How does the performance of the Savage AccuStock stack up to Bell & Carlson, McMillan etc? The AccuStock is aluminum bedded, so is the Bell & Carlson. Can I expect similar performances from the AccuStock? Is there a reason to "upgrade" to one of these replacement stocks or even a chassis system vs. the factory Savage AccuStock?
- Thread starter DonasaurusRex
- Start date
Accustock felt flexy to me. A glassed stock like mcmillan or a solid chassis will feel solid. These are ‘feels’ though. Will it necessarily translate to greater inherent accuracy in the system, maybe maybe not. A solid connection between the action and the stock, and stock to the shooter will have a net positive affect though.
My accustock was rigid and it worked. It was a model 10 long range and a half moa rifle w factory ammo. I just didn’t like the ergos.
It appears to me the AccuStock is simply Savages version of the same idea companies like Bell & Carlson and others have pursued. If that is the case, the AccuStock performs the same function as these more name brand stocks. The ergonomics may differ, but the function is inherently the same.
This is basically what I'm wondering. It appears to be the case.
This is basically what I'm wondering. It appears to be the case.
Same.
It's as OK as OK can get for being plastic injection molding with an aluminum bed in it.
I replaced it with a a fiberglass McMillan and am very happy with it. Money well spent. I had another I replaced with a Boyd's hardwood varmint something or other I think they call it that I installed pillars in and glass bedded. Very happy with that too.
I especially thought the aluminum “pinch nut” was ingenious to force the recoil lug into a tight consistent position.
They 86'd that with a quickness. When the torque was changed on the wedge or it was moved the POI and accuracy changed.
I took mine out after 2 weeks.
Similar threads
