MDT chassis for tikka t3 varmint .308, opinions????

I have the LSSXL on my tikka varmint 308. I love it, but its not light. good for targets. Definitely not a bush gun. Average about .5-.7 MOA with handloads. Sometimes i get under .5 but rarely. It looks bad ass and is very comfortable with the PRS stock. MDTs quality is top notch, real nice fit and finish, and their prices are reasonable. It is a very easy install, and their mags work well. Hope that helps.

Duff
 
I have HS3 and LSS .HS3 is great for target shooting with flat bottom, LSS is light and with a folding stock is a very compact. But for Varmint I will recommend HS3 with MTD stock your shoulder will thank you.
 
Last edited:
I have the HS3 and Skeleton Butt stock on a Tikka T3 HB in 223 Remington...only have about 150 rounds through with the new chassis, but it feels/looks good. As mentioned, the weight goes up a few pounds compared to the plastic stock

IMG_20160525_121523.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
 
It is the Ergo grip and it feels great. My hands are on the larger side, so the palm swell feels quite a bit better than the regular flat style grip
 


Mine is a lite, 300 WSM in an HS3. I like it, but am unsure of my choice to go with the lite. It was intended as a compromise between weight and long range build ergonomics. However, that's a barrel weight concern. The T3 and the chassis are slick.
 
A good option? That depends. If you want a beautifully finished, well-made product that gives your gun a very cool look, and works wonderfully as a bench shooter, then the MDT LSS is a winner. But as a field gun? IMHO, it's a dog. I used one (the "lightweight" LSS) on my 700 as a coyote rifle for one year. No accuracy improvement over the OEM stock (a HS Precision) but a huge increase in awkwardness and weight. I'm a field shooter, not a bench shooter; I sold the stock without regret.
 
stubblejumper said:
Personally, I am more into precision shooting than into the tactical look, so I recommend a B&C M40 stock.

20151128_130242.jpg
Click to expand...
The reason to shoot this style of stock from MDT or and other modular style stock is for ergonomics and customization. I could care less if my rifle is tacticool, as long as it shoot well and keeps me in the winners circle that is all that matters. I would prefer if it did not look so tactical so people would leave me alone at the range when I am testing. But I will never give up the adjustability and comfort to go back to a traditional style stock.
downloadfile.jpg
 
Many shooters...yeah, maybe the older ones...are so comfortable with the ergos of a traditional stock like the one Stubblejumper showed that the "adjustability" argument falls on deaf ears. I shot my one chassis gun (a 700 in an MDT LSS) extensively for a year or so, and within that time period I tried it with several different buttstocks, grips, etc. and had it adjusted in/out/up/down/back/forth in every way possible. Some set-ups were better than others, but none ever felt completely comfortable. I was always aware of the need to consciously work at my shooting position to use that gun; going back to another gun with a traditional stock was always one of those "aaaaahhhhhhhhh...." moments, like slipping into a comfortable well-worn pair of shoes.

The more uncomfortable the shooting position, the greater the disparity between old-style and new- became. Off-hand un-supported shooting? It's a skill that needs to be developed, because there are times when no other option is available. Shooting the MDT offhand felt like I was trying to wrestle with an industrial vacuum cleaner rather than a gun. Field carry? Sorry, but lugging that thing around in the bush was a joke...not merely because of the weight (although that was a big concern) but I simple found it awkward to carry.

I'm sure there are those who find them comfortable. I'm equally certain that for every user who chooses them for their comfort and utility, there are several more who just think they look cool. These guys are the shooting equivalent of soccer moms in high-end 4x4's that never get off pavement; not a thing wrong with that...but the soccer moms never trumpet how capable their off-road rigs are, they just drive 'em because they like 'em and like to look cool.

I think I'll take my leave of this thread now...before someone suggests that I leave...or that I do something else...:)
 
jjohnwm said:
Many shooters...yeah, maybe the older ones...are so comfortable with the ergos of a traditional stock like the one Stubblejumper showed that the "adjustability" argument falls on deaf ears. I shot my one chassis gun (a 700 in an MDT LSS) extensively for a year or so, and within that time period I tried it with several different buttstocks, grips, etc. and had it adjusted in/out/up/down/back/forth in every way possible. Some set-ups were better than others, but none ever felt completely comfortable. I was always aware of the need to consciously work at my shooting position to use that gun; going back to another gun with a traditional stock was always one of those "aaaaahhhhhhhhh...." moments, like slipping into a comfortable well-worn pair of shoes.

The more uncomfortable the shooting position, the greater the disparity between old-style and new- became. Off-hand un-supported shooting? It's a skill that needs to be developed, because there are times when no other option is available. Shooting the MDT offhand felt like I was trying to wrestle with an industrial vacuum cleaner rather than a gun. Field carry? Sorry, but lugging that thing around in the bush was a joke...not merely because of the weight (although that was a big concern) but I simple found it awkward to carry.

I'm sure there are those who find them comfortable. I'm equally certain that for every user who chooses them for their comfort and utility, there are several more who just think they look cool. These guys are the shooting equivalent of soccer moms in high-end 4x4's that never get off pavement; not a thing wrong with that...but the soccer moms never trumpet how capable their off-road rigs are, they just drive 'em because they like 'em and like to look cool.

I think I'll take my leave of this thread now...before someone suggests that I leave...or that I do something else...:)
Click to expand...

I agree, I am quite comfortable with the traditional style of stock, and I shoot that type of stock as well as any other that I have tried. As such, I don't find it necessary for me to have all of that adjustability.
 
I like the idea of adjustability but everything I've played with which has a high level of adjustability has left me with this;
1) it always take a bunch of time to "dial" it in (easier to get it wrong than right).
2) Once it's dialed in nothing is ever adjusted again.
3) Adjustability equals more weight.

I like the ability of the modulars to side fold but I'm still on the fence if that is really usable in the field...for the price.
 
If you shoot from only one position, benched or prone for example, then a non adjustable stock, a traditional stock is quite suitable. If you shoot from sitting, kneeling or standing in addition two the already mentioned positions, having the benefit of the adjustable stock allows for an adjustable length of pull and keeps you in better alignment and positioning for both iron and optic sights. I find that during a match, shooting a .223 caliber savage Axis set up in a MDT LSS stock, with iron sights, I adjust the stock in each position I am shooting in. A little longer for standing, a little shorter for sitting and prone, mostly so my short arms can reach and manipulate the bolt handle properly.

Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom