the Quick-Loc screw is on the same side of both the LH and RH actions haha!

Even though I have an MPA, MDT, AXIS and stocks.... we all want the best and no, 3" will not be the end all deal killer. Either way, I personally do not use the spigots.. Just do NOT see the benefit over a better designed forend where the rail is continuos and fast.. Miss judge the location no worries, speedy adjustment.

Any yep, shoot of the side or with a GC all work.. BTW I just tossed the first image I had of a big tire. Usually when I've shot a tire like in the picture above, there is one or more vertical; or a barrel etc as part of the stage.

Currently my beef is that the LOPs on most chasis are to long. The MDT as an example is 14" compressed.. The guys out at Foundation Stocks seem to have paid attention and start their's at 13.5" My AX run in to <13.5", we are not pressing into the guns as hard and when you couple that with the support hand often way up front; shorter LOPS help at least me, help me stay a hair more square. So, when I get a new stock I want to check as many boxes as I can, because like a lot of others, I have a lot of almost perfect stocks now...

If I could dream, it be your front end slightly longer, with m-lock, a vertical grip like the MPA and an AX-folder.. The biggest beef I have with the current AX-AICS, even using the RRS flat dovetail is it adds 2" to the stack height on a barricade and I have no need for the enclosed hand guard..

Heck I think your idea is really slick
 
Last edited:
I hear ya, you make a lot of good points. I agree on the LOP, I’m 6’0” and generally have the AX adjustment only out one spot from the minimum LOP, and two out for prone.

An AR grip tang is a real challenge with the bonded action, if not bonded it becomes easier to integrate like how the MPA-AT does is.

My chassis is a heck of a lot lower than the AT and AX forends, that’s a big reason why I pursued it in the first place.

0918EF32-9E3C-4DAA-A877-EBF4CFCD3968.jpeg


0B6732C0-0CAE-4375-8DAC-7C7C509FCDAC.jpeg
 
Currently my beef is that the LOPs on most chasis are to long.


I agree. I like the infinite LOP adjustability of my XLR chassis. I don't really care for its cheekpiece mounting system, or how wide the cheekpiece is. Makes it difficult to get good line of sight with the scope eyepiece / reticle. Gotta kinda grind my fat face (which, technically isn't as fat as it used to be) into it to get centered up.


7097267



samb300 -

DOes this butstock have an adj cheekpiece on the horizontal axis (or diferent width cheeckpieces) ?
 
I agree. I like the infinite LOP adjustability of my XLR chassis. I don't really care for its cheekpiece mounting system, or how wide the cheekpiece is. Makes it difficult to get good line of sight with the scope eyepiece / reticle. Gotta kinda grind my fat face (which, technically isn't as fat as it used to be) into it to get centered up.


View attachment 7097267


samb300 -

DOes this butstock have an adj cheekpiece on the horizontal axis (or diferent width cheeckpieces) ?

The factory AX cheekpiece can adjust up and down and side-to-side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: garandman
6/29 update for everyone.

I talked to the machine shop, they are busy and behind schedule a bit, but have told me 2-3 more weeks to get the programming done. Then machining to follow soon after.

I’m hoping that means maybe 4-6 weeks until I have prototypes in hand. I’ll keep you guys posted!

Sam