• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

PRS oriented stock design

Mr.BR

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Oct 5, 2017
    4,989
    8,413
    Slowly but surely developing a new carbon fiber stock design initially for rem700 clones but an small-bore version is also in the works (different tang design )that is geared toward Open PRS later other derivatives might happen as well.

    Some features incorporated so far.

    -low bore line
    -wide forend, 66mm so as wide as 56mm optics objective
    -steel RRS arca rail integrated into CF stock , both for rigidity and added weight (cca 700g of steel)
    -swappable grips (can be vertical or slanted , many shapes possible)
    -molded in thumb shelves
    -short buttstock for possible rear weights
    - 4mlock and 2 QD slots on each side

    Looking for input as to what folks would like to see added to the design.

    Looking at adding a forend bridge, not necessarily for NV but could also function with NV or ELR prizm
    Barricade stops will of course be added but as a bolt-on add-on or part of a new bottom metal its not the part of stock itself.
    Internal weights might be added to the forend .

    380106567_693048172709001_9029400250792871385_n (1).png


    380446166_288620907439969_4334838068228206777_n (1).png


    3d printed prototype is already a bit dated as design evolved , but shows base shape well enough
    387325825_1947710332269993_8689593243453879787_n.jpg


    382532157_1063821974963028_7762337558745373267_n.jpg


    380296213_836189421486518_2556126106192400382_n.png

    386453859_703787481133490_7639252960990662823_n.png
     
    Last edited:
    I think the market you are after will almost all want the vertical grip. Maybe skip the slanted and make it one piece. Most stocks have a pretty long length of pull. I would love to see an adjustable lop with a butt pad that has adjustable cant and height. My opinion is that the lop should be in the 12" to 14" range. Many stocks are starting near the 14" mark. I find it hard to be comfortable while square behind the rifle, I'm short though so take it for what it's worth.
    I like the design, good luck with your project!
     
    I agree vertical is the way , but its not so much about vertical or slanted as much as adding different sizes for different hand sizes .

    One-piece stock with molded-in handgrip would be much easier to do than these swappable ones, but am kinda exploring what could be done and these days professionally made 3d printed parts for grips are doable . at this stage buttstock with recoil pad is not shown.
     
    Ambidextrous
    Tool less adjustments for the cheek rest. Make it easy to remove tool less too to make it easier to clean.
    Tool less bag rider would be nice like the matrix pro
    Short LOP - because I’m short and have a short LOP
    I agree that vertical grips is the way to go, but since I’m short I also have small hands so various grip sizes
    Adjustable Mag latch
    Inlet to allow for trigger hanger
    Im assuming it will be compatible with some internal weight system
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Badjujuu
    Thin low pro cheek piece with available padding, something similar to the acc elite.

    Available aluminum arca rial that's light to where a person may be able to use this as a field/hunting/nrl hunter stock.

    Adjustable mag latch is a necessity, ability to adjust trigger wight through the trigger guard. Quick adjust LOP/Cheek height, tool-less even better.

    Your idea novelty of the low bore height is a good one, I love how my atx chassis track, as well as the xlr. They have the lowest bore center to arca face of all the chassis I have been around, and that aspect makes a difference, most people don't even realize the difference it can make. Believe the new krg C4 has a similar low bore.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: shoobe01
    The bore is probably even lower than on ACC that is kinda the reason why ARCA rail is used as a structural member, not as a bolt-on accessory.

    With folks runing 1.25'' straight barrels and deep Remington 700 recoil lug extensively weakening any chassis or stock , its actualy hard to get much lower purely from structural standpoint, only way lower is to use a structural top cover and there you hit the scope height issues.
     
    Last edited:
    The bore is probably even lower than on ATX that is kinda the reason why ARCA rail is used as a structural member, not as a bolt-on accessory.

    With folks runing 1.25'' straight barrels and deep Remington 700 recoil lug extensively weakening any chassis or stock , its actualy hard to get much lower purely from structural standpoint, only way lower is to use a structural top cover and there you hit the scope height issues.

    Fore end seems short

    Thumbwheel adjustable (no tools needed) comb and length of pull adjustments

    Tool less adjustment of butt pad height and cant.
     
    That's a great start!

    It looks like my Manners TCS with most of the things I'd change if I could (specifically the more vertical grip and the M-lok slots for adding more weight out front if needed). I've gone back and forth with Tom at Manners about adding the M-lok slots up front on my TCS, but those add-on Badger rails are nearly impossible to find now.

    I've thought for a while now that a TCS + Foundation Centurion mashup would be sick... and your design reminds me of that.

    That said, why carbon fiber? For light but still stiff (like for a hunting rig) I get it, but it's expensive and the Foundations have proved that some materials are more dead than others.

    I'd suggest polymer, it's cheaper to produce and in the end, it'll be easier for more shooters to afford, and soaks up the recoil nearly as well as micarta (I once built a Bravo kitted-out with every weight KRG sells, and at 22lbs it was dead as hell, near Foundation-dead).

    Whatever you do, please don't skimp on hardware though... the KMW hardware spoils you, and everything else feels like shit, and the original steel rail they offered for the Manners' TCS are/were 1000% nicer and more solid than the shitty aluminum A419 or newest Manners' ones they've gone to now.
     
    Action in picts has an extended tenon to simulate long action , but yes stock forend is shorter than an MDT ACC chassis but about same lenght as Manners Stocks. At present chassis have much longer forends than composite stocks

    Of course, i can extend forend somewhat, although i wouldn't want to go to chassis length due to structural limitations.

    Quickly adjustable cheek and LOP and tool less i assume folk would like thumbwheel not push button detent? Thumbwheel its a bit harder to pull off in composite stock

    Why CF ? i am somewhat biased towards composites due near 3 decades of composite experience. I also like my stocks not to vibrate , you can feel most chassis do .Given that we are adding weight its not of many benefits in that department but making a low bore height CF can aid that a lot , deadening vibrations -,check , warm feel to the hand regardles of outside temp- check.

    But realistically making anything else than an aluminum chassis is kinda an endeavor in futility these days particulary when you need to attach all sorts of gadgets onto it ,aluminum just drill a hole and thread it voila. Composites are extremely work intensive and relatively toxic work even at closed mold processes like SAKO uses for their stocks. But nothing is quite like a good-quality CF part , nothing comes even close in my view

    Why Manners doesn't have bunch of M-lock? For a laminated shell that m-lock panel cut is a huge structural degradation, that you have to offset somehow, while that might no be the case with non-laminated stock like Grayboe , or a wooden stock or the micarta stock like Fundation.

    M-lok Cut takes away huge chunk of the shell side that carries bending load , that needs to be compensated somewhere else .for now i am runing a full steel mlok pannel and internal reinforcement.

    380156950_686404429803687_3156603676294067805_n.png
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: CK1.0
    IMO, screw all that tool-less shit. Being able to add a knob (or not) in order to take off the cheekpiece and pull the bolt makes sense (ala Manners/Foundation)... but most of the other tool-less crap on the other "all things to all people" chassis' out there is trash and just adds to the list of things that will eventually work loose and mess you up. Anyone who's done this a while carries the tools they need to adjust/fix their fancy rifle shit with them in their pack... so in lieu of any tool-less stuff (which if one's rifle is fit/setup properly they'll rarely/never use), maybe just include a couple of decent hex wrenches...

    In fact, the "all things to all people" chassis is sort of a bad idea because it seems like there are concessions made in order to try and accommodate everybody which leads to a far less homogenous and solid design.

    Some things don't need adjusting, like butt-pad-cant... if one thinks they need butt-pad cant, maybe they really just need to get up off the bench or off the ground now and then lol.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Jcarpenter223
    IMO, screw all that tool-less shit. Being able to add a knob (or not) in order to take off the cheekpiece and pull the bolt makes sense (ala Manners/Foundation)... but most of the other tool-less crap on the other "all things to all people" chassis' out there is trash and just adds to the list of things that will eventually work loose and mess you up.

    I don't think you've used the toolless stock adjustment hardware that was available from Master Class Stocks and David Tubb......... https://masterclassstocks.com/accessories.html

    When conventional stocks ruled the roost in NRA highpower and prone rifle, everyone used those and nobody used hardware like KMW's.

    The MDT ACC Premier chassis does it right
     
    Oh please use high grade coated or nitride fasteners on every screw nut bolt whatever. Nothing pisses me off like have my 1500$ acc elite or envy pro in a lil rain shower and 2 days later all the cheap shit hardware is rusted. That's just poor attention to detail.
     
    I don't think you've used the toolless stock adjustment hardware that was available from Master Class Stocks and David Tubb......... https://masterclassstocks.com/accessories.html

    When conventional stocks ruled the roost in NRA highpower and prone rifle, everyone used those and nobody used hardware like KMW's.

    The MDT ACC Premier chassis does it right

    I haven’t used it, but know guys that do, and I’ve seen it… and yeah, that hardware is legit also.

    JMHO, but I don’t consider most of the MDT/KRG/MPA stuff as being in the same league, it works, but most of that stuff requires keeping the blue Loctite nearby and is more “please everybody” than “hard-use”.
     
    What you can do for the grip since it is not a standard AR grip, that I have only ever seen once, I think. Is the print or file for others to modify if they wish to 3D print or mill there own if they have the means without having to reverse engineer the fit and mounting to the chassis.

    That way people can make them from wood, delrin, 3D print filaments, aluminum or whatever they want. Then they can modify it with finger grooves and to be thicker, or thinner, a wider thumb rest, change the angle etc.
     
    What you can do for the grip since it is not a standard AR grip, that I have only ever seen once, I think. Is the print or file for others to modify if they wish to 3D print or mill there own if they have the means without having to reverse engineer the fit and mounting to the chassis.

    That way people can make them from wood, delrin, 3D print filaments, aluminum or whatever they want. Then they can modify it with finger grooves and to be thicker, or thinner, a wider thumb rest, change the angle etc.

    Its not meant to have a standard grip let alone an ar15 grip, buy different shapes made by high end 3d print shops like MKmachining could be offered or you could print one yourself if you really desperately wanted one,i could make a baseline grip .CAD file availible and folks can toy with them as much as they like .
     
    JMHO, but I don’t consider most of the MDT/KRG/MPA stuff as being in the same league, it works, but most of that stuff requires keeping the blue Loctite nearby and is more “please everybody” than “hard-use”.
    That's why I mentioned one particular MDT product only.

    Having had fully adjustable prone and 3 position stocks from Master Class Stocks before I agree that most of the stock adjustment hardware in the precision rifle world doesn't measure up.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: CK1.0
    One thing that bothers me about the TCS is the geometry of the grip. It feels like the vertical grip should extend out closer to the actual trigger guard. That along with a little bit of a palm swell would be great.

    Just for clarification is your intent to have the stock material itself to be made entirely of carbon fiber or will it be a laminated shell? Will you be using an internal metal chassis/v-block or are you thinking of having these molded for aftermarket bottom metal?
     
    Last edited:
    the vertical grip should extend out closer to the actual trigger guard.
    This ^^. Apparently most stock manf think everybody who shoots rifles can also palm a basketball.

    My suggestion to the OP is keep the changable grip and make them for both vertical/near vertical (my preference) and slanted if you think there is a market for that. But DEF make some grip options that moves the front strap of the grip MUCH closer to the trigger shoe.
     
    Yea, get the grip close. Like an AI or KMW Sentinel.

    Bottom metal or chassis needs a barricade stop.

    Option for a full length mirage shield or nvg rail that fully encloses the forend. As well as shorter ones for people who want that.
     
    Yea, get the grip close. Like an AI or KMW Sentinel.

    Bottom metal or chassis needs a barricade stop.

    Option for a full length mirage shield or nvg rail that fully encloses the forend. As well as shorter ones for people who want that.
    Ok will try moving the grip closer and see what gives at one point you hit the rear action screw and can't come any closer (this is also where chassis with ar 15 grips can dance around that limitation, i was kinda in monkey see monkey do mode on this as all stocks seem to have grips far from the trigger. Chassis have them much closer but i reckon its because they have full pistol grip so the palm is in a different position , but yes since folk are using them with thumb shelf its not really griped differently
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: J_D
    Look at the McMillan U10 for an example of a more conventional stock with a shorter trigger reach. You can see that adapted to the Game Warden Long Range as well. Basically sets the rear action screw just in front of the grip.

    That’s far more reminiscent of the KMW et al than the traditional “let’s take our swept/open grip stock last and leave the action in the same spot, but with a vertical grip shifted back” design approach.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: carbonbased
    A foundation centurion has a close grip to trigger distance, ans it's a full stock. I had a manners TCS and that was my complaint, the shortest lop was 13.5" and grip to trigger too long. Also the foundations shortest lop was around 13.5 without getting out a saw and re-mounting the butt pad threaded grommets.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: DJL2 and Mr.BR
    Quick chop shop job just to see how it might affect the design

    Moved the action back 15mm
    stock.jpg

    And extended the forend 20mm
    extended.jpg
     
    • Like
    Reactions: SavageAction
    better yet just design a grip piece that can be adjusted fore/aft. Could use different modules or a spacer system.

    Allowing the grip to be adjusted closer or farther away is just as important as having different shapes.

    I don’t know why manners hasn’t done this yet on the tcs. A spacer system similar to their cheek piece on the LRH, but with a grip, would be genius.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bryan W M
    better yet just design a grip piece that can be adjusted fore/aft. Could use different modules or a spacer system.

    Allowing the grip to be adjusted closer or farther away is just as important as having different shapes.

    I don’t know why manners hasn’t done this yet on the tcs. A spacer system similar to their cheek piece on the LRH, but with a grip, would be genius.
    Hmm i am not sure i can , on a stock a least , you definitely can on a chassis, on a stock unless its like MDT Timber where you have only a thin strip of metal holding two parts of the stock together. On mine you can change the grith , forward 'finger swell' and a bunch of other things but are hard-pressed to really be able to move the palm swell forward and back much

    I dont know if Timbr is still like this that alows near unlimited design freedom with handgrips ,but is hardly structuraly optimal design
    2023-10-08_14h40_11.png
     
    Hmm i am not sure i can , on a stock a least , you definitely can on a chassis, on a stock unless its like MDT Timber where you have only a thin strip of metal holding two parts of the stock together. On mine you can change the grith , forward 'finger swell' and a bunch of other things but are hard-pressed to really be able to move the palm swell forward and back much

    I dont know if Timbr is still like this that alows near unlimited design freedom with handgrips ,but is hardly structuraly optimal design
    View attachment 8244206
    As far as rear action screw clearance, would a slot for access not resolve this. Or if your grips are changeable (not sure if that’s part of your design rather than just offering different grips) then can it not just be taken off to gain access while providing a grip front strap much closer to the trigger.

    I find the Centurion…mentioned above…to still be too far. Shootable, but not optimal for me.
     
    I don't like the modular grip idea unless it's going to end up being rock solid. If it means compromise, don't do it, and just offer a couple of different configurations with different grips...

    I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but compromising a design in order to try to please everybody never really works out.
     
    IMO the “gorilla grip” phenomenon is a stock maker trying to arrange the stock physically so the shooter has no choice but for their finger to interface with the trigger correctly.

    A better approach is to have the grip closer to the trigger, but then have a series of pads that can be used to limit the amount of finger the shooter can put on the trigger.

    As a long-time revolver shooter I found the large pad on the Anarchy Outdoors Alpha Grip to be invaluable to proper trigger interface.


    -Stan
     
    • Like
    Reactions: J_D
    In regards to tool less adjustment, I have to admit i was kinda looking at KWM style which i have been using for ever , if only quick adjustabilty needed is removing the cheek piece for cleaning that can be done at the cheek piece

    Fundation Manners and McMillan more or less use sort of KMW style setup or tool less variant with external thumbscrews
    IMG_1720.jpg
    adjustablecheekknob.jpg


    When it comes to toolless, most are toolless only in adjustment but then often have a set screw or a clamp screw to lock in place so many really not toolless or come with crude thumbscrews in addition to thumbwheel essentially doubling up on whole affair

    TIMBR_PDP_Frontier_03__09426.1666636835.jpg



    Then there are push button systems that are fully tool-less but those always have a slop to them
    For example like GRS stocks
    grsstocksporter02.jpg

    If you use thumbwheel like ,f class crowd they can be ball detent thumbwheel but i don't quite see why you would need to do it.

    c7ec3e_9646e323c16a46c080ffaf9f961adace~mv2.jpeg
     
    Last edited:
    In regards to tool less adjustment, I have to admit i was kinda looking at KWM style which i have been using for ever , if only quick adjustabilty needed is removing the cheek piece for cleaning that can be done at the cheek piece

    Fundation Manners and McMillan more or less use sort of KMW style setup or tool less variant with external thumbscrews
    IMG_1720.jpg
    adjustablecheekknob.jpg


    When it comes to toolless, most are toolless only in adjustment but then often have a set screw or a clamp screw to lock in place so many really not toolless or come with crude thumbscrews in addition to thumbwheel essentially doubling up on whole affair

    TIMBR_PDP_Frontier_03__09426.1666636835.jpg



    Then there are push button systems that are fully tool-less but those always have a slop to them
    For example like GRS stocks
    grsstocksporter02.jpg

    If you use thumbwheel like ,f class crowd they can be ball detent thumbwheel but i don't quite see why you would need to do it.

    c7ec3e_9646e323c16a46c080ffaf9f961adace~mv2.jpeg
    KMW loggerhead hdwr is outstanding and pretty much bullet proof. Love it, personally.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: DJL2 and MBanning
    So, as far as the whole hand/thumb/index finger to trigger relationship goes, that was the only thing I didn’t like on my W3. I shipped my chassis to @Tyler Kemp at MKM and they scanned it and made this grip for me. It’s a prototype so ignore that part of it is ambidextrous (the thumb rest & bolt handle cutout). On my version, the left hand palm swell is less “swelly” than on the right side.

    This grip is one of the reasons KRG has some fancier optional grips now available. Don’t know how nice they are.

    I think MKM might produce these grips someday? Night and day difference for me. I wear medium gloves sometimes, and large other times. Sort of in-between M & L, I guess.

    14EFF8CC-E6B5-42CD-BB3A-0294AF3A573B.jpeg
    F632F21A-1706-4577-9906-5AAEC155349B.jpeg
    990249C1-421A-4E78-93B4-D0A228275971.jpeg
    C53813BA-A584-4F42-ACA6-D2AFB3908B0B.jpeg
    4BCC3C04-1632-4871-9BD7-1A6BD6A01A8B.jpeg

    See how far forward my thumb gets to rest? It’s next to the upper grip bolt. The original KRG grip forced the thumb more upright.


    96562134-FC20-480F-8798-3E1ECE8ED4C0.jpeg
    1CFC0C88-C0FA-4E1E-BD7D-7D7A233306B7.jpeg
    A7DB04BC-06A8-4546-AD43-3D719FCBED9E.jpeg

    The new grip really pushes my pinkie/ring/middle fingers forward more.

    Here’s the small stock KRG grips for comparison. Too far to reach without other fingers coming off of the grip. (flipped the stock right hand chassis pic from KRG so it’s easier to compare). The stock large grip panels just get bigger palm swells and don’t push the fingers further forward.
    E887DB8E-CB26-4680-B111-1C3A5F970B0D.jpeg


    8367C145-C431-454E-824E-0F8536707FAB.jpeg
    707F06C4-EEDB-4C73-AEAB-40B7D9ED8759.jpeg

    I like angled cheek pieces …only shooting 204 so recoil isn’t an issue.


    56254049-44AA-4327-A339-C5BC7BF5408D.jpeg

    This last one is before I filed away part of the bit that indexes on your middle finger on your shooting hand (right behind the trigger guard).

    So that’s my 2 cents on grips and cheek pieces on your new chassis design.
     
    Last edited:
    The OP might know all about this already, but if not here’s some info on how the recoil lug interfaces with a chassis and what that potentially does for accuracy. Maybe other people will find it interesting too.

    From what I gather, a radius interface is usually better for accuracy with a well machined action than a v-block. KRG and I think KMW Sentinel use a radius (maybe others too). Something to do with potential “tang dive” with v-blocks.

    I don’t know crap about this, just reporting to duty, sirs! Not vouching for the correctness of the info.

    The actual info (search for the word “Bedding):

    Their summary on the issue:

    Bottom line: Radius bedding offers higher performance, while V-blocks are more forgiving of out-of-spec actions.

    Who runs that site, anyway? I find some golden nuggets in there occasionally.
     
    So, as far as the whole hand/thumb/index finger to trigger relationship goes, that was the only thing I didn’t like on my W3. I shipped my chassis to @Tyler Kemp at MKM and they scanned it and made this grip for me. It’s a prototype so ignore that part of it is ambidextrous (the thumb rest & bolt handle cutout). On my version, the left hand palm swell is less “swelly” than on the right side.
    I literally just sent them an e-mail asking for this…
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: carbonbased
    I literally just sent them an e-mail asking for this…
    Well, they (MKM) can’t say they haven’t done it before!

    KRG makes this thing now
    1696832045490.png


    And this
    1696832206553.png


    Together
    1696832169245.png


    Still doesn’t bring your three other fingers forward, but helps the thumb shelf position (KRG’s still might not be far enough fwd for me) and the index finger rest at a better position for a 90° pull.
     
    Last edited:
    Following where this goes. Not sure how deep into the weeds you really want to get on this project OP but I definitely think you’re on the right track.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: SavageAction
    Design will continue to evolve for a while bunch of 3d printed stocks will be made to validate the design , then a one off tooling will be milled and i will make a prototype, then expect to find a hidden issue or two refine the design and make another prototype or two including one for euro rimfire actions (different tang). Will also be making a new bottom metal design and a mini chassis of some sort , mini chassis might not be aluminum but forged carbon construction at least that was the plan .

    The hardware is a project in itself .Ifs often the element that folks 'experience' the most, it also carries to most potential to make a stock unafordable, hardware is where aluminum chassis has a distinct cost advantage to laminated stocks as much of it is machined in base structure.
     
    I agree with the comments about tool less adjustments and weight. In PRS, carbon fiber is not necessary since most prefer a heavier setup for recoil mitigation and balance. Once the rifle is set up the way the shooter likes it, it's no big deal to grab a couple tools and readjust. Maybe make the cheekpiece removable by a quick release or knob. Also, the fore end needs to be longer. Someone commented previously about making it longer and you added 20 mm. Lol! That's less than an 1 inch increase. Seriously? In this game a much longer fore end is preferred. Just look at all the top tier chassis on the market (e.g. MDT Elite, MPA Matrix Pro, XLR Envy Pro, etc). And yes, make hardware stainless, or at least black oxide stainless steel. It pisses me off when I have a $1500+ chassis and it gets rained on and all of a sudden the fasteners are flash rusting. Grrrr...
     
    I agree with the comments about tool less adjustments and weight. In PRS, carbon fiber is not necessary since most prefer a heavier setup for recoil mitigation and balance. Once the rifle is set up the way the shooter likes it, it's no big deal to grab a couple tools and readjust. Maybe make the cheekpiece removable by a quick release or knob. Also, the fore end needs to be longer. Someone commented previously about making it longer and you added 20 mm. Lol! That's less than an 1 inch increase. Seriously? In this game a much longer fore end is preferred. Just look at all the top tier chassis on the market (e.g. MDT Elite, MPA Matrix Pro, XLR Envy Pro, etc). And yes, make hardware stainless, or at least black oxide stainless steel. It pisses me off when I have a $1500+ chassis and it gets rained on and all of a sudden the fasteners are flash rusting. Grrrr...
    I kinda explained why carbon in the past above, its not about weight per se ,............. in many applications whatever aluminum can do carbon fiber can do better and that is better than 7xxx series let alone the much 'softer' 6xxx series aluminum used in most chassis (AI ATX is out of 7xxx). And CF itself is not the major expense, with composite fabrics material is almost inconsequential to cost ,its the manhours that cost ! Fiberglass stock would be maybe 50$ cheaper than CF .

    In regards to fore end length Its was(before the mod) as long as Manners which seem to be an inch or so longer than Foundation stocks , longest chassis have 5-7in on them but stocks tend to run an extended arca rails in my case 80mm past the stock length so difference to chassis is closer to 2-4in range.

    But indeed all composite stocks are shorter than the longest chassis . Maybe someone can pitch in but once rifle is weight balanced is there much need for such an extended forend? At one point its well past hand reach

    Stainless is not always a good choice ,as the SS fasteners like to friction weld themselves and strip heads easily its not much used in hardware, believe me you rather have a rusty fastener than a striped and friction welded one small ones in SS are particularly prone to that. Good quality steel with good surface coating/treatment ..
     
    Last edited:
    In regards to tool less adjustment, I have to admit i was kinda looking at KWM style which i have been using for ever , if only quick adjustabilty needed is removing the cheek piece for cleaning that can be done at the cheek piece

    Fundation Manners and McMillan more or less use sort of KMW style setup or tool less variant with external thumbscrews
    IMG_1720.jpg
    adjustablecheekknob.jpg


    When it comes to toolless, most are toolless only in adjustment but then often have a set screw or a clamp screw to lock in place so many really not toolless or come with crude thumbscrews in addition to thumbwheel essentially doubling up on whole affair

    TIMBR_PDP_Frontier_03__09426.1666636835.jpg



    Then there are push button systems that are fully tool-less but those always have a slop to them
    For example like GRS stocks
    grsstocksporter02.jpg

    If you use thumbwheel like ,f class crowd they can be ball detent thumbwheel but i don't quite see why you would need to do it.

    c7ec3e_9646e323c16a46c080ffaf9f961adace~mv2.jpeg

    Let me help you with some first hand experience.

    Thumbwheel/screw adjusters do not move on their own, even without ball detents. None of the stocks I had with them needed setscrews/grubscrews/detents or any other secondary means of holding position.

    It just doesn't happen.

    I've had rifles with these stocks. Never a problem with adjustments moving when I didn't want to. Plenty of need to adjust, as they sport these are for requires shooting from prone, standing, sitting, and kneeling (like ISSF 3 position but with rapid fire). The buttplate screws tighten around a clamp as it moves in three different axis but I'm sure some time on CAD can turn that into a tool less system as well.
    1696855867215.png


    1696855968937.png


    Do something like the MDT TIMBR without any set screw threads and stop. It will be more than good enough.
     
    I hate when my gun's cheek rest interferes with my over ear protection and causes gappage. I switched to KRG from McMillan because I wanted to be able to move the cheek piece forward if I wanted to, ended up cutting it down, and now it's far enough forward to rest my face on the gun without canting my head, or getting any contact with the ear pro:

    cheekpiece.jpeg


    Even if someone doesn't want to get as extremely far forward with me, it would be nice to see more options out there for cheek pieces to be smaller, or easier moved forward and aft.
     
    New v.8.0, honestly not much to my liking, action moved back , cheek rest angled further to clear the bolt, beefed up around the action and tang ,NVG bridge space added that wrecks havoc with the whole design.Will definitely rework this


    M_08.png

    Remake_Rn 700_08.jpg

    M_8.png

    Man0.png
     
    • Like
    Reactions: rydah
    I kinda explained why carbon in the past above, its not about weight per se ,............. in many applications whatever aluminum can do carbon fiber can do better and that is better than 7xxx series let alone the much 'softer' 6xxx series aluminum used in most chassis (AI ATX is out of 7xxx). And CF itself is not the major expense, with composite fabrics material is almost inconsequential to cost ,its the manhours that cost ! Fiberglass stock would be maybe 50$ cheaper than CF .

    In regards to fore end length Its was(before the mod) as long as Manners which seem to be an inch or so longer than Foundation stocks , longest chassis have 5-7in on them but stocks tend to run an extended arca rails in my case 80mm past the stock length so difference to chassis is closer to 2-4in range.

    But indeed all composite stocks are shorter than the longest chassis . Maybe someone can pitch in but once rifle is weight balanced is there much need for such an extended forend? At one point its well past hand reach

    Stainless is not always a good choice ,as the SS fasteners like to friction weld themselves and strip heads easily its not much used in hardware, believe me you rather have a rusty fastener than a striped and friction welded one small ones in SS are particularly prone to that. Good quality steel with good surface coating/treatment ..
    Part of the reason for extending the forend is the ability to add more weight further forward for balance. Another part is certain props we shoot off of are able to be done from a bipod that’s way out front. 2 weights per side probably won’t be enough honestly.
    Most comp rigs these days are pushing 23+ lbs. if you look at the top chassis they all start at over 6lbs before adding any weight. So 2lbs for action, 3lbs for scope, 8lbs for barrel total 19lbs rifle before weights. Bipod should not be considered as you should never balance a chassis with a bipod on.
    You need the ability to balance as well as add about 4lbs of weights at least.
     
    Can I ask why choose carbon fiber for the stock material for a PRS competition customer base? As others have said, most competitors are looking for a dedicated stock/chassis that's far heavier.
     
    Can I ask why choose carbon fiber for the stock material for a PRS competition customer base? As others have said, most competitors are looking for a dedicated stock/chassis that's far heavier.
    Check post 9 above .

    Like said , on paper Chassis should be the way to go by a country mile , still top PRS/NRL shots at the moment are running Foundation stocks instead, oh the horror , crude shapes, non modular ,short forends not even an arca but an Anschutz/UIT rail on it. and there are reasons for it ,

    Chassis are way more modular and easy to kit up with all sorts of doodads you can't easily add to a stock,
    But if you take an honest look once stock is set up and balanced the way you want /need it you do not need any more modularity than that arca rail on the bottom is offering

    Stocks feel and shoot differently,this might sound hyperbolic but stocks especially when they do not need to be light (wooden, composite,micarta)will with near 100% certainty outshot any metal chassis you can buy, period.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: DJL2
    Oh please use high grade coated or nitride fasteners on every screw nut bolt whatever. Nothing pisses me off like have my 1500$ acc elite or envy pro in a lil rain shower and 2 days later all the cheap shit hardware is rusted. That's just poor attention to detail.

    This is the one of the biggest design blind spots of most chassis'. The hardware is a weak link in adverse conditions.

    My JAE hardware rusted incredibly bad over a 2-day PRS match that was very damp. Ultimately got all new hardware for the chassis (shout out to MDT for providing that for me, great CS).

    AI does a good job in this regard. I believe they use a lot of stainless hardware.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: DJL2
    @Mr.BR, really neat project! Love seeing a product go from design to inception - so watching with interest.