Introducing the AI Obsession Chassis

#201
J-Ham said:
Saw that coming, haha! Well played, @lvmike.
Click to expand...

Have to try, it's a win-win imo haha

Edit to add: you could also confirm the folding AW stock (which looks like it attaches identically to the AT and AX stocks) could be utilized. That opens up all the old rifles folks like me have and not just the newer stuff. Wink wink
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MysizeisMAGNUM
#203
Nik H said:
@samb300

How is this coming along? Christmas season is coming
Click to expand...
It’s coming along. I’m waiting to get a couple of the chassis back Cerakoted for myself and @BLKWLFK9 to continue testing. All the accessories are out for anodizing and nitriding. The Team AI shooters have one in hand they’ll be testing as well. Next step beyond refining the design, is to seriously think about partnering with another company or pursuing these on my own. I would obviously love to partner with AI, but that relationship is yet to be seen at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patriots1884, BLKWLFK9 and AIAW
#204
samb300 said:
It’s coming along. I’m waiting to get a couple of the chassis back Cerakoted for myself and @BLKWLFK9 to continue testing. All the accessories are out for anodizing and nitriding. The Team AI shooters have one in hand they’ll be testing as well. Next step beyond refining the design, is to seriously think about partnering with another company or pursuing these on my own. I would obviously love to partner with AI, but that relationship is yet to be seen at this point.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we are a ways off from offering them to interested parties
 
#205
samb300 said:
It’s coming along. I’m waiting to get a couple of the chassis back Cerakoted for myself and @BLKWLFK9 to continue testing. All the accessories are out for anodizing and nitriding. The Team AI shooters have one in hand they’ll be testing as well. Next step beyond refining the design, is to seriously think about partnering with another company or pursuing these on my own. I would obviously love to partner with AI, but that relationship is yet to be seen at this point.
Click to expand...

I wish you would get a partnership with AI - for two reasons.

A) Obviously to see your business grow and prosper. You have a nice product, hands down.

B) To see AI passively admit that the bonding process was never truly helpful, outside of marketing.
 
#206
Nik H said:
Sounds like we are a ways off from offering them to interested parties
Click to expand...
Yes. I’m making no promises for availability. I have recently said I would aim for early to mid 2020 if I sold them myself, but that’s to be seen. I will certainly keep everyone posted as things progress.

One thing I want everyone to know is I am doing the prototyping and testing on my dime, so that if/when they are released publicly there are no bugs to be ironed out. I don’t care for new product releases that end up costing the customer a ton of time and money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS14, Patriots1884 and BLKWLFK9
#207
samb300 said:
Yes. I’m making no promises for availability. I have recently said I would aim for early to mid 2020 if I sold them myself, but that’s to be seen. I will certainly keep everyone posted as things progress.

One thing I want everyone to know is I am doing the prototyping and testing on my dime, so that if/when they are released publicly there are no bugs to be ironed out. I don’t care for new product releases that end up costing the customer a ton of time and money.
Click to expand...

Well I am a patient man...LOL. If you ever decide to build any further prototypes, let me know
 
#209
AIAW said:
I wish you would get a partnership with AI - for two reasons.

A) Obviously to see your business grow and prosper. You have a nice product, hands down.

B) To see AI passively admit that the bonding process was never truly helpful, outside of marketing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words. I’m hoping for a partnership as well, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

This chassis IS designed as a mirror image of the AT and AX, so it is intended to be bonded. I’m not saying there is or isn’t magic to the bonded interface, but as a first concept I wanted it to be the same as the current crop of rifles. I understand the ASR is not bonded, but also has a new 5-action screw design along with a new grip interface.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AIAW
#210
reubenski said:
I'm extremely curious as to the eventual price and how you might be recouping the costs of prototyping but I realize that would be extremely forward and uncouth to ask you to volunteer that info. Kudos to you for going out on a limb; very entrepreneur of you. I hope it comes back around and pays off. Very cool product.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

If I sold them myself, my goal will be to keep the chassis and accessories priced in line with other market leaders like MPA and MDT. That being said, for a “small time” operation like myself, the cost will somewhat depend on how many kits are ordered from the machine shop. Ordering 10 will cost a lot more per piece than ordering 100.

It is, and always will be, a hard sell for AI users, and I’ve always known this. Not only do you need to de-bond your factory rifle, but in essence you end up with a $4k action going into a new chassis and maybe an extra $800 for an AX buttstock. It’s not exactly the most economical solution to build a match rifle.

I hope people see that my company name Accuracy Obsession is a true moniker: I’ve been obsessed with AI rifles since I got my first one 4 years ago, and a lot of what I do is based on passion rather than profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS14, BLKWLFK9, Squibbler and 1 other person
#211
The allure of AI rifles for me was always the rugged field precision rifle that has a better than most chance of surviving any thing thrown at them. I think your chassis takes that system approach to the match rifle world.

I’m not really a match shooter but man the more I look at your chassis the more I can see in mine in one.

IF this takes off do you think different length forends will be offered? And would offering them in 7075 add a lot to manufacturing costs?
 
#213
Luvman said:
The allure of AI rifles for me was always the rugged field precision rifle that has a better than most chance of surviving any thing thrown at them. I think your chassis takes that system approach to the match rifle world.

I’m not really a match shooter but man the more I look at your chassis the more I can see in mine in one.

IF this takes off do you think different length forends will be offered? And would offering them in 7075 add a lot to manufacturing costs?
Click to expand...
I wanted this concept to be rugged and bomb proof as well, hence the bonded interface and still using the normal AI pistol grip and buttstock. To me, just because it’s a competition oriented chassis doesn’t mean it should give up what makes an AI an AI.

The current 13” forend length was chosen very carefully to allow the user to install and hand tighten 16” barrels. Any longer and it would start to impede that ability, which would restrict users to 18”+ barrels only. Not that I think any competition shooters use barrels that short, but a lot of AI customers have shorty 308 barrels and I didn’t want to exclude them. A longer forend certainly could be designed, but to what benefit I’m not entirely sure. As it is, the chassis forend is 13” long from the action face, and 15” long from the front of the magwell. That is longer than the current MPA chassis by 3”, and shorter than the ACC by 3”. The spigot I have designed extends that reach by 3” and is 1/2” closer to the bore axis. The spigot could also be designed to continue the RRS dovetail those 3”, rather than stepping up to be closer to the bore.

I looked at 7075 vs 6061, and I don’t believe for this application it’s worth the cost increase. Yes, 7075 is stronger in terms of yield and ultimate tensile strength, but the chassis is unlikely to ever be used in any way that would test even the yield strength. Where it does matter, the stiffness (Young’s Modulus), 7075 is practically the same as 6061. So you’d be paying more for a chassis that was almost identically stiff. This was proven out with FEA as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LeftyJason and Luvman
#214
samb300 said:
I wanted this concept to be rugged and bomb proof as well, hence the bonded interface and still using the normal AI pistol grip and buttstock. To me, just because it’s a competition oriented chassis doesn’t mean it should give up what makes an AI and AI.

The current 13” forend length was chosen very carefully to allow the user to install and hand tighten 16” barrels. Any longer and it would start to impede that ability, which would restrict users to 18”+ barrels only. Not that I think any competition shooters use barrels that short, but a lot of AI customers have shorty 308 barrels and I didn’t want to exclude them. A longer forend certainly could be designed, but to what benefit I’m not entirely sure. As it is, the chassis forend is 13” long from the action face, and 15” long from the front of the magwell. That is longer than the current MPA chassis by 3”, and shorter than the ACC by 3”. The spigot I have designed extends that reach by 3” and is 1/2” closer to the bore axis. The spigot could also be designed to continue the RRS dovetail those 3”, rather than stepping up to be closer to the bore.

I looked at 7075 vs 6061, and I don’t believe for this application it’s worth the cost increase. Yes, 7075 is stronger in terms of yield and ultimate tensile strength, but the chassis is unlikely to ever be used in any way that would test even the yield strength. Where it does matter, the stiffness (Young’s Modulus), 7075 is practically the same as 6061. So you’d be paying more for a chassis that was almost identically stiff. This was proven out with FEA as well.
Click to expand...

Makes sense.

I was wondering about shorter length forends. Since yours works with 16” barrels there’s not really much need for shorter. You’ve covered all the bases.

I really hope this takes off!
 
  • Like
Reactions: samb300
#215
Luvman said:
The allure of AI rifles for me was always the rugged field precision rifle that has a better than most chance of surviving any thing thrown at them. I think your chassis takes that system approach to the match rifle world.

I’m not really a match shooter but man the more I look at your chassis the more I can see in mine in one.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my position as well
 
#216
Not exactly sure what AI's game plan is for the ASR platform. Assuming they'll stay more focused on .gov needs. So, there any chance of taking your concept and applying to ASR platform?... When the short action version comes
 
#217
Squibbler said:
Not exactly sure what AI's game plan is for the ASR platform. Assuming they'll stay more focused on .gov needs. So, there any chance of taking your concept and applying to ASR platform?... When the short action version comes
Click to expand...
It’s definitely possible, especially knowing the ASR isn’t bonded. I have no idea what a short action variant would look like, they may or may not follow the same design as the long action multi-caliber.

That being said, I don’t know that I’ll have the means to jump out and buy one immediately, especially since I doubt the first run would include a LH version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squibbler
#218
Chassis #2 is painted and out in the wild. Unfortunately it got painted Dark Earth instead of green, but you get the idea. I just got mine back in sage green, along with the 3rd one also in Dark Earth for @BLKWLFK9

I also just received the spigot and NV bridge back from getting anodized, along with the 1.5# internal weight from getting black nitrided.

I have to de-bond the raw aluminum chassis I have, and put the freshly painted one together with the accessories. I will also try to take some comparison pictures of my action in an AT, AX, and Obsession chassis to show how they ride on a Game Changer.

D5074686-3864-4107-99F7-ED37133D5F05.jpeg

EFFAA1EE-E80D-48FC-B66E-C487F509D2EA.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: blbennett1288, Jeremy45, kthomas and 14 others
#222
@BLKWLFK9 thanks for going through the install and being the first person beside me to bond one together on your own. (Chassis #2 was done at the AI shop by a tech, so that doesn't really count haha)

Looks pretty damn good! Anyone that has ever wanted a modern forend with the old school thumbhole rear buttstock, this will be your jam. It will also work with the tradition AT pistol grip buttstock (fixed or folder), and of course the AX buttstock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psychosniper
#226
I've been putting in a lot of work on revising and improving the chassis for a production run. One of the big changes I'm thinking about doing is the switch from M-Lok to AI KeySlot. There are a few major reasons:

- Less interference with M-Lok pockets, which restrict the space inside the forend for a 1.25" straight taper barrel and all the accessories
- Ability to have thicker forend walls, which increase stiffness. Initial FEA is showing ~18% increase in vertical stiffness vs. the prototype.
- More space for internal weight --> goes from 1.5# on the prototype to 2.0#
- More robust NV Bridge, which is easier (and cheaper) to machine
- Users will already have AI pic rails if needed
- AI KeySlot tested to be stronger than M-Lok
- M-Lok is a pain in the butt to attach accessories to with the barrel in place, and can cause issues with barrel removal due to protruding screws

I will design a set of external weights for the chassis that will also work on the AX forend.

The only real downside is a limited accessory selection, but in reality what accessories are competition shooters using besides external weights and a 2-round quiver?

So what do you guys think? Other than not being able to use MDT external weights (and having to use proprietary external weights), do you think there are any downsides to the AI KeySlot interface? Would you rather have a more compromised overall design in order to have M-Lok?

EDIT: Looks like I jumped the gun. Pretty sure this is going to be a "NO" from AI in terms of allowing me to use their KeySlot interface for a production product. Back to M-Lok, I'll see what I can do to refine things for a production chassis - I already have a few things in work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RS14, bb505, jwood1284 and 3 others
#232
Unless something surprising happens, it sounds like AI will not be wanting me to use KeySlot on a production chassis as it is patented. Maybe that could change, but for now I'll focus on making the M-Lok version as good as I can.
 
#236
Eric32 said:
Yes so I assume no external weights for the keyslot either. Or is its only the receiving end that's the issue.
Click to expand...
I have some AX weights in work, I don’t think there’s any issue there. Or at least I hope there isn’t? I guess I never considered it an issue to design something that bolts to another rifle/interface.

I believe the issue is using the interface on the chassis itself, since the features are proprietary.
 
#237
samb300 said:
Unless something surprising happens, it sounds like AI will not be wanting me to use KeySlot on a production chassis as it is patented. Maybe that could change, but for now I'll focus on making the M-Lok version as good as I can.
Click to expand...
Did they send you a Cease and Desist Order yet for copying the chassis ?
 
#241
samb300 said:
I've been putting in a lot of work on revising and improving the chassis for a production run. One of the big changes I'm thinking about doing is the switch from M-Lok to AI KeySlot. There are a few major reasons:

- Less interference with M-Lok pockets, which restrict the space inside the forend for a 1.25" straight taper barrel and all the accessories
- Ability to have thicker forend walls, which increase stiffness. Initial FEA is showing ~18% increase in vertical stiffness vs. the prototype.
- More space for internal weight --> goes from 1.5# on the prototype to 2.0#
- More robust NV Bridge, which is easier (and cheaper) to machine
- Users will already have AI pic rails if needed
- AI KeySlot tested to be stronger than M-Lok
- M-Lok is a pain in the butt to attach accessories to with the barrel in place, and can cause issues with barrel removal due to protruding screws

I will design a set of external weights for the chassis that will also work on the AX forend.

The only real downside is a limited accessory selection, but in reality what accessories are competition shooters using besides external weights and a 2-round quiver?

So what do you guys think? Other than not being able to use MDT external weights (and having to use proprietary external weights), do you think there are any downsides to the AI KeySlot interface? Would you rather have a more compromised overall design in order to have M-Lok?

EDIT: Looks like I jumped the gun. Pretty sure this is going to be a "NO" from AI in terms of allowing me to use their KeySlot interface for a production product. Back to M-Lok, I'll see what I can do to refine things for a production chassis - I already have a few things in work.
Click to expand...
I am sure someone already asked.. but do you have anything in the works for a 700 foot pint/ AICS AX replacement?
 
#242
samb300 said:
No...should I be expecting something? I don’t think they intervened with the MPA-AT chassis. Their concern would be with the KeySlot patent as far as I’m aware.
Click to expand...

Does their patent cover the entire chassis or just the KeySlot because if its just the Keyslot as shown on their chassis couldn't you make one similar but with a square on both ends calling it a BoxSlot ?
 
#245
Diver160651 said:
I am sure someone already asked.. but do you have anything in the works for a 700 foot pint/ AICS AX replacement?
Click to expand...
It’s definitely possible. I’ve kicked the idea around for myself for a 22 or centerfire trainer rifle with the exact same ergos as the Obsession chassis. I need to get this completed first before I pursue an R700 version. I will also need @Crabcore ’s AX chassis in hand to get measurements from haha
 
#246
candyx said:
Does their patent cover the entire chassis or just the KeySlot because if its just the Keyslot as shown on their chassis couldn't you make one similar but with a square on both ends calling it a BoxSlot ?
Click to expand...
I can barely afford to make any more of these chassis, and I definitely can’t afford a lawyer to fight for “BoxSlot” ?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RS14 and candyx
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bravo6niner
SOLD SOLD AI ATX chassis . Fits the AI short action $1500 shipped
Replies
3
Views
313
Bravo6niner
Bravo6niner
Screach
Vision Chassis/ KRG Buttstock Question
Replies
11
Views
451
Screach
Screach
C
Accuracy International AT-X
Replies
1
Views
533
eyekahn
E
sasquatch98226
Chassis options for AI?
Replies
5
Views
443
hafejd30
hafejd30
RonBurgundyy
Chassis Selection: Vision Vs AI AT-X
Replies
11
Views
375
JR1200W3
JR1200W3
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts