PRICE CHANGE - Zermatt Arms Chassis - The Matterhorn

[Baron85]

I agree with ability to go shorter.

Reason 1, would be nice for kids and teens to get short enough and grow with them. (Reason I’m running XLR for my son with TL2 stock, plus I really like XLR)

Reason 2, I have found with positional shooting the shorter LOP is helpful for me to get squared up to the rifle in weird positions.

I’m 6’5” and my rifles are set around 13.5-13.75”. Not sure what I used to run but I know it was atleast an inch longer, probably more. I ran 6 spacers on my Bravo when I was doing mostly bench and prone shooting.

 

[Matagorda308]

5-8
Couple guys Franks last seminar I attended were 6-2 and up and doing the same. Long discussion there. Everyone is built different, gotta go with what fits you, but seeing a trend to way shorter to get square behind the rifle. You can always extend the lop but minimum is what it is. I also have different people using my rifle.

Apologies for the sidetrack. Back to the Zermatt Matterhorn, very well made, great fit and finish. The woodgrain panels were very appealing. A green camo was also there. I should have taken pictures. Looked a little different but fit me very well after picking it up. Comfortable. Just my personal feeling, maybe they should consider going shorter minimum LOP. Time will tell what the market desires.

 

[b6graham]

6' here and 12.5" LOP here when possible

actually getting a carbon buttstock direct from Smoke for my XLR Element to not be 13"+

would love to get behind and own a Matterhorn, maybe as a long action light class ELR chassis

 

[Terry Cross]

, I have found with positional shooting the shorter LOP is helpful for me to get squared up to the rifle in weird positions.

I’m 6’5” and my rifles are set around 13.5-13.75”. Not sure what I used to run but I know it was atleast an inch longer, probably more. I ran 6 spacers on my Bravo when I was doing mostly bench and prone shooting.

^^^^^
This is unsolicited gold.

We have been preaching and teaching that traditional LOP measurements are a relic from 19th and 20th century long guns. Most people are running rifles that are setup totally wrong but they can get away with it because they aren't shooting unsupported or traditional positional shooting any more.

Sorry for butting in.
Carry one with your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[JR1200W3]

I think we are all in agreement about using a shorter LOP than traditionally believed and taught. I've been saying that for a while. And along the same lines a lower cheek piece height as well to allow for more forgiveness is positional shooting. But I do think there's a little less variance than some would say, in terms of everyone is built different.

I remember teaching students tried and true techniques that have been validated to pass students in "must pass" hard gate exams and certain types of personalities would always resist. They didn't have the wisdom to understand that they're job as a student in a course that had a bit of a selective nature to it was to demonstrate that they could learn the techniques and show competency that they could apply them during graded practical exercises. They would fall back to "what works for you". Different strokes, etc. And while that can be true in some contexts it doesn't make a strong argument that you're a capable sniper if you can only pass with "this one" technique.

There's certainly a range where a large majority of shooters body's fit in LOP. Yes, we're trending shorter. Especially as we start shooting with vertical necks in more upright head positions of kneeling and standing. But let's not get carried away.

 

[Terry Cross]

I think we are all in agreement about using a shorter LOP than traditionally believed and taught. I've been saying that for a while. And along the same lines a lower cheek piece height as well to allow for more forgiveness is positional shooting. But I do think there's a little less variance than some would say, in terms of everyone is built different.

I remember teaching students tried and true techniques that have been validated to pass students in "must pass" hard gate exams and certain types of personalities would always resist. They didn't have the wisdom to understand that they're job as a student in a course that had a bit of a selective nature to it was to demonstrate that they could learn the techniques and show competency that they could apply them during graded practical exercises. They would fall back to "what works for you". Different strokes, etc. And while that can be true in some contexts it doesn't make a strong argument that you're a capable sniper if you can only pass with "this one" technique.

There's certainly a range where a large majority of shooters body's fit in LOP. Yes, we're trending shorter. Especially as we start shooting with vertical necks in more upright head positions of kneeling and standing. But let's not get carried away.

I believe that the heavier the rifle package is, the more critical correct LOP is going to be on the ability to sustain. Look where the average weight of "precision" rifles has gone these days.

My quick and dirty is to explain what the center of gravity is and how to find it. Then use a LOP that gets that COG over or inside whatever points of contact you have with mother earth regardless of your body type.

 

[JR1200W3]

I believe that the heavier the rifle package is, the more critical correct LOP is going to be on the ability to sustain. Look where the average weight of "precision" rifles has gone these days.

My quick and dirty is to explain what the center of gravity is and how to find it. Then use a LOP that gets that COG over or inside whatever points of contact you have with mother earth regardless of your body type.

Interesting. I've always considered LOP to be most relevant to eye relief when your scope has a fixed position dictated by clip ons and rail space.

What do you teach is the majority load bearing apparatus? The shooters body or a piece of equipment used as support(tripod, bag on barricade, bipod?)

 

[Terry Cross]

Interesting. I've always considered LOP to be most relevant to eye relief when your scope has a fixed position dictated by clip ons and rail space.

Ignore your scope position.
Set up your gun/stock first.
Then put your scope where it needs to be in relation to your natural head position.

Most rifles these days can have their rail space configured to Scope + Clip-Ons.
Interestingly this brings in one of my Cons for integrally machined Pic rails on short actions. The rail is only as long as the receiver and when dealing with some large scope formats, the front ring is not in the best position (too much unsupported scope cantilevered out into space for my taste)

What do you teach is the majority load bearing apparatus? The shooters body or a piece of equipment used as support(tripod, bag on barricade, bipod?)

Yes.




LOL.

If you set up for unsupported positions, everything else will work.

Unsupported standing will place your head the furthest back. Unsupported prone with a sling will place your head the closest. Sweet spot for your eye relief should be in the middle of these two. Once that done, your setup will play well off a tripod, a barricade, prone/bipod, etc.

 

[carbonbased]

Straight up head position is what I like due to neck issues. Hate angling my neck sideways or leaning my head forward. I only shoot from a bench or tripod.

So, I always wind up with the scope mounted as far back as possible (or one pic slot fwd from that, rarely). My LOP is usually set as close as possible, around 13.5” on my KRG W3 and Bravo (latter with adjustable buttplate & thin pad).

I also use 1.5” or taller rings, and am 5’10”.

Just a data point.

 

[Terry Cross]

Straight up head position is what I like due to neck issues. Hate angling my neck sideways or leaning my head forward. I only shoot from a bench or tripod.

For sure, I have become a soap box evangelist on head position.

Upright and not leaning to one side is the most sustainable and repeatable. Less neck strain. More efficient eye position for less eye strain. . .
Try to achieve that as much as the stock will allow.

 

[JR1200W3]

Ignore your scope position.
Set up your gun/stock first.
Then put your scope where it needs to be in relation to your natural head position.

Most rifles these days can have their rail space configured to Scope + Clip-Ons.
Interestingly this brings in one of my Cons for integrally machined Pic rails on short actions. The rail is only as long as the receiver and when dealing with some large scope formats, the front ring is not in the best position (too much unsupported scope cantilevered out into space for my taste)


Yes.




LOL.

If you set up for unsupported positions, everything else will work.

Unsupported standing will place your head the furthest back. Unsupported prone with a sling will place your head the closest. Sweet spot for your eye relief should be in the middle of these two. Once that done, your setup will play well off a tripod, a barricade, prone/bipod, etc.

The way you described getting COG over/ inside whatever POC you have with the ground sounds like you're describing body supported positions. I'm guessing most of the people commenting here are PRS shooters and they want the COG just in front of the mag so the gun balances on a bag or tripod on its own. And they're coming off the gun in comparison to traditional prone, bipod supported position. So they want a shorter LOP so they can stay squared up and away from the gun, but closer in arm length to run scope knobs and bolt. They are squaring up because once the gun is balanced on a prop on it's own, it's not going to move unless the shooter causes it it to move. So all the wobble and instability comes from the shooter. Making your body an isosceles from two parallel solid feet or knees reduces body movement. And then the fact that their necks are vertical vice horizontal in the prone. Also why I like taller rings. Another antiquated thing imo. Trying to cut HOB like it makes a difference ballistically.

And scope placement is not unlimited. There's some realities when it comes to tube length, mounts, and rail location that does impose a constraint. After the scope is anchored in place eye relief begins to effectively dictate LOP more that arm length imo. And like I said with more vertical necks....shorter LOP.

 

[Terry Cross]

The way you described getting COG over/ inside whatever POC you have with the ground sounds like you're describing body supported positions.

100%

I'm guessing most of the people commenting here are PRS shooters and they want the COG just in front of the mag so the gun balances on a bag or tripod on its own. And they're coming off the gun in comparison to traditional prone, bipod supported position. So they want a shorter LOP so they can stay squared up and away from the gun, but closer in arm length to run scope knobs and bolt. They are squaring up because once the gun is balanced on a prop on it's own, it's not going to move unless the shooter causes it it to move. So all the wobble and instability comes from the shooter. Making your body an isosceles from two parallel solid feet or knees reduces body movement. And then the fact that their necks are vertical vice horizontal in the prone. Also why I like taller rings. Another antiquated thing imo. Trying to cut HOB like it makes a difference ballistically.

Understood

And scope placement is not unlimited. There's some realities when it comes to tube length, mounts, and rail location that does impose a constraint. After the scope is anchored in place eye relief begins to effectively dictate LOP more that arm length imo. And like I said with more vertical necks....shorter LOP.

I think the ability to place your scope where you "Need" it should be an important part of the rifle component selection up front instead of an afterthought that doesn't get catered to.

Again, you can get away with a LOT of potential setup sins if you are specializing in a shooting discipline that will never entertain an unsupported position.

Edited to add: I think we are pretty much on the same page. I'm not posting as an argument against what you are saying. Rather fleshing out my thought process a little more.

 

[JR1200W3]

100%


Understood


I think the ability to place your scope where you "Need" it should be an important part of the rifle component selection up front instead of an afterthought that doesn't get catered to.

Again, you can get away with a LOT of potential setup sins if you are specializing in a shooting discipline that will never entertain an unsupported position.

Edited to add: I think we are pretty much on the same page. I'm not posting as an argument against what you are saying. Rather fleshing out my thought process a little more.

Ya, we're cross-threaded on scope placement somehow. Definitely don't think it's an after thought. In fact it's the first thought, that imo drives everything, because LOP has more to do with eye relief than it does arm length. And that silly old shotgun rule of thumb going off firearm/ hand length. I guess the part we don't agree on is how much flexibility a person has to move a scope forward and rearward. When I say it's constrained to a general location, you're interpreting that to me saying it's an after thought. All sope rails start at the same point. No one has a cantilevered rail that extends over the bolt shroud. And non-mono pic rail chassis guns(traditional bolt action in a stock) have a pretty set rail length to use. Even actions with extended pic rails aren't that extended. A Zermatt TL3 offers about .75" more rail than it would if it was an integral Impact action. And even if you're working with an AIAX how far forward are you going to mount a scope before it's silly? I would say that outside some noobs that show up to a range with an AR scope mount on a bolt action and scopes slid all the way forward so the turret is shoved against a ring, incorrectly supporting the tube....most shooters mount their scopes in largely the same spot. Very much centered over the ejection port. And if you're shooting the "Okie Special" the only thing that's going to change optic position is the model of scope. Pick one of four. TT, ATACR, ZCO, Vortex G3. In fact the starting point I use as a rule of thumb is the rear of the ocular housing directly above and in line with the rear of the pistol grip. And then I adjust from there. Sometimes I may adjust a little forward or rearward to make some room for an accessory on the action rail. And then LOP gets adjusted based on eye relief, after thinking about scope placement first. Arm length doesn't really figure into it for me. Because I have an elbow. That bends. It can take up an extraordinary amount of slack, lol.

I think to have a full conversation about head position driving LOP a person should also talk about HOB and ring height. But that's another off-topic tangent.