My, "I hate chassis" Rant

#52
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not hog them out, because for the money we are talking I should never have to turn a machine on... drop them in and head on out, this is up to the manufacturer to fix the issue.

  </div></div>

Frank, that comment was directed at the manufacturers. I am in complete agreement with you. The end user shouldn't have to modify anything!
 
#53
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rideHPD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a .315 on my 700 and have gods plenty of room in my mcree. </div></div>

What's the width? </div></div>

Just measured mine, depth = .550", width = 1.395" (COATED), Length = .600

 
#54
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

Not that it's breaking news, but it's threads like this that make me wonder. Why are people willing to pay 2500 for a chassis when we have a group of guys like Manners, AI, XLR, McCree, who produce one in the 1000 dollar price point and they do it well.

Whats a 2500 dollar chassis do that a Manners mini or AI AX doesn't? The military might be good with paying 250 for a toilet seat, to me it better be a lot more than a place to park my ass for more than 30 bucks. The average consumer doesn't have deep pockets and we have more control than manufacturers want to admit. Refuse to pay a premium if it doesn't do anything products already on the market do for less and it forces them to lower prices, innovate, or fade into oblivion.
 
#55
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

Because it is not so cut and dry. Even the lower end ones are not accommodating the larger lugs. Only one has been identified as working and it's not one I use. The others all need to be custom ordered ahead of time or milled out. Not for nothing either because I stated it more than once, Manners is a stock, not a complete chassis. The mini chassis is not a chassis in the context I am speaking.

There are some obvious features, and finish differences, as well once you use them the comfort level is noticeably there.

I use a ton of AI and AX chassis, but sometimes I want something else. If we let the builders know where they can improve the chassis, well problem solved.
 
#56
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because it is not so cut and dry. Even the lower end ones are not accommodating the larger lugs. Only one has been identified as working and it's not one I use. The others all need to be custom ordered ahead of time or milled out. Not for nothing either because I stated it more than once, Manners is a stock, not a complete chassis. The mini chassis is not a chassis in the context I am speaking.

There are some obvious features, and finish differences, as well once you use them the comfort level is noticeably there.

I use a ton of AI and AX chassis, but sometimes I want something else. If we let the builders know where they can improve the chassis, well problem solved. </div></div>

I hear you on wanting to change things up a bit. I also agree that letting them know is key. If they don't know there's a problem, they can't fix it. However, like you said earlier, it might occur to guys charging 2000+ for a stock that somebody may drop a custom action in with some improvements, an obvious one being a larger lug.

I will have to say hi if I see you out at CRC, especially if you have one of these high end chassis systems with you. I've never had the opportunity to get on one and if you say there's that much of a difference, I tend to believe you. While they aren't out of my budget, per se, its more than I'd be willing to spend on their word that it's that much better.

I know on the fly adjustments are sometimes a noted feature, I think Ashbury has a lot of that push the button and adjust whatever feature going on. While I think that makes sense in Military or LE settings where different people may be on the same gun, I'm not sure it makes sense for the competition or recreation shooter to pay extra for when you are going to set it once and leave it.

I guess my point was I think we have features that are attractive to one market, and priced for that market, being offered to another and it may not be as important there, if that makes sense. I'm sure it's not practical as different features require all kinds of R&D and tooling to make them happen, but I sort of feel like a chassis that costs twice as much should be twice as good.

I suppose that's where my lack of time on different systems shows.
 
#57
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

I have a Stiller Tac 30 on a KRG W3, it fits perfect. Plenty of room up front of the lug. Had to fit my Jewell trigger, however, but not a big deal. I imagine the biggest problem is if the custom actions aren't a perfect 700 match. One cunt hair can fuck your whole day up!
 
#58
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

My Stiller came with a 3/16" lug and when I questioned them about it, they said it would be fine. It is going in an AI chassis which has a .250" slot I believe. The idea of there being space in front of that lug is driving me insane. I start the machine work and assembly on this rifle next week. I suspect I will end up filling the void with Marine Tex so I can sleep at night. It is one of those situations where what I am being told doesn't match what I always believed to be right. (lug should fit snug into chassis)
 
#59
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

I will temper my rant to say,

I just pulled out my Ashbury Chassis and it works. The recoil lug area is both wide and deep enough with my custom rifles that didn't work in the other chassis.

Also Ashbury has the best overall package in terms of instruction, manuals, etc. They detail every inch of the chassis.
 
#60
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will temper my rant to say,

I just pulled out my Ashbury Chassis and it works. The recoil lug area is both wide and deep enough with my custom rifles that didn't work in the other chassis.

Also Ashbury has the best overall package in terms of instruction, manuals, etc. They detail every inch of the chassis.

</div></div>

The Ashbury is a nice system but my biggest complaints are they cant get the new middle sections out to accommodate different actions and that really limits your build. The rail section is really loose without that top full length rail. It is a nice chassis but for the money I expected a little better fitment of their components.

I should also disclose that assembled properly, this is the most comfortable chassis on the market IMHO, right there with the AX.
 
#61
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

The beautiful thing about posts like these is that hopefully manufacturers will listen and change for the consumer. Thanks to SH, and Al Gore, for the ability to have info like this!

Until then I would suggest a chassis thread where we list all the manufacturers and the size of the lug area. The unfortunate thing for those of you pulling your hair out (may be a bad choice of words for you Frank) this doesn't help.

Can you imagine the lack of progress if we didn't have websites like this?

 
#62
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

Since we have the lug are covered down on already for our chassis, I'd like to hear what other things shooters here are looking for. We have some exciting new things in the pipeline so now is a good time for this kind of thing.

justin
 
#63
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Massoud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since we have the lug are covered down on already for our chassis, I'd like to hear what other things shooters here are looking for. We have some exciting new things in the pipeline so now is a good time for this kind of thing.

justin </div></div>

Interchangeable cheek pieces. That little piece of plastic is just not comfortable for prolonged shooting sessions.
 
#65
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

Ya, the Butt section of the Cadex, APO, and AX are much more comfortable to use and I really like the adjustments.

Honestly, i think these butts stocks, with the AI being on the lower end, moving up in features from there, are what sets these chassis apart. They are so comfortable, highly adjustable, fit well, and give the shooter plenty of options. The for-ends while similarly different, aren't really the stand out portions. I will say, for positional work the AX fits me the best as the placement and design of the pad in front of the magazine is on the money.

When you look at all 3s butt stocks, you are looking at the best part and why I opt for chassis.
 
#66
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

.

I would like a chassi that folds to the side of the bolt handle, protecting it.

It would make a much thinner package when folded.


LRCampos.
 
#67
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRCampos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.

I would like a chassi that folds to the side of the bolt handle, protecting it.

It would make a much thinner package when folded.


LRCampos.</div></div>


They Cadex does, however it will not work as intended with an oversized bolt knob. You can lift the bolt and it works, but it doesn't capture the bolt like it will with a stock remington handle.
 
#68
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will temper my rant to say,

I just pulled out my Ashbury Chassis and it works. The recoil lug area is both wide and deep enough with my custom rifles that didn't work in the other chassis.

Also Ashbury has the best overall package in terms of instruction, manuals, etc. They detail every inch of the chassis.

</div></div>


The Ashbury is a nice system but my biggest complaints are they cant get the new middle sections out to accommodate different actions and that really limits your build. The rail section is really loose without that top full length rail. It is a nice chassis but for the money I expected a little better fitment of their components.

I should also disclose that assembled properly, this is the most comfortable chassis on the market IMHO, right there with the AX. </div></div>
When you say the rail section is loose, do you mean the for-end? I have a Mod 0 here and cant find any part of it that could be considered loose.
 
#69
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

frown.gif
sad....don't even have a precision rifle to be part of the Rant.
 
#70
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Keith Johns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's more than just chassis systems.


We rarely can just drop in a "drop-in" part.

Always modifying stocks and chassis alike.


I have a $2700 chassis in shop right now that doesn't fit the action/lug! They swore up and down it would fit.

Laugh out loud.
</div></div>

This.
 
#71
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bward</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will temper my rant to say,

I just pulled out my Ashbury Chassis and it works. The recoil lug area is both wide and deep enough with my custom rifles that didn't work in the other chassis.

Also Ashbury has the best overall package in terms of instruction, manuals, etc. They detail every inch of the chassis.

</div></div>


The Ashbury is a nice system but my biggest complaints are they cant get the new middle sections out to accommodate different actions and that really limits your build. The rail section is really loose without that top full length rail. It is a nice chassis but for the money I expected a little better fitment of their components.

I should also disclose that assembled properly, this is the most comfortable chassis on the market IMHO, right there with the AX. </div></div>
When you say the rail section is loose, do you mean the for-end? I have a Mod 0 here and cant find any part of it that could be considered loose. </div></div>

I've had 3 chassis from Ashbury so far. One of them was running a Templar Action that was physically the same as a Remington 700. Without that top full length rail the fore end was touch the barrel once fired. I could see the rub marks and it jacked with the accuracy.

I really wish AO would make that carbon fiber fore end ventilated somehow. My only other beef with them is the fact that you get no air hitting that barrel. Cool downs seem prolonged. The rig I did keep that was built using the Rem700 action is a hell of a shooter though and one of my most comfortable rifles I own.
 
#72
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

That makes sense about the air not hitting the barrel. I just mounted my rifle in mine and will take it out Monday so I will see if it hits under recoil. It's a very heavy contour so there isn't a lot of clearance.
 
#73
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TxShooter63</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My Stiller came with a 3/16" lug and when I questioned them about it, they said it would be fine. It is going in an AI chassis which has a .250" slot I believe. The idea of there being space in front of that lug is driving me insane. I start the machine work and assembly on this rifle next week. I suspect I will end up filling the void with Marine Tex so I can sleep at night. It is one of those situations where what I am being told doesn't match what I always believed to be right. (lug should fit snug into chassis) </div></div>

You dont want it tight in the front of the lug. If the lug touches on the front, sides or bottom it can cause problems. I would not marinetex around it. When bedding a rifle, most people put tape on the sides and front of the lug to make sure there is a gap when it is done.

What do you think the gap will do to cause you to lose sleep?? Now lack of a gap my cause me to lose sleep.

stiller
 
#74
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

Marine-tex in front of the lug will do nothing. Think about the way the rifle recoils and you will understand this. My Stiller/KRG is shooting 5 shot groups in .30moa range with factory FGMM. I dont see how this can be improved much if any. My biggest problem is vertical stringing when my barrel gets too.
 
#76
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Massoud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since we have the lug are covered down on already for our chassis, I'd like to hear what other things shooters here are looking for. We have some exciting new things in the pipeline so now is a good time for this kind of thing.

justin </div></div>

Take a lot of weight off of the tikka chassis...
wink.gif
 
#78
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ShtrRdy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can I ask a dumb question - why do the lugs need to be wider and deeper than a standard 700 lug? I even question the need to be thicker too.</div></div>

because the ladies like it...
wink.gif
 
#79
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ShtrRdy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can I ask a dumb question - why do the lugs need to be wider and deeper than a standard 700 lug? I even question the need to be thicker too. </div></div>

I wondered this myself on most short action rounds. I guess I can understand on a .338. but for .308 and 6.5mm?
 
#80
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ShtrRdy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can I ask a dumb question - why do the lugs need to be wider and deeper than a standard 700 lug? I even question the need to be thicker too.</div></div>

Marketing
 
#81
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ShtrRdy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can I ask a dumb question - why do the lugs need to be wider and deeper than a standard 700 lug? I even question the need to be thicker too. </div></div>

Sure there are plenty here who know much more than I do (or ever will) but my understanding for the oversized lugs are as follows;

-Aftermarket lugs are precision ground (I have seen some horrible stock 700 lugs) and the idea is to keep everything squared up
-Aftermarket lugs are made oversized to afford more "bearing surface" when used in a composite stock which will be bedded

Now the trend seems to be leaning heavily towards chassis stocks and the need for an oversized lug seems less important. I do however feel the need for one that exceeds the stock remington in regards to the surfaces being ground correctly. This is even more important with a chasis in which there will be a metal to metal fit of the lug to the channel.

There are precision ground "stock 700" sized lugs available (just look in a Brownells catalog) but most opt for the oversized when having a rifle built. If you know from the start you are going to use a chassis then I cant see any harm is using a stock sized lug...but if you knew ahead of time thats what your plan would be you could have just had the smith mill mill the chassis just as easily.
 
#83
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Markusltr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That mean my Rem 700 ltr with badger Lug wont fit Aics AX chassi? </div></div>
No, that does not mean that
 
#84
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

When i had my M24 clone built i wanted only a factory recoil lug. The lug was surface ground by the gunsmith and it is installed on the gun and working fine. I prefer a factory lug thats surface ground. I see no reason for a fat recoil lug over a surface ground factory one.

Heath
 
#86
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Anchor Zero Six</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Sure there are plenty here who know much more than I do (or ever will) but my understanding for the oversized lugs are as follows;

-Aftermarket lugs are precision ground (I have seen some horrible stock 700 lugs) and the idea is to keep everything squared up
-Aftermarket lugs are made oversized to afford more "bearing surface" when used in a composite stock which will be bedded

Now the trend seems to be leaning heavily towards chassis stocks and the need for an oversized lug seems less important. I do however feel the need for one that exceeds the stock remington in regards to the surfaces being ground correctly. This is even more important with a chasis in which there will be a metal to metal fit of the lug to the channel.

There are precision ground "stock 700" sized lugs available (just look in a Brownells catalog) but most opt for the oversized when having a rifle built. If you know from the start you are going to use a chassis then I cant see any harm is using a stock sized lug...but if you knew ahead of time thats what your plan would be you could have just had the smith mill mill the chassis just as easily. </div></div>

Thanks for you thoughts. Those are good points. I can certainly see the need for precision ground lug, and possibly for a larger bearing surface when going into a composite stock, and possibly thicker for the really hard kickers.

- Todd
 
#88
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

On lugs thicknesses...

Thin Remington lugs are more of a pain in the butt to tape off for bedding than the thicker lugs.
.250-.300" thick lugs with a 9(or so) degree taper are very nice to work with.

Not to mention flatness. PTGs lugs are usually within .0002 flat. Maybe even better but thats the best I can measure.


.250" tapered SS is the way to go. Easy to work with, stiff enough, and small enough that you aren't cutting the stock in half sinking the lug into it.

We usually trim .100 off the bottom too.
 
#90
Re: My, "I hate chassis" Rant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Keith Johns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone please make a no bull-shit 10/22 chassis. For tactical 22
Molded polymer around an aluminum frame. Not an AR lego chassis either.

I might have to make just one and show it off
smile.gif
</div></div>

Maybe I'll give it a shot as well, no molded polymer though for me, I only know how to work with metal. I wonder if the Haas mini mill has a big enough work envelope to do it, worth a shot, make a great semester project. Thanks for the idea, I've been trying to figure out what to build this semester.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CST
Tikka durability question
Replies
75
Views
3K
YotaEer
YotaEer
stello1001
Gunsmithing Can i get an opinion on this bedding job
Replies
19
Views
1K
stello1001
stello1001
Z
PRICE CHANGE - Zermatt Arms Chassis - The Matterhorn
Replies
62
Views
4K
JR1200W3
JR1200W3
sasquatch98226
Chassis options for AI?
Replies
5
Views
443
hafejd30
hafejd30
C
EBay Beever156 M40 stock compared to original spec.
Replies
2
Views
515
Chris831
C
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts