ACC vs Foundation

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I swear some of these people act like they are being fitted for a prosthetic cock.

All that infinite adjustment and shit is really pointless, just like people bitching about grip angle because they are piss poor shooters.

A foundation has every adjustment needed to win. The only person holding you back is you and your self imposed limitations. The biggest challenge is coming from something with a thumb shelf and having to figure out what to do with it. Its really not that difficult.

The ACC requires full internal and most external weights in order so solve the flex issue with the forearm. Why the fuck they would try to scalop and lighten a forearm making it unstable is mind bongling for a PRS designed chassis, until you realize that is so they call sell you the $500 in accessories you need to make your ACC serviceable. Not to mention needing to add all the silencer material to tone down the tuning fork vibrations.

 

[DairyDictator]

Sure, it has the bare minimum adjustments. Everything else either fits you or you're learning to work around it. "Don't suck be a better shooter" is the only true answer but that line works for basically every shortcoming of equipment. Adjustment doesn't make you a better shooter. You just don't have to work as hard.

As far as weights go, barstock, taps, and hardware are cheap. Spend 30 for an internal bar instead of a set of weights. Same deal for outer weights.

 

[kthomas]

I swear some of these people act like they are being fitted for a prosthetic cock.

All that infinite adjustment and shit is really pointless, just like people bitching about grip angle because they are piss poor shooters.

A foundation has every adjustment needed to win. The only person holding you back is you and your self imposed limitations. The biggest challenge is coming from something with a thumb shelf and having to figure out what to do with it. Its really not that difficult.

The ACC requires full internal and most external weights in order so solve the flex issue with the forearm. Why the fuck they would try to scalop and lighten a forearm making it unstable is mind bongling for a PRS designed chassis, until you realize that is so they call sell you the $500 in accessories you need to make your ACC serviceable. Not to mention needing to add all the silencer material to tone down the tuning fork vibrations.

Pretty silly argument.

Everyone has their own preferences, and everyone is built differently and interfaces with a rifle in a slightly different way.

To say that if you can't shoot 'Equipment A' good then learn to shoot better is dumb. First off, no one is saying that. Secondly, that same argument could be extended to anything else in this sport if you want to go down that rabbit hole.

Can't shoot a 16lb unbraked .308 with a single stage trigger? Learn to shoot better. There's .308's that are every bit as precise as any rifle winning a PRS match (or more so in some cases). Only thing holding that rifle back in a PRS match is the shooter if you can't win with it.

PRS is turning into such a specialized game, look at what the rifles are turning into. They are so full of shit now that they are never anything you would take out to shoot anything other than PRS, they are becoming so specialized. A 30 lb 6mm? Give me a fucking break.

If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, there's a lot of BS in the current PRS game that could be ripped apart with a same or similar argument.

We get it, you really like Foundations. Cool stocks, John Kyle was pretty innovative by utilizing micarta for this purpose, and he has a great company with great CS. There's certainly some good aspects to their stocks, no doubt. But they aren't for everyone - no one stock or chassis' is, it's so personal.

I don't own a Foundation or an ACC, so I have no skin in this fight. If it was me, I would pick the Foundation over the ACC personally. That said, the Foundation has it's shortcomings as well (as do all stocks and chassis'). Some stocks and chassis' just fit you better than others, and those small nuances make a difference with how you interact with the rifle. You really need to try before you buy.

I also agree that having adjustments for everything may not be better - adjust the rifle to you, then leave it set. Some chassis' and stocks do this better than others. I don't own an ACC, and having parts fall of is obviously no bueno - that's a very valid critique if it's actually happening.

There are lots of great stocks and chassis' out there, everyone has different needs and wants, and everyone is shaped different. For the most part, there is a stock or chassis out there for everyone - the hard part is finding out which one feels/fits best to you, and parsing out what you want and don't want in a stock or chassis - and unfortunately that comes with a lot of trial and error.

 

[Roksliding]

Foundation Centurion 100%.

21-25lbs of balanced sexiness.

 

[kthomas]

For the sake of objectivity, I do agree with @DeathBeforeDismount on a few points:

- The more complex a system is, the more likely it is to fail.
- You may not need all that complexity anyways (i.e. the plethora of adjustments)
- All-metal chassis' are tuning forks, I also find that annoying

Chassis' are great in that they are modular - but that comes with its own set of downsides.

I still think you should try before you buy, if you have the ability to.

 

[JustSendit]

Personally I liked the foundation better, but performance wise, I don’t think the stock/chassis improved my placement. I was top 5-10 most 1-days and 15-20 most 2-days with a few podiums with both.

I agree the amount of screws on the ACC is by far the biggest problem with that thing. The ckyepods has same problem, I like them, but dang man there’s always a screw doing something.

For those reasons I recommend Foundation.
I wish the ACC would become dramatically lighter, then it’s actually modular. As of now it’s not light enough with everything removed for a true field/ruck match. So all that modularity just let’s guys weight the shit out of it for one game, PRS.

 

[Sheldon N]

Foundation + Hawkins bottom metal all day for me. Came from a metal chassis but now have several Foundations and adding more.

They will do multi-action inlets, all mine are cut that way.

If you want to address balance, look at the "Light" version of the stock. All the material removed comes out of the back end of the stock. You can also put a heavy barrel and/or weight kit on it to move the balance forward. That being said there's no issue with running it standard. My 223 trainer has no weight kits, a standard weight forend and a light barrel. Balance is well rearward of where my comp gun w/weight kits is at, but the trainer still shoots great. My comp gun is standard rear end, but has a lot of weight added forward.

 

[Mormegil87]

For the sake of objectivity, I do agree with @DeathBeforeDismount on a few points:

- The more complex a system is, the more likely it is to fail.
- You may not need all that complexity anyways (i.e. the plethora of adjustments)
- All-metal chassis' are tuning forks, I also find that annoying

Chassis' are great in that they are modular - but that comes with its own set of downsides.

I still think you should try before you buy, if you have the ability to.

This is the issue I have with the industry in general. You can't return anything if you don't like it. Going to a match and getting behind a buddies gun is nowhere near enough time to judge a piece of kit.

So you essentially end up with a really expensive rental if you don't like something.

 

[kthomas]

This is the issue I have with the industry in general. You can't return anything if you don't like it. Going to a match and getting behind a buddies gun is nowhere near enough time to judge a piece of kit.

So you essentially end up with a really expensive rental if you don't like something.

That's very true. My rifle has gone through many iterations.

I wish we could get "fit" for rifles like you can golf clubs.

 

[Mormegil87]

That's very true. My rifle has gone through many iterations.

I wish we could get "fit" for rifles like you can golf clubs.

I understand why there are no returns for a lot of this stuff. In most cases these are small businesses and they would have a hard time absorbing that.

 

[CK1.0]

I'm going to try a Centurion when the black ones become available again I think.

I know a lot of guys love it, but I wish Foundations came in more colors besides "Grandpa" lol.

That reminds me: any of you Foundation owners ever try sanding the clear coat and then dyeing them like knife guys do with micarta scales?

 

[NiteQwill]

I'm going to try a Centurion when the black ones become available again I think.

I know a lot of guys love it, but I wish Foundations came in more colors besides "Grandpa" lol.

That reminds me: any of you Foundation owners ever try sanding the clear coat and then dyeing them like knife guys do with micarta scales?

Just ask.

 

[CK1.0]

Just ask.
View attachment 7937903

Sick.

How'd you do that?

 

[Mudflap621]

Sick.

How'd you do that?

The cool think about the Foundation finish is it changes over time. That patina right there is from shooting a lot of 6.5 Creed.

 

[kthomas]

I understand why there are no returns for a lot of this stuff. In most cases these are small businesses and they would have a hard time absorbing that.

I think it would be cool for someone to startup a business, where they have every popular action, stock, chassis', scope, etc, where people can travel to get a completely "custom fit" for a rifle, and find out what suits their specific preferences. Try out actions, stock, chassis, scope, triggers, barrel length and contour combinations, suppressors, different cartridges, etc.

I'm not sure how many people would travel to do such a thing. You could also ship out rifles or components and rent them out for people not willing to travel. Perhaps people would pay a small fee to try things out that way.

Ideally the place would be on a lot of land, with the ability to shoot targets from many different PRS props. If I had more money I would totally consider doing something like that.

It's a shame that the best we can do is essentially buy and sell a lot of gear to try and figure it out.

 

[Gedwards55]

It wouldn’t be hard to set something like that up in different regions if you could promise to increase sales I’m sure brands would either give demos or sell at a discounted rate

 

[OREGUN]

I have thought for a long time, that @lowlight could/should do something like this in the Denver area. Let guys come “rent“ a chassis or bag or tripod, or scope, etc. out of the clubhouse for a match.

Having to go on a five minute finger bang and then spend 1000$ on a maybe really sucks.

Not sure how it would work exactly but I’m sure there’s a way and I’d bet there’s a market.

 

[Lowlight]

I could if there was interest

 

[Gedwards55]

I mean you could just charge everyone 100-200 to try a handful. It would be a lot better than wasting 1000

 

[penguinofsleep]

Agreed. Even knowing that the market is always changing and evolving, I would gladly travel out and pay within reason to try everything at once for more than 1 or 2 minutes behind a random rifle.

Just thinking out loud: Could have 1 floor sample of everything just to hold and try or look through and narrow down the selection quickly coupled with charts / tables that allow people to quickly compare and pick based on features they want (ex compatible with XYZ magazine, bolt throw angle, etc). Then have a few more range samples of all the individual parts that can be quickly configured for people to try dry (handle, run around with, prop on stuff, etc). Finally, each visitor could then shoot the top 2 or 3 configurations we liked if we want to, we pay for ammo too, could even be something cheap like 223 or whatever is relatively least dangerous in case of an accident given how much stuff would be getting shuffled around regularly.

Of course, in the interest of time and cross compatibility, we as the visitors will have to realize not everything will be perfectly fit every time and there will have to be some minor extrapolation on our part given that things will likely be quickly put together in "close enough" configurations to make a venture like this viable.



Also, for what it's worth, as mentioned above, because most of these are small companies and given that most of their business models seems to be mostly direct to consumer sales instead of retail sales, it does seem like it would take an independent entity to make this happen. I know for some other activities and hobbies I'm involved in that mirror this situation with a lot of small companies make up a significant % of the total market, something very similar is what it really took to let people try "everything". That or we would loan stuff out like a library... not very feasible with firearms though.