Cadex verses MDT tac 21 .

MDT HS3 is where it is at in my opinion. Good weight and balance, solid bedding. With the MDT skeleton stock, that you can lock the adjustments into place... I love it..

Im OCD With rifle cleaning, so the full AR look just creates little areas hard for me to clean.
 
Clearly weight can't be too much of a factor. Looking at a lot of these high end chassis options and they all end up weighing 14+lbs without optics. That's quite heavy. I'm pretty sure my TRG wieghs around 10-11lbs. I like the idea of a chassis, but Im not sure I want a 15-20lb rifle.

For those who do have a chassis set-up, how is the balance for shooting off-hand? My TRG doesn't weigh too much but I find a lot of the weight is up front and the balance point is a little too far forward of the mag for my liking. I'm wondering if a heavier but more balance rifle would feel lighter.
 
I had a 700 5r with a 24" barrel in a field stirke ~14 pounds with PMII in a spuhr and bipod. Off hand it was pretty front heavy. I wouldn't have minded adding some weight to the rear, or having a 20" barrel. Luckily I've sold that, and am going with a bullpup.
 
Last edited:
Tikka223 said:
For those who do have a chassis set-up, how is the balance for shooting off-hand? My TRG doesn't weigh too much but I find a lot of the weight is up front and the balance point is a little too far forward of the mag for my liking. I'm wondering if a heavier but more balance rifle would feel lighter.
Click to expand...

Exactly, balance trumps weight.
I have a much easier time with my 17 pound 6xc in an aI ax, offhand compared to a trg 22 offhand. Or in any position really.
Prone is the only position I really like the trg.
 
Canadiankeeper said:
MDT HS3 is where it is at in my opinion. Good weight and balance, solid bedding. With the MDT skeleton stock, that you can lock the adjustments into place... I love it..

Im OCD With rifle cleaning, so the full AR look just creates little areas hard for me to clean.
Click to expand...


They were really close with the hs3.
They just needed to ditch the lower ar buffer tube/stock indexing socket, similar to the original Lss chassis stock fixture that simply had threads for the buffer tube. This allows the grip to be moved up for better trigger position. The trigger position really isn't great on the hs3.
For the stock, something similar to the xlr stock would have been the right move. Good cheek riser, fully adjustable, easy bolt removal, and only needs a buffer tube for a mount.
And why it doesn't have qd sockets machined in I can't figure. The big goofy rails with qd sockets are the only way to get it done, and they had significant bulk.

Something that becomes obvious after you've played with a wide variety of these chassis is that ar furniture sucks on a precision rifle. I don't mean some of it, I mean all of it. The beloved Magpul prs is a piece of crap next to a cadex, ai, xlr, etc. buttstock. The adjustability and "just right" ergonomics of a full chassis really do show up in down range results...
 
Nail on the head, NTM. So many caveats with rifle chassis options. Especially ones with AR buttstocks. I get that it opens your options up but those options are designed for a tactical rifle not a serious precision rifle.
 
I guess I should of said , this rifle is not going to be for any long range precision competition. I'm just looking to build a accurate Target/hunting rifle that's around 9 lbs and has a tactical chassis such as the Cadex or MTD. I see no point in a 1+ MOA rifle. I'm only punching paper and I like doing load devopment. I don't see me going past 500 yards so my goal is to put 5 in a 3 inch circle. I'd be pleased with that. I like the look of the MTD tac 30 but I've no interest of gluing anything in . I think from my research the Cadex is the better option , for me:).
 
With the tac you also have to remove your trigger to install the action inside, then reinstall inside the upper part of the chassis. Seems like a major pain in you know what.
 
bsand said:
With the tac you also have to remove your trigger to install the action inside, then reinstall inside the upper part of the chassis. Seems like a major pain in you know what.
Click to expand...
Yes, seems like a few small headaches with the Tac.If it wasn't for that online look, I wouldn't even have started this thread .
 
Brianma65 said:
I'm figuring 9 lbs without optics. Tikka T3 Varminter HB and Cadex Urban strike.
Click to expand...

It should be right around 9.5 lbs, which is decent considering.

And removing the trigger on a Tikka T3 is as simple as removing 1 bolt. A non issue and not a headache IMO.

I think you can't go wrong with either for what your intended use is. Just pick the one you like best.
 
Brianma65 said:
I guess I should of said , this rifle is not going to be for any long range precision competition. I'm just looking to build a accurate Target/hunting rifle that's around 9 lbs and has a tactical chassis such as the Cadex or MTD. I see no point in a 1+ MOA rifle. I'm only punching paper and I like doing load devopment. I don't see me going past 500 yards so my goal is to put 5 in a 3 inch circle. I'd be pleased with that. I like the look of the MTD tac 30 but I've no interest of gluing anything in . I think from my research the Cadex is the better option , for me:).
Click to expand...

Those are not exactly easy to achieve goals.
There's rather a large difference between a rifle that put 5 into 3" at 500 yards once or twice in a range session, and one that does it every time, and with a consistent cold bore shot.
A good part of that consistency stems from how the rifle fits you, and your comfort behind it.
You'll never know what you're missing until you try it.
But I digress, you can lead a horse to water...

And in regards to the tac 21, every smith I know will not accuracy test a rifle in one. They'll use a different chassis, or stipulate a full glue in before testing.
It's not rocket science, the scope isn't attached to the action. The action is attached to the scope through the chassis via the action screws in essence.
The action certainly shifts in the chassis to an extent, the recoil lug wouldn't work properly otherwise.
 
This discussion makes me think of the Ruger Recision Rifle. Do you folks think they've come close to coming up with something really good or does it fall short? I'm curious to see if anyone running a 1500$ chassis (AI, Cadex, etc.) will start switching to the RPR and start buying aftermarket barrels.
 
Tikka223 said:
This discussion makes me think of the Ruger Recision Rifle. Do you folks think they've come close to coming up with something really good or does it fall short? I'm curious to see if anyone running a 1500$ chassis (AI, Cadex, etc.) will start switching to the RPR and start buying aftermarket barrels.
Click to expand...

I think Ruger put together a pretty awesome system but I don't think guys will be selling they're $5000 customs anytime soon, not unless they start loosing to guys running RPR's in a match. Even then I can't see it happening.

I really wish Ruger made a long action magnum version of the RPR. I would pick up one of those in a heartbeat!
 
ntm said:
Those are not exactly easy to achieve goals.
There's rather a large difference between a rifle that put 5 into 3" at 500 yards once or twice in a range session, and one that does it every time, and with a consistent cold bore shot.
A good part of that consistency stems from how the rifle fits you, and your comfort behind it.
You'll never know what you're missing until you try it.
But I digress, you can lead a horse to water...

And in regards to the tac 21, every smith I know will not accuracy test a rifle in one. They'll use a different chassis, or stipulate a full glue in before testing.
It's not rocket science, the scope isn't attached to the action. The action is attached to the scope through the chassis via the action screws in essence.
The action certainly shifts in the chassis to an extent, the recoil lug wouldn't work properly otherwise.
Click to expand...
I meant putting 5 in a 3 inch circle at 300 yards, consistently ,my bad. I think I should be able to do better but I'll start with 3 inch at 300. And if I can do 1/2 to 3/4 at 100 then 3 at 300 shouldn't be a large problem. I think the Cadex is the way to go.
 
Tikka223 said:
This discussion makes me think of the Ruger Recision Rifle. Do you folks think they've come close to coming up with something really good or does it fall short? I'm curious to see if anyone running a 1500$ chassis (AI, Cadex, etc.) will start switching to the RPR and start buying aftermarket barrels. I've read a lot of reviews and the good ones don't seem to be on here.
Click to expand...
 
Brianma65 said:
I meant putting 5 in a 3 inch circle at 300 yards, consistently ,my bad. I think I should be able to do better but I'll start with 3 inch at 300. And if I can do 1/2 to 3/4 at 100 then 3 at 300 shouldn't be a large problem. I think the Cadex is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, if that's all your looking for, play on. You don't really need to change the stock at all. To be honest, I could probably shoot more accurately with a factory tikka stock vs a ctr buttstock on a cadex.
If you want to save a bunch of money and end up with the same accuracy, I think I have a tikka tac buttstock kicking around here somewhere. They're pretty much the factory stock with an adjustable cheek riser.
 
ntm said:
Oh yeah, if that's all your looking for, play on. You don't really need to change the stock at all. To be honest, I could probably shoot more accurately with a factory tikka stock vs a ctr buttstock on a cadex.
If you want to save a bunch of money and end up with the same accuracy, I think I have a tikka tac buttstock kicking around here somewhere. They're pretty much the factory stock with an adjustable cheek riser.
Click to expand...
I'm just going from my experience with my rem 700 HB. The Cadex tightened up the group. I understand the Tikka stock is a better stock though. It's not the check riser I'm after but I like the Cadex tacticool look also. I'm not much into the traditional hunting rifle look. I know 3 at 300 shouldn't be difficult and it's just a starting point. I know I could've went with the RPR and been done with it but the initial reports weren't that promising and no 7mm turned me off that idea.
 
Another +1 on the CADEX chassis. I love mine on my .308, so much so that I also recently ordered a CDX-33, so I'm interested to see how that works as a replacement for the 110BA I sold to get it. A Canadian company with unrivalled customer support and no corners cut, what's not to like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom