Please let us know why you decided against a tube gun/chassis or why you traded it for a conventional design.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Why are tube guns/chassis not more popular?
- Thread starter alpine44
- Start date
Tube guns are not aesthetically pleasing to me. I have seen many shoot very well, but I am not going to drop thousands of dollars on something that makes me want to reach for something else every time I open my safe.
I also bed all of my rifles, even ones that have a stock with an aluminum bedding block. My next purchase will more than likely be a Manners with the mini chassis, and I will bed that one too.
Different strokes for different folks.
I also bed all of my rifles, even ones that have a stock with an aluminum bedding block. My next purchase will more than likely be a Manners with the mini chassis, and I will bed that one too.
Different strokes for different folks.
They're ugly and, in my opinion, I think they're designed to resolve a problem that doesn't exist. I think most who buy them do so just for the sake of being noticed.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
Strong dislike of AR type grips and weight mostly. I dont care for all metal designs that suck the heat from you in the winter... In a perfect world I'd have a AICS like stock on a two, two and a half pound diet and a v block that didn't stress the action.
Heavy, expensive and ugly.
The chassis makers don't go the extra mile to lighten all that aluminum and when you go with lighter materials like carbon, titanium and magnesium then the prices just go up.
Those materials are usually hard to work with without a mill and sharp tooling. Wood is pretty easy to work on with 'basic' tools at home.
2¢
The chassis makers don't go the extra mile to lighten all that aluminum and when you go with lighter materials like carbon, titanium and magnesium then the prices just go up.
Those materials are usually hard to work with without a mill and sharp tooling. Wood is pretty easy to work on with 'basic' tools at home.
2¢
Thanks for your opinions so far. Keep 'em coming.
In case someone is wondering about advantages of a tube gun, here are some opinions of David Tubb (http://www.davidtubb.com/index.php?route=account/download/free&download_id=23)
In case someone is wondering about advantages of a tube gun, here are some opinions of David Tubb (http://www.davidtubb.com/index.php?route=account/download/free&download_id=23)
Last edited:
There are a lot of advantages to a chassy system. The ergonomics and recoil managment are my two favorite parts. With a PRS butt you can put in a Mercury recoil reducer, that combined with a brake you can watch your shots at 200 yrds.
You can still bed a chassy, but even better is to glue it in. I have bedded my MDT tac 21 and increased the accuracy even more.
As for weight, that dose not matter to me b/c everything I shoot is off a bipod.
As for the way they look... Well I think they look ok, but I like the way they shoot even more.
You can still bed a chassy, but even better is to glue it in. I have bedded my MDT tac 21 and increased the accuracy even more.
As for weight, that dose not matter to me b/c everything I shoot is off a bipod.
As for the way they look... Well I think they look ok, but I like the way they shoot even more.
From a military stand point, I've always thought it to be an old school vs. new school thing.
The guys who came up on M-21 SWS and M-24 SWS prefer traditional rifle stocks.
But if you look in a section now you see M-107, M-110, and M-2010. You also see EBRs and SDM-Rs. The current shooter or SDM is extremely familiar with chassis or AR style systems.
I believe the true value of the chassis is the adjustability (I don't mention weight because you can get CF stocks) which is great in a military setting, where 3 guys might be rotating on 1 weapon system in a hide. However, for your personal, custom built, rifle there is no need. You just build it right and it's there forever.
The guys who came up on M-21 SWS and M-24 SWS prefer traditional rifle stocks.
But if you look in a section now you see M-107, M-110, and M-2010. You also see EBRs and SDM-Rs. The current shooter or SDM is extremely familiar with chassis or AR style systems.
I believe the true value of the chassis is the adjustability (I don't mention weight because you can get CF stocks) which is great in a military setting, where 3 guys might be rotating on 1 weapon system in a hide. However, for your personal, custom built, rifle there is no need. You just build it right and it's there forever.
I agree with the heavy and ugly part, but some of them cost a lot less than a traditional type stock when you add the cost of a magazine assembly, an adjustable cheek piece, and a good bedding job.
Manners and McMillans are great, but I got tired of waiting 4-6 months and hoping all the details and fit were correct when it got here.
There's a lot to be said for ordering a McRee on Monday, and going to the range on Wednesday and shooting a rifle with everything adjusted to fit me.
To the OP,
you titled this thread "why aren't tubeguns more popular" then open it with "why you decided against it" .
To your first question:
it depends on what circles you travel in, If you attended last years Berger Longrange Southwest Nationals, an event that had well over 250 competitors you would have seen many different types of beautiful custom rifles, but the single most represented type was the tubegun, go to Camp Perry for the Highpower National Championships and you'll likely see the same thing. Team Remington Arms, Army National Guard long range and Team USMC long range Quantico have adopted our system for their rifle teams, I could give you plenty of reasons why so many have chose our system but you didn't ask that.
Which leads me to your second question...
"Why you decided against it"
The only legitimate answer to that is personal preference, as some have stated they think it's ugly or prefer a conventional design, but a few facts are in order,
"Heavy" mabey, but compared to what? The AICS 2.0 short action chassis weighs 5 pounds 15 ounces, our RTS Varmint model weighs a full pound less, and with a few accessory swaps will be competitive in any discipline from NRA Highpower to F Class, are there lighter stocks out there? Absolutely!
"Expensive" yes, but compared to the AICS 2.0 they are about the same ($1K) but the RTS comes with a scope rail, are there cheaper stocks out there? Absolutely!
In closing I question why you would start a thread for the sole reason of soliciting negative responses to a product, I personally work very hard to make sure my customers are satisfied with their decision to trust me with their hard earned money and would put the record of state and regional championships won by shooters using my products up against anyone. I dont know what you do for a living weather you farm potatoes or build oxygen re breathers but if someone started a thread "why you don't like potatoes" my guess is you'd get lots of responses from people who don't like potatoes creating the false impression that 'potatoes must not be good'. This industry depends heavily on word of mouth as most of us are quite small (were a four man operation), threads like this that basically create negative content out of thin air only hurt those of us who work hard to bring a wide array of products to the marketplace.
you titled this thread "why aren't tubeguns more popular" then open it with "why you decided against it" .
To your first question:
it depends on what circles you travel in, If you attended last years Berger Longrange Southwest Nationals, an event that had well over 250 competitors you would have seen many different types of beautiful custom rifles, but the single most represented type was the tubegun, go to Camp Perry for the Highpower National Championships and you'll likely see the same thing. Team Remington Arms, Army National Guard long range and Team USMC long range Quantico have adopted our system for their rifle teams, I could give you plenty of reasons why so many have chose our system but you didn't ask that.
Which leads me to your second question...
"Why you decided against it"
The only legitimate answer to that is personal preference, as some have stated they think it's ugly or prefer a conventional design, but a few facts are in order,
"Heavy" mabey, but compared to what? The AICS 2.0 short action chassis weighs 5 pounds 15 ounces, our RTS Varmint model weighs a full pound less, and with a few accessory swaps will be competitive in any discipline from NRA Highpower to F Class, are there lighter stocks out there? Absolutely!
"Expensive" yes, but compared to the AICS 2.0 they are about the same ($1K) but the RTS comes with a scope rail, are there cheaper stocks out there? Absolutely!
In closing I question why you would start a thread for the sole reason of soliciting negative responses to a product, I personally work very hard to make sure my customers are satisfied with their decision to trust me with their hard earned money and would put the record of state and regional championships won by shooters using my products up against anyone. I dont know what you do for a living weather you farm potatoes or build oxygen re breathers but if someone started a thread "why you don't like potatoes" my guess is you'd get lots of responses from people who don't like potatoes creating the false impression that 'potatoes must not be good'. This industry depends heavily on word of mouth as most of us are quite small (were a four man operation), threads like this that basically create negative content out of thin air only hurt those of us who work hard to bring a wide array of products to the marketplace.
Last edited:
I like everything about mine except for one thing and that is weight. I have 3 different barrels, HV x 30", RV x 27.5" and LV x 27". The heavy barrel is a advantage in the type of shoot I had it made for. The other two barrels are still too heavy for offhand for me. I might look into having some additional machining done to reduce weight on the sleeve surrounding the action. Ideally I need a 12 lb or less rifle for offhand.
Started lifting weights with my son a few weeks ago, hopefully that'l help with offhand shooting.
This is my MAK M700 with PTG bolt and Jewel trigger in 6x47L. Different pics with different barrels and scopes I had on it throughout the years.
Original barrel 28" HV.
2cnd barrel 26" Tubb contour
Recent fluted LV contour 27" in 20x47L, rifle still weighs 15 lbs with scope.
Started lifting weights with my son a few weeks ago, hopefully that'l help with offhand shooting.
This is my MAK M700 with PTG bolt and Jewel trigger in 6x47L. Different pics with different barrels and scopes I had on it throughout the years.
Original barrel 28" HV.
2cnd barrel 26" Tubb contour
Recent fluted LV contour 27" in 20x47L, rifle still weighs 15 lbs with scope.
I think information about them is difficult to find. I don't rule them out, but bedding a wood or glass stock isn't that hard for me. They seem a little confusing as do chasis stock to me. Even going to a big show there is too much misinformation about them. So, for me, I need to see something I like and see if I can go from there. It isn't like I am going to some shoot and ask guys to fondle ......never mind. One doesn't really find them on the shelf - even used. I like to build as much as I can myself and live a ways from someone who could build one.
I'm sure I'm baised, and I recognise I'm a cheap bastard. I got a takeoff Rem ADL laminate and did all my own work on inletting, pillar bedding and adj. the LoP on it and it's nearly 2 pounds lighter than the aluminum chassis too. The stock was $120 shipped, and the DMB was $225. Other than my time (I work cheap) I'm out less than $350. A 2nd hand Rock Solid's or McCree's about $700 shipped last I looked. $350+ is a good amount of ammo I can buy.
Just sayin'.
It's good there's a market for them and I'm happy that there's someone to fill that market, but, personally, I'm just not interested.
I think if anyone dug into the results, it all boils down to personal preference like Mr. Gary said above. Records have been set with tube guns, conventional stocks, franken-guns a la F-class open, etc. It's all a wash accuracy-wise. Look at what Robert Gradous, Joe Collier, Mike Rock, etc. put out with a conventionally bedded stock and compare it to an Eliseo, Accurate Ordnance chassis build, or Tubb 2k. They all are supremely accurate and it all depends on what features/ergonomics the shooter prefers and is most comfortable/confident with.
The only downside to a tube gun (to me) is that a few gunsmiths recommend permanently gluing the action to the chassis. That would be a non-starter to me just in case something did go wrong. Though an XLR build isn't completely out of my future...
The only downside to a tube gun (to me) is that a few gunsmiths recommend permanently gluing the action to the chassis. That would be a non-starter to me just in case something did go wrong. Though an XLR build isn't completely out of my future...
I have no experience dealing with customer/technical support with other chassis makers, but the service you get from Gary Eliseo is amazing. The fit and finish is amazing. The ability to run the bolt underneath your cheek without forcing you to break scope focus is unique and very desirable (to me). In terms of versatility, I'm not sure there is another rifle system out there that provides the same level of adjustment.
Also, when pricing, don't forget that the Eliseo includes your choice of cerokote color.
Take a look at this thread discussing the benefits of the tube gun. http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-bolt-action-rifles/239070-why-no-tube-guns.html
Finally, when German Salazar adopted the Eliseo for F-Class and wrote extensively about it, that was a pretty good confirmation you've picked the right system.
Also, when pricing, don't forget that the Eliseo includes your choice of cerokote color.
Take a look at this thread discussing the benefits of the tube gun. http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-bolt-action-rifles/239070-why-no-tube-guns.html
Finally, when German Salazar adopted the Eliseo for F-Class and wrote extensively about it, that was a pretty good confirmation you've picked the right system.
Last edited:
I think they are pretty sexy
I agree. I find the Eliseo looks so much more like a complete, integrated, and well thought-out "system" than other chassis.
Weight first I think,second cost...
The cost can be acceptable on some,especially with a DBM....
The weight can be addressed at a rise in cost...
I realize that to some,weight is a non issue... But to some it is...
Aesthetics can be considered or dismissed,but there are some good looking chassis stocks out there...
As far as ergonomics, I think the JAE is going the right way...
The cost can be acceptable on some,especially with a DBM....
The weight can be addressed at a rise in cost...
I realize that to some,weight is a non issue... But to some it is...
Aesthetics can be considered or dismissed,but there are some good looking chassis stocks out there...
As far as ergonomics, I think the JAE is going the right way...
The weight isn't the issue for me as most aren't much heavier than a traditional stock, but most chassis systems I find ugly as hell... The exception to this for me is the XLR system. It's one of the very few I find aesthetically pleasing even if I do still prefer the look of a more traditional stock.
If you had quoted (or read?) one more line of my post you would have seen that I was talking about Manners and McMillan stocks.
I've saved a bunch of money hacking up a few wood and laminate stocks myself, but I was never able to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
I admire your skill, and I'm glad it works for you.
Just sayin'.
Steve,
lots of guy's running light palma contour nowadays
Yep, I'm leaning towards that direction next barrel. I might even sacrifice some FPS and cut the RV contour to 25".
Oh, I forgot to mention that my MAK is screwed and clued to the chassis and I'm not using a recoil lug anymore which has been real nice when swappin barrels.
Gary,
Your reaction surprised me in light of the fact that you questioned and expanded the state-of-the-art in rifle design a few years ago. If you and a few other shooters had not asked "What don't we like about conventionally stocked guns, and what can be done about it?", then there would be no discussion about the merits and drawbacks of tube guns today.
I posted the question about popularity because I was contemplating to buy one of your chassis from a Hide member. The concept is very compelling from my viewpoint and I indicated this by referring to David Tubbs article about the T2K. However, there is no question that here on the Hide tube guns are less popular than conventional rifles. My goal was to find out whether I am missing something or whether other people are missing out by staying on the well-worn path of bolt action tradition.
Had I asked "Why are tube guns the hottest thing since sliced bread?", only the fanboys would have replied and that would not have helped much. Instead, we now have a thread with a good spectrum of pros and cons and I think that is better for everyone. We can now look at these comments and decide whether we take them serious or disregard them as subjective, emotional notions like we see in the age old Chevy vs. Ford debate.
If I were a tube gun manufacturer, I would for example take the comment about a lot of metal being problematic in cold temperatures seriously (tactical shooters and hunters are not wearing 'oven mitts' like HP shooters) and would at least consider a handguard made from carbon fiber composites. This would also yield some, albeit small, weight savings. But that's just the engineer in me speaking - YMMV.
I think that every manufacturer committed to innovation should be grateful about an open discussion of its products. This is spawning ideas for product improvement quicker and a whole lot cheaper than running focus groups or 'survey monkeying' existing customers.
In closing, I would like to repeat that I am 'sold' on the tube gun concept and that any comments I have found about your products and service were very, very positive. With a product line and reputation like yours I would stay miles away from any wish for (self-) censorship on this forum. Trying to quench criticism, instead of seeing it as an opportunity for growth, is the hallmark of desperate bottom feeders (like a certain entity that filed a lawsuit against this site), not that of confident leaders. But that's just the business man in me speaking - YMMV.
Last edited:
jj
I hunt in sub zero, I don't want any more metal than has to be there, certainly not on the cheek or handguard, but really, anywhere outside my action/barrel/scope.
I hunt in sub zero, I don't want any more metal than has to be there, certainly not on the cheek or handguard, but really, anywhere outside my action/barrel/scope.
This could be very easily fixed with selective use of advanced composite materials. But unless someone from the outfield raises this issue, it is not going to be addressed as long as the main customer base - competition shooters - does not have this issue. They are more concerned about heat stroke in their coats and sweat running out of the glove in the summer. A furniture with lower thermal conductivity would not be detrimental for competition use though.
Last edited:
" If I were a tube gun manufacturer, I would for example take the comment about a lot of metal being problematic in cold temperatures seriously (tactical shooters and hunters are not wearing 'oven mitts' like HP shooters) and would at least consider a handguard made from carbon fiber composites. This would also yield some, albeit small, weight savings. But that's just the engineer in me speaking - YMMV.
I think that every manufacturer committed to innovation should be grateful about an open discussion of its products. This is spawning ideas for product improvement quicker and a whole lot cheaper than running focus groups or 'survey monkeying' existing customers."
Friend, I listen very carefully to my customers feedback which comes from all aspects of the game, including military, law enforcement, hunting, field shooting and competitions, people on the internet who won't sign their real name to their posts, not so much, we have many projects under development including an all weather/compact/light weight take town system...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Comp...6994&set=pcb.10152073643566994&type=1&theater
I think that every manufacturer committed to innovation should be grateful about an open discussion of its products. This is spawning ideas for product improvement quicker and a whole lot cheaper than running focus groups or 'survey monkeying' existing customers."
Friend, I listen very carefully to my customers feedback which comes from all aspects of the game, including military, law enforcement, hunting, field shooting and competitions, people on the internet who won't sign their real name to their posts, not so much, we have many projects under development including an all weather/compact/light weight take town system...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Comp...6994&set=pcb.10152073643566994&type=1&theater
Last edited:
I like the look of the XLR chassis. SO I got two of them - in 6.5CM and 338NM.
I love the super adjustability of the XLR butt - cant, LoP, cheek riser, etc. I like the AR-style grip - sets up better for a clean trigger break - for me anyway. It mounts rails easier.
I also got a CZ455 in 22rf with a Manners chassis - the more traditional style. Its nice too.
I love the super adjustability of the XLR butt - cant, LoP, cheek riser, etc. I like the AR-style grip - sets up better for a clean trigger break - for me anyway. It mounts rails easier.
I also got a CZ455 in 22rf with a Manners chassis - the more traditional style. Its nice too.
While everyone perceives "beauty" differently (and I recognize that), to me the Eliseo chassis is just as beautiful as a traditional wooden stock -- but in a different way. It is kindof like the difference between traditional and hi-tech. Both are cool.
I also like the wide adjustability range of the Eliseo, particularly on match stages where you must fire from "compromised" or non-ideal positions. For example, I can go strong side to weak side very quickly, or shoot under low barrricades and get comparable positional support due to the adjustments. Just can't do that with alot of wood stocks. (I don't have experience with the newer aluminum non-tube gun chassis). Of course if the targets are big enough or close enough, it often doesn't matter much that you need to contort your firing position a little -- but if you need to shoot longer range or smaller targets in these non-ideal positions you will appreciate the adjustability.
The fact that you can keep a solid cheek weld throughout the shooting cycle also is a great idea I think -- I have seen several High Master NRA shooters that barely move during 10 shot rapid fire with tube guns -- it is almost poetic to watch the really good ones. The bolts open and close very smoothly, so only their trigger hand flicks up and down between shots to open and close the bolt -- the rest of their body doesn't move.
The one thing I am still unsure about with my newly purchased Eliseo is the scope height above bore. It is higher than you can have with other chassis designs, due to having to be above the bolt to make the previous advantage work. This means if you cant your rifle the effect is magnified. I'm unsure if it is a real disadvantage though because I haven't shot mine yet (waiting for an ATACR to get mounted) and plan to use a bubble level anyway (as I do with my other long range rifles). It might even turn into a slight advantage in offhand and sitting positions where you could get a straighter, more upright neck position. I don't know yet.
I also like the wide adjustability range of the Eliseo, particularly on match stages where you must fire from "compromised" or non-ideal positions. For example, I can go strong side to weak side very quickly, or shoot under low barrricades and get comparable positional support due to the adjustments. Just can't do that with alot of wood stocks. (I don't have experience with the newer aluminum non-tube gun chassis). Of course if the targets are big enough or close enough, it often doesn't matter much that you need to contort your firing position a little -- but if you need to shoot longer range or smaller targets in these non-ideal positions you will appreciate the adjustability.
The fact that you can keep a solid cheek weld throughout the shooting cycle also is a great idea I think -- I have seen several High Master NRA shooters that barely move during 10 shot rapid fire with tube guns -- it is almost poetic to watch the really good ones. The bolts open and close very smoothly, so only their trigger hand flicks up and down between shots to open and close the bolt -- the rest of their body doesn't move.
The one thing I am still unsure about with my newly purchased Eliseo is the scope height above bore. It is higher than you can have with other chassis designs, due to having to be above the bolt to make the previous advantage work. This means if you cant your rifle the effect is magnified. I'm unsure if it is a real disadvantage though because I haven't shot mine yet (waiting for an ATACR to get mounted) and plan to use a bubble level anyway (as I do with my other long range rifles). It might even turn into a slight advantage in offhand and sitting positions where you could get a straighter, more upright neck position. I don't know yet.
Here's the difference for me guys. On the Eliseo rts the scope mounts to the chassis not to the action. I can switch from .260 to 22-250 or to my 40x trainer in about 10 minutes. The action slides right in. Takes about 4-5 shots to zero. Same scope and same trigger. That's why I went with the Eliseo rts.
On the xlr you don't have to have a gunsmith install the recoil disc but you do need to buy a scope base.
If it were possible to have the rts in a composite I would definitely be interested as long as it didn't sacrifice rigidity. I hunt with mine in sub zero temps and it's never been a problem. I would just love a little lighter weight for those long hunts.
On the xlr you don't have to have a gunsmith install the recoil disc but you do need to buy a scope base.
If it were possible to have the rts in a composite I would definitely be interested as long as it didn't sacrifice rigidity. I hunt with mine in sub zero temps and it's never been a problem. I would just love a little lighter weight for those long hunts.
I read your post. I had no idea that a $500 blank plastic/glass stock from Mcmillian/Manners was "traditional." I thought wood was, which is what I was talking about. Your second line reads, to me, like a completely different topic. It's neither about wood nor about Al chassis.
Sorry, if I can't understand what it is you type. Could be that public education of mine, or maybe the Kentucky culture is different than my Colorado upbringing. That said, your post reads like you've got your head up your ass.
Just sayin'.
Sorry, if I can't understand what it is you type. Could be that public education of mine, or maybe the Kentucky culture is different than my Colorado upbringing. That said, your post reads like you've got your head up your ass.
Just sayin'.
Any particular reason that you left out the line in my post where I paid you a compliment, and replied by insulting me?
The barreled action is the engine of the race car. Everything around it is the ergonomic interface by which you drive the car. There are no right or wrong choices for those interfaces. Each person must find what works best for them.
We do very much like the performance we get out of Eliseo chassis systems, especially when we glue the receiver into the chassis. The system is very modular in the butt assembly and our customers love getting the rifle to really fit them.
For sure tube guns aren't for everyone. I'd say the biggest turn off for customers who are thinking about an Eliseo (or similar tube) build are concerned that if they decide they don't like the feel of the chassis, well they are stuck. We usually use a Defiance Mutant or Pierce Engineering action for these builds. Those actions are made specifically for the tube chassis. And once we glue that action in, you aren't getting it out. So, the guy who buys an AX chassis might decide later to stick the barreled action in a XLR or Manners stock. If you decide you don't want the Eliseo, you're selling the entire rifle.
We built this one for our good friend Keith Trapp. With this rifle he earned several national F-Class records. The rifle fit Keith very well and that made a big difference in the way he performed with the rifle.
This is another one we did in an Eliseo chassis. Intended use for this one was tactical type matches. Customer loves it. He also owns rifles we've built using Manners and McMillan stocks. This was just something cool and different in both looks and feel. To this guy, variety is the spice of life. ;-)
Tube guns do have their place. I see it as just another great choice people have when building a custom rifle. Performance and quality are there. The shooter just has to decide whether the rifle has the ergonomics and features they want.
Some guys (like me) love AR-15s but have zero interest in AKs. If you are an AK fan, hey, that's cool. I won't bash you for your preference.
Mark
We do very much like the performance we get out of Eliseo chassis systems, especially when we glue the receiver into the chassis. The system is very modular in the butt assembly and our customers love getting the rifle to really fit them.
For sure tube guns aren't for everyone. I'd say the biggest turn off for customers who are thinking about an Eliseo (or similar tube) build are concerned that if they decide they don't like the feel of the chassis, well they are stuck. We usually use a Defiance Mutant or Pierce Engineering action for these builds. Those actions are made specifically for the tube chassis. And once we glue that action in, you aren't getting it out. So, the guy who buys an AX chassis might decide later to stick the barreled action in a XLR or Manners stock. If you decide you don't want the Eliseo, you're selling the entire rifle.
We built this one for our good friend Keith Trapp. With this rifle he earned several national F-Class records. The rifle fit Keith very well and that made a big difference in the way he performed with the rifle.
This is another one we did in an Eliseo chassis. Intended use for this one was tactical type matches. Customer loves it. He also owns rifles we've built using Manners and McMillan stocks. This was just something cool and different in both looks and feel. To this guy, variety is the spice of life. ;-)
Tube guns do have their place. I see it as just another great choice people have when building a custom rifle. Performance and quality are there. The shooter just has to decide whether the rifle has the ergonomics and features they want.
Some guys (like me) love AR-15s but have zero interest in AKs. If you are an AK fan, hey, that's cool. I won't bash you for your preference.
Mark
Excellent analogy Mark, I't's funny how some guy's are so averse to glue in but dont feel the same way about the AI rifle (which is permanently bonded to the chassis)
What do you mean it's not popular? I have been waiting for 2 months and have another 2-3 months wait until mine comes in, unless of course Gary wants to bump me up in line lol.
On a serious note, if you've never held one, you don't know what you're missing. That's what prompted me to get in line for one. There is a picture of this chassis in the dictionary under "ergonomic".
On a serious note, if you've never held one, you don't know what you're missing. That's what prompted me to get in line for one. There is a picture of this chassis in the dictionary under "ergonomic".
For me it is the weight. I've not seen a tube gun setup that didn't weigh quite a bit more than a standard fill McMillan.
John
Yep, they are heavier. I just grabbed an Eliseo off the rack and a McMillan A5 adjustable cheek & LOP with a Badger M5. The Eliseo weighed 22 ounces (just under 1.5# for the math challenged folks - LOL) more.
The Eliseo does balance very well. But almost 1.5# is a big deal to some folks. Again, personal preference here.
Mark
I have an Ellison r5 in 6mm BR and while there are a few things I do not like about it but over all it is an outstanding way to hold a 700. I also like the feel of an AR.
I'm having AO build me a Stiller\AX chassis gun as we speak, and Jon Beanland is building me a 6.5 creedmoor in a Mcmillan A5. I like them both and will give a full run down within a couple of months. I agree it's all personal preference and I happen to like both.
Since I got my DTA SRS it's all I shoot. I sold my two traditional bolt guns. I have three different calibers for it so it's 3 guns in one. I guess I'm a chassis guy now
I enjoy both formats. Here is an older shot of my 2003 vintage McMillan-built Tubb 2000 in .308 with my GAP Hospitalier in .243:
These are two near perfect rifles, outwardly different but both very gratifying to shoot. My favorite is the one I am behind at the moment. Ergonomically, however, the edge goes to the tube gun by a wide margin. Both are equally accurate in no-wind conditions, with the edge going to the higher BC .243 bullets on windy days at extended range.
The Tubb rifle was $2350 back then, cheaper than an upgraded Remington 700 from McMillan, a bit over half what the GAP cost in 2007. How times - and prices! - have changed!!!
Both rifles now wear NF ATACR scopes in Spuhr mounts. The Tubb barrel has been threaded to accept the Thunderbeast 30P-1. A Schneider 6.5 CM barrel for the Tubb rifle was recently acquired from McMillan, but I have yet to try it.
The .243 barrel leads a rough existence, pounding out 115 DTACs at 3100 FPS. Internally, this one is a wreck, but amazingly continues to shoot half-MOA or better. I've considered maybe a longer lasting choice like the 6.5 CM for the next tube. But, when it's time for Tim Roberts (Moon) to re-barrel it, it is going to be another .243 barrel.
These are two near perfect rifles, outwardly different but both very gratifying to shoot. My favorite is the one I am behind at the moment. Ergonomically, however, the edge goes to the tube gun by a wide margin. Both are equally accurate in no-wind conditions, with the edge going to the higher BC .243 bullets on windy days at extended range.
The Tubb rifle was $2350 back then, cheaper than an upgraded Remington 700 from McMillan, a bit over half what the GAP cost in 2007. How times - and prices! - have changed!!!
Both rifles now wear NF ATACR scopes in Spuhr mounts. The Tubb barrel has been threaded to accept the Thunderbeast 30P-1. A Schneider 6.5 CM barrel for the Tubb rifle was recently acquired from McMillan, but I have yet to try it.
The .243 barrel leads a rough existence, pounding out 115 DTACs at 3100 FPS. Internally, this one is a wreck, but amazingly continues to shoot half-MOA or better. I've considered maybe a longer lasting choice like the 6.5 CM for the next tube. But, when it's time for Tim Roberts (Moon) to re-barrel it, it is going to be another .243 barrel.
The barreled action is the engine of the race car. Everything around it is the ergonomic interface by which you drive the car. There are no right or wrong choices for those interfaces. Each person must find what works best for them.
We do very much like the performance we get out of Eliseo chassis systems, especially when we glue the receiver into the chassis. The system is very modular in the butt assembly and our customers love getting the rifle to really fit them.
For sure tube guns aren't for everyone. I'd say the biggest turn off for customers who are thinking about an Eliseo (or similar tube) build are concerned that if they decide they don't like the feel of the chassis, well they are stuck. We usually use a Defiance Mutant or Pierce Engineering action for these builds. Those actions are made specifically for the tube chassis. And once we glue that action in, you aren't getting it out. So, the guy who buys an AX chassis might decide later to stick the barreled action in a XLR or Manners stock. If you decide you don't want the Eliseo, you're selling the entire rifle.
We built this one for our good friend Keith Trapp. With this rifle he earned several national F-Class records. The rifle fit Keith very well and that made a big difference in the way he performed with the rifle.
This is another one we did in an Eliseo chassis. Intended use for this one was tactical type matches. Customer loves it. He also owns rifles we've built using Manners and McMillan stocks. This was just something cool and different in both looks and feel. To this guy, variety is the spice of life. ;-)
Tube guns do have their place. I see it as just another great choice people have when building a custom rifle. Performance and quality are there. The shooter just has to decide whether the rifle has the ergonomics and features they want.
Some guys (like me) love AR-15s but have zero interest in AKs. If you are an AK fan, hey, that's cool. I won't bash you for your preference.
Mark
Very nice builds. Thanks for sharing the photos.
I am trying to figure out what some of the circled features are. Rather than guessing, I am going to ask the experts.
Attachments
1. Buttstock release -- this lets you quickly remove the buttstock for packing or cleaning
2. This is a Jewel bottom safety for the trigger
3. & 4: These are where the trigger assembly pins go
5. A set screw for the action if you aren't glueing it in (glue is optional on these)
This pic is good to show one of the prime advantages of the tube gun design -- recoil is perfectly in line with the buttstock. Note how with the "traditional" design (yes I know its not wood) the line of the barrel is above the stock -- this means that during recoil the muzzle has more of a tendency to rise. With the tube gun, all recoil force is straight back into your shoulder, helping you stay on target throughout the shooting cycle.
Simple physics, but one of the reasons I think the tube gun design is an improvement on "traditional" from a shooting perspective.
Here is a picture of the butt assembly removed...
You remove the butt to access the bolt. Bolt stop on this is a rubber pad inside the butt assembly. "Tactical" shooters can run that bolt as hard as they want without damaging a more typical style bolt stop.
Mark
You remove the butt to access the bolt. Bolt stop on this is a rubber pad inside the butt assembly. "Tactical" shooters can run that bolt as hard as they want without damaging a more typical style bolt stop.
Mark
