New Manners TCS-MAX

[CK1.0]

New Manners TCS-MAX for 2025…

https://mannersstocks.com/mcs-tcs-max/

Personally, I’m kind of underwhelmed, as the new one seems to balance exactly the same way as my first generation old one with the original steel rail they offered originally already does (the new one is just a little heavier overall). The new one just seems to help fix the problem with the newer TCS stocks that come with the lighter aluminum rails they moved to over the last couple/few years being tough to balance right (which was a poor decision to move to IMHO when compared to the early steel railed ones).

Things I think were missed or weren’t addressed are the grip to trigger distance is still too long for anyone who doesn’t wear XL-sized gloves, and I was hoping they’d make the forearm longer to get the bipod out further and add more real estate, maybe with mlok on the sides instead of the Sike’s rails to add weights or whatever out front, etc. I also don’t dig that they require bottom metal now as the mini-chassis was already pretty sweet (it maybe just needed an adjustable mag catch for some).

 

[GenericBadGuy]

Yeah, in my opinion this wasn't really much of an improvement justifying the new price.

If I'm buying a Manners, I would prefer an integrated chassis.

The weight balancing can be solved with a heavier rail. But in any case the weight balancing just seems over-rated as an improvement from the normal TCS.

I think they need to consider making a carbon fiber wrapped stock around a full aluminum chassis. Something that could take side mlok weights instead.

 

[R_A_W]

I'm not a huge fan of any version of the mini chassis... If I were ordering a TCS I'd want to bring my own bottom metal

I don't really see the need for 8lb 14oz though... I had my TCS @ 7.5lb with a 360 precision rail & that was more than enough with a 28" comp contour. Total weight was over 21lb.

I assume Manners will continue to make the old version as well?

 

[drglock]

Things I think were missed or weren’t addressed are the grip to trigger distance is still too long for anyone who doesn’t wear XL-sized gloves,

This right here is why I didn’t go with the TCS and I really wanted to but the grip distance was a deal breaker for me.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Manners is going to go the way of mcmillian. Nothing new or revolutionary and there is so much competition out there from greyboe to MDT. The wait times are obscene and their quality is not what it used to be. I expect to see their market share continue to drop over time.

 

[Lawnboi]

This right here is why I didn’t go with the TCS and I really wanted to but the grip distance was a deal breaker for me.

This is exactly what keeps me rom buying more manners.


If they did a spacer system like on the lrh but on a grip to move it fore and aft it would be awesome.

 

[J_D]

Same. I had several TCS chassis but overall, one inch less LOP and trigger distance was a deal breaker. Sold all of them. Foundation is where I’m at.

 

[King_beardsly]

I was a little excited when I first heard about it, then I realized it’s essentially a night stalker with some tweeks and a heavy price tag. I love my PRS’1 and was pumped to get a TCS coming my way but the wait time is ridiculous for something that’s supposed to be universal fit, I also noticed attention to detail has sorta slipped a little bit.

 

[TheOE800]

Things I think were missed or weren’t addressed are the grip to trigger distance is still too long for anyone who doesn’t wear XL-sized gloves

Preach

 

[CK1.0]

FWIW, I'm actually a Manners fan and am going to be sticking with my first gen TCS for a while... I was just hoping for a more substantial update is all.

I've tried a couple of other stocks/chassis (MDT ACC Elite, Foundation Centurion) and still find the TCS works best for me (for now).

 

[ma smith]

IMHO this is a major step-forward in chassis design-concept, if not execution.

They finally did the math on how to aligh centre of gravity with centre of balance...

 

[ma smith]

This you-tube vid direct link for anyone who maybe didn't see it.

 

[Deardorff]

I still don't understand the ridiculous trigger reach. I don't think any other stock or chassis system out there has such a long trigger reach. Guess i'll have to stick with Foundation.

 

[ma smith]

Nothing new or revolutionary...

Moving the CoG 9 inches forward is a big deal...

 

[ma smith]

I still don't understand the ridiculous trigger reach. I don't think any other stock or chassis system out there has such a long trigger reach. Guess i'll have to stick with Foundation.

I'm in the group that would like to see trigger reach be adjustable for all target competition rifles. Ideally it would be nice to have options like the Macmillian U10 vs U1, etc with closer geometry of the entire grip as needed. Also, IMHO we should get adjustable trigger shoes like old Sako/Anschutz and other EU rifles, with known excellent triggers that can fit multiple hand geometries.

 

[CK1.0]

Moving the CoG 9 inches forward is a big deal...

Except they already did it in 2020 before switching to the cheaper/inferior/lighter aluminum rails…

Old, gen 1 TCS (2020) with original steel rail:

 

[ma smith]

Would you mind popping out your BA and measuring the balance point of the empty stock? It might be very interesting to test these claims empirically. You would need to do this on a narrow balance point, like .75 inch (nominal 1x wood).

I don't pretend to be an expert in manners history, I'm just noting these guys are doing the hidden steps that are non-obvious to make their claims credibly (if not actually) true. That means, IMHO, somebody did some proper analysis in addition to marginal tweaks.

A key piece of evidence is there is an emphasis on lightening the back-end of the stock, not just weighting it out front.

 

[st1650]

Maybe they should work on reducing their lead time rather than offer a new line ?

 

[st1650]

I'm in the group that would like to see trigger reach be adjustable for all target competition rifles. Ideally it would be nice to have options like the Macmillian U10 vs U1, etc with closer geometry of the entire grip as needed. Also, IMHO we should get adjustable trigger shoes like old Sako/Anschutz and other EU rifles, with known excellent triggers that can fit multiple hand geometries.

My DTA has adjustable trigger shoe... I'll never understand how come with the dozens of 3rd party R700 triggers, none of them are adjustable. Even BnA you can swap the shoe, but can't adjust the distance.
I'm on the opposite side where I use XXXL gloves and even with the MDT elite grip maxed out, I wish I'd have more distance. The foundation stock the pull is usually a bit too close for proper index but somehow I shot them great.

 

[CK1.0]

Would you mind popping out your BA and measuring the balance point of the empty stock? It might be very interesting to test these claims empirically. You would need to do this on a narrow balance point, like .75 inch (nominal 1x wood).

I don't pretend to be an expert in manners history, I'm just noting these guys are doing the hidden steps that are non-obvious to make their claims credibly (if not actually) true. That means, IMHO, somebody did some proper analysis in addition to marginal tweaks.

A key piece of evidence is there is an emphasis on lightening the back-end of the stock, not just weighting it out front.

My gun is shooting great right now so I'm not going to pull the BA just for this... but I promise I was already planning on doing what you asked and seeing where my "old" stock balances on something thin to see where its CoG is located.

I'm no expert on Manners' history either, and my experience with them has been great, but I'd tend to guess that no one was truly honest with the HMFIC about what updates might be needed or should be made (especially with months of existing backed-up orders on the original TCS)..? Telling the boss man that the expensive molds that he already owns are just fine and good enough and that there were only some small tweaks that needed to be made to update the TCS to being a contender again in the PRS/NRL space may have got someone at Manners a pat on the back, but IMHO it sort of looks like someone didn't give the man honest feedback and a proper critique of where things are at in the market in 2025.

If I worked for Manners I'd have told Tom that he absolutely had to address the grip to trigger reach, lighten up the rear end, and lengthen the forend, and then would have suggested some updates off of that. I wear an XL size glove so the TCS fits me well, but I'm not everybody and closer to Yeti-sized than average lol, so someone should have mentioned that kind of thing...

 

[st1650]

That's one of my complaint about the Foundation as well. They're too heavy on the rear, requiring an insane amount of weight up front and the fore-end is too short.

 

[Entropicitis]

Would you mind popping out your BA and measuring the balance point of the empty stock? It might be very interesting to test these claims empirically. You would need to do this on a narrow balance point, like .75 inch (nominal 1x wood).

I don't pretend to be an expert in manners history, I'm just noting these guys are doing the hidden steps that are non-obvious to make their claims credibly (if not actually) true. That means, IMHO, somebody did some proper analysis in addition to marginal tweaks.

A key piece of evidence is there is an emphasis on lightening the back-end of the stock, not just weighting it out front.

Why does it matter how the empty stock balances?

 

[ma smith]

This is my attempt to same-scale each stock for reference.If this is correct, the changes to the rear is evident. There is some evident fore-arm extension. The grip area looks unchanged.

 

[ma smith]

Why does it matter how the empty stock balances?

Physics 101.

If you know the mass and balance point of two objects independently,
you can add them up using maths to get the combined CoG.

If you are asking why the rifle balance CoG is important,
thats a different question.

 

[R_A_W]

None of my stocks or chassis have balanced in front of the mag well empty (without the BA)

I got my empty TCS to ~7.5lb with the 360 precision steel rail. G3 Razors are fatties too. 30” MTU, balance point was >4” in front of mag well

 

[R_A_W]

There is some evident fore-arm extension.

I’m 99% sure that occured before the Max, probably when MCS changed the grip texture. See my pic above

 

[ma smith]

It's pretty common for PRS chassis to balance at ± bolt notch. EG the MDT elite without weights (±6lb) balances there.

 

[Maurygold]

I still don't understand the ridiculous trigger reach. I don't think any other stock or chassis system out there has such a long trigger reach. Guess i'll have to stick with Foundation.

This!!

I was so disappointed when my t4a showed up with a stupid long trigger pull. It's so unlike anythign else (not in a good way at all). I can't understand what 7'6" monster told them it was comfortable and then they whole sale adopted.

They should just "innovate" a normal trigger pull

 

[J_D]

That’s been a thing forever and they just don’t care. They obviously sell enough not too. I went to the MDT JAE. It’s pretty awesome.

 

[CK1.0]

This is my attempt to same-scale each stock for reference.If this is correct, the changes to the rear is evident. There is some evident fore-arm extension. The grip area looks unchanged.

View attachment 8591937

I think your scaling is off/wonky lol…

The only changes made to the rear end is a bit of aluminum instead of steel with the KMW hardware and supposedly/allegedly them tweaking the fill a bit. The forearm didn’t get any longer either, it’s the same length as the original’s.

 

[J_D]

They make a quality product.....no doubt. I just wish they'd invest in some new tooling for the wait times, and maybe work on adjustability options. not every one who shoots is an NBA size guy.

 

[ma smith]

I think your scaling is off/wonky lol…

The only changes made to the rear end is a bit of aluminum instead of steel with the KMW hardware and supposedly/allegedly them tweaking the fill a bit. The forearm didn’t get any longer either, it’s the same length as the original’s.

Well, here is the curent website. 100% these images on their website are not the same thing.

Thats not to say the website it legit tho, LOL....Post #25, to my naked eye, looks to have a dimple-less forend and that longer looking bag rider, with single (shorter) hardware set in the backend.

But I have no idea what this "correct" history is or is not...

 

[ma smith]

Old vs New(er) Backend...

 

[R_A_W]

The "Gen1" TCS did have dimples in the front and the front elevated section of teh foreend was slightly shorter. The stock was a little different as well. I don't think many like that were produced, as those changes happened pretty quickly after the stock was introduced

Manners PRS TCS

Anyone get behind one of these yet? Just put in an order for one. I’ve been shooting an MPA forever because of all the options it has for positional shooting, but I’ve always felt way more comfortable behind a traditional style stock. I’m hoping the tcs can blend those two things together for...

www.snipershide.com

 

[CK1.0]

Ok, strange.

 

[R_A_W]

more

I like the Monroe color!. The other one I saw on facebook was some RCBS team color which I liked a lot, not sure what it's exactly called or if I can even order one like this -

View attachment 7411986

By far the best color pattern they make... even if it’s specific to Altus.

View attachment 7413260

 

[CK1.0]

I do hope the new one is improved in some ways I may have missed.

But if you look at the pic of the TCS-MAX and OG-TCS again, the pic of the TCS-MAX is tilted starboard a bit (you can see it in the butt-pad hardware). So, if someone gets the new one next to the old one, let us know if anything changed dimensionally IRL lol..?

In a break from any perceived shit-talking, I want to reiterate that I really like the TCS, it's a good mix of being nearly as dead as a Foundation and like that, with the beefy hardware, homogeneous, solid, quality you can feel type of thing... but maybe a little easier to dial in gun fit-wise like a soulless chassis and arguably easier to play with weight/balance. Probably the main thing I dig is how the thinner but not too thin forend works great on a bag, both in how it settles in and how it tracks under recoil (something the new MPA Vanquish addresses, as the Matrix Pros went past Foundation-wide into out of control wide). And for the quality one receives after the long wait, the TCS stocks are still a relative steal, as there are usually no weight kits to buy or anything a la carte that is almost absolutely needed to get it to perform (unlike most every aluminum chassis where at a bare minimum you'll at least need their internal weight kits to get them to balance sort of right).

I do think they'd be wise to at least offer a model with a reduced grip to trigger reach... and not just by moving the inlet. IMHO offering the TCS in a couple of different grip sizes would probably be the best way to preserve the solid feel they have without compromising anything (as the grip-panel-based rigs all feel kind of shitty in comparison lol). I'd consider the current grip more of an L/XL, if they made a S/M grip version, I'd imagine they'd probably sell a few... and they could probably shorten lead times by not offering so many options, I'd just have a couple of trim levels and relatively few colors so they could get made in a timely manner, fudds who want custom shit could send them back in later lol.