The fox 42 is a prototype rifle, not a chassis.
Cadex verses MDT tac 21 .
- Thread starter Brianma65
- Start date
The fox 42 is a prototype rifle, not a chassis.
The more I research, the more I find and the more undecided I get. I've had a really good experience withe the Cadex before so I think I'll stick with , what I know works. And I'm familiar with.
For sure, but seriously, go with a lite strike. The ones that recycle ar furniture aren't even half as nice to get behind.
I see that the lite strike is almost 3 lb lbs over the urban strike. as I will mostly be lugging this through the bush, would the Urban not be better? I have a hundred yard range cleared behind my house and use it often( it's pretty rough and has no bench). The only range/ bench shooting is for load devopment. I have a new CTR stock/ pistol grip/EGM 20 MOA rail and this would save me $400. I understand that heavier is better for recoil but are there any other benefits? Will my accuracy suffer from a lighter stock? Just because it's lighter?
I know 10 tac 21 that have never had wondering zero. Mine is glued in now because of lack of stiffness in the action. But before that it always maintained a consistent cold bore. I would want to see some solid reports of this. You can raise a cheek riser all you want but you still dose not drop the bore any lower in the stock. The Lower bore axis will always handle recoil better. Ask any hand gun shooter.
Ryan
Ryan
I can only report my own experiences, and those of a couple others that go to the same range I do.
I was not speaking of a cheek riser, but of the buttpad itself. Raising it does put the bore inline. And I've found little to no difference in recoil behaviour when doing so, and noted no better recoil behaviour with the tac 21. It's a sound theory, an inline bore, but doesn't seem to play out in reality. Otherwise every manufacturer would be going that way.
Handguns are a different animal all together, as you've got the slide slamming back, and the center upon which the firearm is rotating is 1" behind the barrel as opposed to with a rifle where the center for pitching up is 20" back. That directly effects the angle upon which the energy is transferred, which directly effects the amount of energy transferred into the vertical plane. Bottom line, if you run the numbers, you find that the amount of energy transferred to the vertical plane really doesn't become significant until the bore to buttpad contact angle exceeds 20 degrees, and even then it wouldn't be significant unless you were shooting a light barrelled, large caliber, with no brake.
It's just a better setup to get behind. The more comfortable you are, and the more solid the chassis locks up, the more consistent you'll be, the more accurate you'll be.
I'm not sure how you can even shoot that ctr without a pillow taped to your head ! I know I couldn't be terribly accurate without a cheek riser on there at a minimum.
I would look at the krg xray if I were in your position.
The tac 21 would be the last one to look at for lightweight, it's got a bunch of weight in it that serves no real purpose.
Seriously, I've tried a couple dozen chassis, and I'd put the tac 21 in last place, without hesitation. Pretty is as pretty does.
Last fall I had a rem 700 aac sd .308 installed in a Cadex OT core, with a CTR with a 1/2 riser. I found it very nice to shoot. But moving from a .308 to 7mm , I'm wondering if the recoil will be manageable. As it sits now, in its factory stock , I have fired 80+ rnds in a 2 hr session without any issue,( other than scope bite, twice . But that's another issue). I don't see the lighter Cadex being much diff as the factory stock is under 3 lbs. but it does have a rubber buttpad.
Ah, I was referencing the above posted picture of the cadex with ctr and no cheek riser. Looks unusable.
I suppose it all comes down to the kind of shooting and level of accuracy you expect.
I've never shot a rig with the ctr/cheek riser that was anything but a compromise for cost, throwing performance out the window.
Again, for all around use, the krg xray is going to be hard to beat.
The factory rem was giving me 1 1/2 MOA , When I installed the Cadex with CTR it was giving me 1 MOA and a touch under. So far with the Tikka , with factory stock I've been getting 1 MOA with factory ammo and 3/4 with a couple of test reloads. So the Cadex should tighten the Tikka up , as it did with the Rem. I'm aiming for 1/2 MOA. I could probably get there with the factory stock but I do prefer the tactical chassis.
Are you shooting a T3 in 7mm Rem mag? If so, another thing to consider is that the Cadex chassis can only be had in long action in a way that uses your factory Tikka magazines. Nothing wrong with the factory mags but they have just the bare minimum length internally so if you want to seat longer VLD's out to the lands it will quickly turn into a single loading affair. On the other hand, if you go with MDT they have long action chassis' that use their own long action metal mags that are made specifically for Tikka's with an internal length of 3.560" which would give a bit more room to load your bullets out. AND, the KRG chassis is a thing of beauty in every way BUT they do not make one for a long action Tikka, short action chamberings only.
Could you please elaborate on what material was used to "glue" the action in and why. I assume this treatment is a permanent installation that will preclude any future changes or a means of cleaning the interior of the chassis/action. My TAC-21 system is perfect.
Last edited:
You'd see a bigger improvement from the Remington, as the factory hogue stock is poor compared to the factory tikka.
You'll see a small improvement, but not huge.
Biggest accuracy difference will just be related to being able to get behind it comfortably and consistently.
I am not sure what they used. It was done by the Chou Brothers. If you contact then they can set you up. The area around the action is completely sealed so you don't have to worry about cleaning the outside. I am not sure about taking the action back out. I believe it can be done but is a PITA.
Ryan
Last edited:
