That will likely compress the hell out of it.Its to be 20 MB or less, or you can always send it through Facebook Messenger to us as well.
-Anthony
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That will likely compress the hell out of it.Its to be 20 MB or less, or you can always send it through Facebook Messenger to us as well.
-Anthony
Likely, but for the most part, we can still see what we need to.That will likely compress the hell out of it.
I’m a millennial of course I do.@TheOE800 - you have FB acct? Perhaps you can send @GBMaryland vid to MDT?
If you're at the point at which you're trying to use the very last grooves on the cheekriser rods, then you're definitely running your cheekriser SUPER high! This is not a case that we ran into anytime during the chassis/buttstock development, so I am intrigued on your optic, base and ring height setup that requires you to run the cheekriser so high?I may not work for the CSIS, but nevertheless, I don’t have Facebook either.
I’m currently conversing with the gentleman from your support desk who has recommended I pull the springs out of the mechanism to see if that suddenly fixes the issue about being able to properly torque down the thumb screw.
To be honest, I kind of find that to be more than a little kludgy. I’ll do it for testing purposes, but that’s not a great solution.
Part of the problem is likely because the bottom part of the cheek piece studs is not treaded for what appears to be about 1 to 2 mm. My suspicion is that it gets stuck into the mechanism, preventing it from being able to properly grab the studs, and requiring enough extra pressure that it’s probably not good for the overall mechanism.View attachment 8176104
For right now, since we haven't seen this issue, we are exploring the possibilities, so it's just ruling out there isn't an issue that is causing it to bind or the spring rate is too high to overcome.I’m currently conversing with the gentleman from your support desk who has recommended I pull the springs out of the mechanism to see if that suddenly fixes the issue about being able to properly torque down the thumb screw.
I sent the OE800 the video... mayhaps the younger crowd can post it for you.I’m a millennial of course I do.
ARC 1.5in 34mm 20moa mount, S&B 6-36x56 PM IIIf you're at the point at which you're trying to use the very last grooves on the cheekriser rods, then you're definitely running your cheekriser SUPER high! This is not a case that we ran into anytime during the chassis/buttstock development, so I am intrigued on your optic, base and ring height setup that requires you to run the cheekriser so high?
If this is a common occurrence, we can always look at building extenders for the cheekriser, but this is a first for me!
- Josh
And while those are high rings they are not unusually high and, IMO, they are not a corner of the operating envelope case.ARC 1.5in 34mm 20moa mount, S&B 6-36x56 PM II
It's not necessarily the height of the scope that is surprising to us, as you're right, 1.50" high rings are fairly standard. The very surprising part is that we intentionally raised the buttstock height to be more in line with the bore, and as such, the minimum/maximum height of the cheekriser also shifted upwards 0.5 in or so. That being said, everyone runs their rifles a little different and everyone has different preferences, so we're working on a solution to raise the maximum height just that little bit more!And while those are high rings they are not unusually high and, IMO, they are not a corner of the operating envelope case.
And the tube is 34mm and not 36 like a ZCO so there is an extra mm compared to that big tube scope.
It’s sent.I sent the OE800 the video... mayhaps the younger crowd can post it for you.
@GBMaryland and I both have high super model cheekbones so we need a high comb.It's not necessarily the height of the scope that is surprising to us, as you're right, 1.50" high rings are fairly standard. The very surprising part is that we intentionally raised the buttstock height to be more in line with the bore, and as such, the minimum/maximum height of the cheekriser also shifted upwards 0.5 in or so. That being said, everyone runs their rifles a little different and everyone has different preferences, so we're working on a solution to raise the maximum height just that little bit more!
- Josh
Can I hate you for something else? Kidding!@GBMaryland and I both have high super model cheekbones so we need a high comb.
Don't hate us because we are beautiful! LOLOLOL And if you ever actually saw me you would know how funny that line is! haha
Cheers and look forward to seeing the solution you come up with.
Sure...why not...everybody else does! hahahaCan I hate you for something else?
Hmm, so many things to choose from, then...Sure...why not...everybody else does! hahaha
As for LOP rods, not for me....but perhaps @GBMaryland would like to try them as interim solution. And I believe @TheOE800 has same issue but perhaps to a lesser extent after he reversed the orientation of the mechanism. Both GB and TheOE are home boys to me.
Me....I'm planning to buy another chassis soon, looked at and handled @GBMaryland 's and compared it to another top shelf chassis that he has, and I really liked the ACC Elite more.
But, I do need a very high comb...really higher than most folks I know of. Hence my keen interest.
Thanks for the reply....I've always found you guys to be very responsive here on the Hide and for the few inquiries I've sent to MDT on other subjects.
Cheers
Fair; our idea for the highest position is actually probably going to help you out with that as well.Like I said, I think my wobble is mostly resolved and I run my cheek riser probably lower than @GBMaryland as I simply have a smaller build and wide rather than high cheekbones. That said, with the rods more solidly retained in the clamp I’m able to create deflection in the riser as pretty much half of it is unsupported once adjusted all the way rearward, as would be common to most any short action.
Best to keep it in the e-mail so we have a direct line of communication, but swap the spring. There is one on the LOP as well; swap their positions.@MDT_OFFICIAL Any thoughts?
So you got one for me and one for @GBMaryland ?For anyone wondering about the bag riders from Australian Tactical Precision, here they are. Aluminum so they're lightweight.
I ordered 3 of the largest sizes. Shipping was 5 days from Australia.
Fit was perfect and is now completely parallel to the forearm.
View attachment 8180844
View attachment 8180840View attachment 8180843
So the official deal with the spring is that it didn’t work at all…Best to keep it in the e-mail so we have a direct line of communication, but swap the spring. There is one on the LOP as well; swap their positions.
-Anthony
Fair; our idea for the highest position is actually probably going to help you out with that as well.
-Anthony
Besides the whole cerakote blunder, and the ever increasing money invested once you add things to the chassis, I’d say I’m overall very happy with mine after… looks like about 4 months since I got mine.
I can’t pin any degradation in precision on the chassis, it enables the rest of the equipment to do its job. I’ve only had the buttstock come loose once after flying with it. I’m still not thrilled about the less than ideal angle you have to try and tighten it, but I put red loctite on it this time so I think it’ll stay tight better.
Another minor issue, which is more of an issue with my action than the chassis I believe, is the lone peak rear tang with its faceted faces tends to start digging into the aluminum of a chassis (had it happen on multiple) and then loosen enough to slide ever so slightly under recoil. I did a skim bed (which I had to do with it before on another aluminum chassis) and that solved the issue.
I’m happy, lackluster cerakote response and price aside.
It would dig two “tracks” at the contact points in the rear tang area of my whiskey 3 also. Let me grab a pic to show what I’m talking about.That's fair feedback; we do recommend a 5/16 Allan key to give it the last little bit since, yes, the ball end we include can make it a bit more difficult to get that last little bit.
Interesting on the action. We did add some new features to the ACC ELite to better support the action screws. Specifically, they are resting on a steel bushing, and supplied washers are meant for tuning the screw height relative to the needs of the action. What other chassis systems did it loosen up in?
-Anthony
I saw this myself at @GBMaryland house just a week or two ago.Thank you for the review and very interesting outcome. Not familiar with the other chassis systems, so I can't really comment about, but it's strange you were able to do this on the Elite and not the Premier, as the Elite is substantially thicker and stiffer in all regards. Do you run weights in the premier but not in the Elite?
-Anthony
That is a nice looking gun.Oh and here is another CDG/Elite build to look at.
I saw this myself at @GBMaryland house just a week or two ago.
I didn’t take notes…and I have a 70 y.o. memory, but my dim recollection is that it appeared that the forend twisted along its longitudinal axis with gentle movement of the barrel muzzle.
I must be admit I was gobsmacked when observing this.
And when he put on NVG/control bridge parts the flex went away in his gun room and the silly group sizes at the e range came back to expected.
If you say the Elite is beefier, I’ll certainly not cast doubt on your honesty. But apparently they didn’t beef it up in the right place(s).
As far as I can see, there are two main reasons to use a chassis. 1) configurability and 2) it should be a stiff, non-flexing, hunk of aluminum.
Try what @GBMaryland described as a test. It was very easily apparent when he did it.
C
And that is fair, but that bipod isn't mounted to a bench; it supports the weight of the rifle, but not a bench that would be considerably heavier and likely bolted to something. My bench at home I use is 300 pounds and has 4" framing screws going into studs.@GBMaryland
Please address @MDT_OFFICIAL (Anthony’s) question about “the rifle is shooting”. Think you had a startling difference in group size with the Elite without and then with the NVG and Control Bridges installed.
Both were with bipod installed at the far end of the ARCA as would most any of us do.
Also, when I’m over your place today, if you want to make a vid of this, I’m willing to help.
Cheers
I don’t have to muscle it… All I have to do is take my index finger and slightly push on the end of the barrel, and the whole rear of the gun will move a quarter of an inch from side to side. It can also be done if I grab the end of the butt stock and twist it slightly. (the lack of significant force required to do this cannot be overstated.)And that is fair, but that bipod isn't mounted to a bench; it supports the weight of the rifle, but not a bench that would be considerably heavier and likely bolted to something. My bench at home I use is 300 pounds and has 4" framing screws going into studs.
Im not disputing the fact that you can muscle the barrel around when leveraging the chassis at maximum mechanical effort. Im saying I don't agree with the testing conditions that fact that weren't able to be replicated on an ACC Premier. It seems like there is a lot of information that hasn't been stated here.
-Anthony