Remington 700 Chassis

F

ferretswithguns

Inactive
Hi everyone,

Ive been looking into several different chassis systems for a Remington 700 and had some questions I'm hoping some of you know the answers to. The chassis I liked the most was the MDT TAC21. I liked this variant as it essentially converted the rifle to a bolt action AR. I adore this concept because as an Army guy I have far more time with the m4-m16 series of weapon systems and the ability to transfer the ergonomics I'm so used to to a bolt action is simply fantastic. having said that the number of reviews of this chassis are extremely limited and while most are good there were a few that worried me.

1. the scope mounts to the chassis not the actual rifle itself, some people have stated this is a ridiculous idea that would destroy accuracy. I understand this idea in theory but in practice I'm not sure if its really an issue as the chassis shouldn't flex or come out of alignment at any time.

2. One review mentioned a pin coming loose.

So that all being said do any of you have experience with this particular chassis (by experience I mean several hundred rounds as I'm more interested in points of failure over time)

Also if anyone knows another chassis system that follows the ar system like the TAC21 does please let me know.

Thanks guys,
Zach
 

Attachments

  • tac21.jpg
    tac21.jpg
    71.1 KB · Views: 97
Search at snipers hide will likely get you some people that own that chassis. BTW, the rifle in the attachment has it's bipod on backwards. :-)
 
A couple issues for me.

1) Looks like you have to take the barreled action out of the chassis to be able to remove the bolt and clean the barrel/action from the breach.

2) Because the action beds to the chassis, and the fact you have to remove the action to remove the bolt to clean, it's possible you won't get the same bedding/fitment each time it's removed and re-installed.

Since the scope is not mounted to the action, this could cause issues with POA/POI shifts each time the action is remove and re-installed into the chassis. You wouldn't have this issue with a standard stock that does not require the action to be removed in order to remove the bolt and clean the barrel.
 
Interesting chassis. Here's a review I found:
http://rifleshooter.com/2012/08/modular-driven-technologies-tac21-and-tac21la-review/
It appears that the bolt is removed for cleaning by removing the butt stock.
That would satisfy precision_shooter's first and second points. Not ideal IMHO, but the rife doesn't have to be completely disassembled.
The optics mount still seems to be an issue for me as well. The chassis is aluminum. Seems to me an opportunity for problems maintaining POA/POI.
 
yes the bolt is removed by sliding the buttstock off which shouldnt cause major issues as the buttstock mounts via an adapter so it should not affect the actual chassis proper.

It seems the real issue for people is the scope mounting to the chassis, but does anyone know how big of an issue this is? obviously its ideal to mount directly to the weapon system itself as it removes an area for something to go wrong (ie some sort of misalignment with the chassis and barrel) but how possible is it for those two things to come out of alignment?

One of the other options I was looking at was the HS3, it keeps the ar ergonomics (at the buttstock and grip at least) but mounts the optic directly to the weapon itself.

Cowtowner I did see that review thanks, its pretty positive but unfortunately one of only a few out there.

Precision shooter points 1 and 2 are good but i think that the simple removal process of the buttstock satisfies those problems I am curious about your third point though: why do you believe that there would be shifts between aim and impact when taking the bolt out or replacing it?

and Mtn creek I will take a look over at snipers hide thanks for the redirect.
 

Attachments

  • hs3.jpg
    hs3.jpg
    12.3 KB · Views: 27
There are many chassis' that have a pistol grip similar to an AR and some will except AR stocks. XLR would be one example. The safety will still be in the normal R700 location, but no additional linkage between it and the lever seems like a plus to me. The PRS is a good stock, but it comes at the cost of added weight over some of the other offerings and it's not giving any added adjustments (less in some cases).

Whatever you decide on, try to find one to handle prior to purchasing. Also, while an AR fees really handy, a heavy match rifle configured similarly is not. YMMV.
 
I've been playing with my newly assembled tube gun built on an Eliseo chassis for a couple of months now. I can say for sure that as long as you're not removing the actual barreled action from the chassis, the gun holding zero isn't a problem, at least on any of the quality models from reputable manufacturers.

One thing to consider when choosing, is that a tube gun (Eliseo or Mak) will allow you to maintain your position on the scope while working the bolt. IIRC, the Tac 21 will allow for the same thing. This will further replicate your AR ergos. Most of the more common models of chassis don't allow for this, and thus are basically aluminum versions of every other target stock on the market.
 
I would hold out for the new magpul stock with the detachable mag. lightweight, simple and rugged. they say it doesn't replace a "chassis" system, but if it equals most magpul stuff I would bet it's going to be pretty sturdy and tight fitting.


this guy is selling the accuracy international for about half the factory cost. it's pretty much the cream of the crop for 700 chassis'.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=559277

I really think the one you showing, although I can't say with any firsthand knowledge, looks like it's more trying to look awesome than function ideally. I can't believe under any circumstance that the rifle isn't going to move to any degree inside the stock between shots. on a 700 you want a stock that is going to be "on" for extreme long-range stuff, and I don't see a stock mounted scope being able to achieve that. maybe someone can tell me I am wrong. I think it looks great....and heavy.

foghorn from TTAG
At the beginning of my range session, I put five or six rounds of Federal Premium into a hole about 1/2 inch in diameter at 100 yards with no problem. But, as the day went on, I started having issues. The rifle would swing wildly from being 2 mils low to 2 mils high without me touching the turrets. I thought it might be an problem with the temperature of the barrel, but when I went to tap the barrel to see if it was hot, it wiggled in the chassis. It had come loose, and I had left my wrenches at home
Click to expand...
I think on some level this is going to be happening, even with the loc-tite, even if not noticable
 
Ignorance on my part?...

I've been shooting rifles for well over half a century. The wood (or more recently fiberglass, or so help me plastic) part of the rifle was always called the "stock." That term has been in use, and has worked perfectly well, since forever.

Questions: Since when has that part been re-named the "chassis" like the frame of a pickup truck? Who decided to call it that? And why?

OK, so I'm an old fogey from under a rock.
 
Stock and chassis are not the same. I would say the main difference is that an action can be mounted in a chassis without bedding (although some still skim bed) and proper action mounting to a stock will require bedding and often pillars. Also, whatever bottom metal (if any) will require fitting, while a chassis will typically come set up for detachable mags.

It's actually a useful term to describe something different than a stock. It's not like people throwing the term 'platform' or 'system' around. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top