Post your Chassis/stock bore height

[4O6shootist]

So I've got a hunch, lower bore height to bottom surface of chassis provides better stability and recoil tracking. I have found that my suppressed 6.5cm atx tracks in recoil about as well as my braked bra in a foundation. Lets get a thread going where everyone provides their centerline bore height to bottom of forearm/arca rail.

Measure from top of barrel to bottom of rail/forend(at end of forend) with a caliper and subtract half the barrel contour diameter at the point measured.

Here are 3 measurements I have on hand:

Foundation centurion w/ arca rail: 1.85"
Krg bravo with vision arca forend: 1.77"
Accuracy Intl atx in oem chassis: 1.27"
KRG C4(spec provided by krg): 1.53"


Im trying to find lowest bore height chasis available for clone 700 I guess. At home I have mpa matrix, & arc xylo at home, but won't be able to measure them for a while as I'm out of town with work.

 

[ddridan]

I'll add -
XLR Envy Pro Rem700: 1.416"

If I recall the MDT ACC was closer the the AT-X, however I find the XLR tracks better on a barricade using same barreled action/scope. ACC: 23lb, XLR: 19.6lb both balanced 4" forward of the mag well.

 

[33jeep]

Was just looking at this height difference this morning. Here are the 3 I have around.

ARC Xylo: 1.887
KRG X-ray with aluminum ARCA forend: 1.895"
MDT ESS with MDT ARCA: 1.650" at receiver end / 1.139" at muzzle end of forend

 

[just browsing]

XLR and ACC are very close, but definitely more than AT-X if I recall correctly. There’s nothing really close to the AI.

They are all extremely flat shooting, though chambering, weight/balance, muzzle device, etc. all play a part in that as well. I didn’t like the ACC as much because the AT-X and XLR both had significantly more forearm rigidity.

AT-X and XLR also seemed like they were the closest ergonomically and feedback-wise.

 

[4O6shootist]

XLR and ACC are very close, but definitely more than AT-X if I recall correctly. There’s nothing really close to the AI.

They are all extremely flat shooting, though chambering, weight/balance, muzzle device, etc. all play a part in that as well. I didn’t like the ACC as much because the AT-X and XLR both had significantly more forearm rigidity.

AT-X and XLR also seemed like they were the closest ergonomically and feedback-wise.

I can attest after being behind a new xlr envy pro recently. Now that the newest gen has adjustable mag latch, I'm on the hunt for one. 25-30 week wait for them through xlr, that's craziness!

 

[just browsing]

I can attest after being behind a new xlr envy pro recently. Now that the newest gen has adjustable mag latch, I'm on the hunt for one. 25-30 week wait for them through xlr, that's craziness!

Yeah… the adjust mag latch and new buttstock are awesome. I just ordered my second one. They are pretty good about beating the lead time in my experience but it’s still a long time to wait. I waited around 8 weeks when they quoted me 16-20 last year.

Highly recommend them though. Especially when your main gal is the AT-X.

 

[Terry Cross]

So I've got a hunch, lower bore height to bottom surface of chassis provides better stability and recoil tracking. . . . .

Your hunch is correct.

My 2 cents . . . . Recoil creates two vectors that originate from the centerline of the bore.
The bottom or contact surface of the stock basically acts as the pivot point for those forces to move the rifle.

So, the closer the contact surface is to the C/L of the bore, the less leverage the vectors have to move the rifle off axis (direct line with the bore) out of position.

There are some rifle stocks with tall forends that are shooting well out there but they are shooting well in spite of it rather than because of it.


./