Chassis vs. Stock

[bug_eyedmonster]

Hi folks,

I noticed more and more people using a chassis instead of stocks recently, and I wanted to see if maybe I'm missing something. I've tried to shoot with a chassis, and it just wasn't my cup of tea. I've always preferred using a proper stock, such as Manners or McMillan, but that's just me.

So, is it a cost thing? I've seen some chassis systems going for more than some stocks, but have seen some cheaper options that are gaining popularity. Is it the ability to bolt on accessories? I'm just curious, that's all.

Jerry

[Paul_R]

I like having the equivalent of a full bedding job in a drop in chasis. I also like having a folding buttstock. I got all that at a price I can afford with an MDT. Did I mention I like a pistol grip?

That's not to say I don't like my traditional stocks.

[Jimmy's]

Stocks for me. Chassis look like AR wannabees, retarted!

[Jimmy's]

Some will claim they create a more accurate rifle. I personally don't know if they will or not but I tend to doubt it.

[boyguan]

I have both and I prefer the pistol grip of a chassis more.

To me the more comfortable I feel, the better I feel I can shoot. Now in actuality I’m not sure if that is true or not

[LynnJr]

The chassis allows you to fold the buttstock for easier storage or packing and most of them are very adjustable.
They already have a myriad of mounting points on them so they work well for tactical shooting and nightime hunting.

Traditional stocks generally need the hardware added and the bottom metal milled to fit so most nowadays opt to skip going to the gunsmith.

[vintagearms]

Had a Manners now have an AT. I will most likely go back to Manners but wish the grip was smaller.

[jimmykan]

OP come on get with the times!

Even the USMC, notoriously slow to adopt new gear, took their beloved M40A5 with McMillan stock and dropped it into a chassis.

Behold: The M40A6/A7



The McMillan A5 or Manners T4A stock is not exactly "traditional" with their nearly vertical grip angles.

It's like performance cars:

The old paradigm was big displacement engine, 5 or 6 speed manual with a clutch pedal, rear wheel drive. Think Cobras, Corvettes and Vipers.

The new paradigm is forced induction, automatic transmissions, all wheel drive. Think Audi R8, Porsche 911 Turbo S, Lamborghini Huracan, Nissan GT-R.

Are the new supercars provide a less visceral experience, are they less fun? Arguably yes. Do the new supercars require less skill to get them to go fast? Yes. But are they faster than the old supercars? Yes.

[bug_eyedmonster]

The chassis allows you to fold the buttstock for easier storage or packing and most of them are very adjustable.
They already have a myriad of mounting points on them so they work well for tactical shooting and nightime hunting.

Traditional stocks generally need the hardware added and the bottom metal milled to fit so most nowadays opt to skip going to the gunsmith.

My Manners on order has a folding stock

Some will claim they create a more accurate rifle. I personally don't know if they will or not but I tend to doubt it.

I believe the consensus is still that a properly made and bedded stock is still more accurate than a chassis.

OP come on get with the times!

Even the USMC, notoriously slow to adopt new gear, took their beloved M40A5 with McMillan stock and dropped it into a chassis.

Behold: The M40A6/A7



The McMillan A5 or Manners T4A stock is not exactly "traditional" with their nearly vertical grip angles.

It's like performance cars:

The old paradigm was big displacement engine, 5 or 6 speed manual with a clutch pedal, rear wheel drive. Think Cobras, Corvettes and Vipers.

The new paradigm is forced induction, automatic transmissions, all wheel drive. Think Audi R8, Porsche 911 Turbo S, Lamborghini Huracan, Nissan GT-R.

Are the new supercars provide a less visceral experience, are they less fun? Arguably yes. Do the new supercars require less skill to get them to go fast? Yes. But are they faster than the old supercars? Yes.

While I can appreciate the whole chassis thing, I cannot bring myself to use one, even for bench shooting. The ergonomics, the feel, and the vibration bring me back to traditional stocks every time.

Your car analogy is not 100% accurate, though. Being in the car world previously, I can tell you that new cars are not always faster, and technology has it's downsides. If you are simply looking at new age sports cars compared to older ones (without modifying either), then you are 100% correct. But we are speaking specifically of aftermarket stocks.

Besides, I'm not a professional racer, nor do I compete in motorsports. I still prefer a manual transmission, but no one can deny the pure, unadulterated awesomeness of turbochargers.

Jerry

[sfvshooter]

My HS Precision HTR has an adjustable stock where I can adjust LOP/cheekrest, but still prefer a chassis with a pistol grip.

I don't hunt so 90% of the time I shoot prone and I like a pistol grip and being able to make adjustments so the rifle fits me and not the way around.

[USMCM16A2]

Gents,


I like both. And have both. A2

[LynnJr]

BugEyedMonster
Nobody who is a serious bench shooter uses a chassis.
A bench stock is meant to be shot from the bench and while most work up a load from the bench chassis don't work as well from the bench.
Thumbhole stocks and anschutz stocks generally have a vertical grip.

[Paul_R]

Not everybody who is a shooter is a serious bench competitor who likes 20 pound stocks.

[diver160651]

[sigstroker]

I like the idea of a chassis, where I don't have to fart around with bedding or inletting or anything other than working a screwdriver and wrench. Also, changing a shooting position, and being able to quickly twiddle a couple knobs to make fast adjustments has a lot of appeal.