To the guys who have gone with chassis stocks from a pillar bedded wood or composite stock. Did you see an appreciable accuracy improvement? Did you have to fool with it or is it a plug and play? Which one gives you the biggest bang for the buck?
Savage 110 Chassis
- Thread starter WNYBILL
- Start date
ONE-TEN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2026
- Messages
- 1,055
Accuracy is a byproduct of precision. Precision is consistency. If your rifle is already shooting with consistent accuracy, it likely will not get better. An example being, if your bedded stock rifle shoots let’s say, 1/2”- 3/4” consistently, you likely won’t see much if any better at all. And as it’s shooting tighter & tighter groups, it becomes even far less likely you will see any difference. So, if your gun does 1/2” groups every time, a chassis isn’t going to suddenly make it shoot 1/4” groups. It doesn’t work like that. It’s only going to increase accuracy, if the rifle is already having inconsistent groups, because of creep or movement in the stock.
Instead, a chassis actually gives the rifle the best possible consistency & therefore, the best opportunity for good accuracy. The best “bang for the buck” is likely the MDT Oryx Chassis, because of its affordability vs the performance. And chassis are definitely “turn key”, or plug ‘n play, as you put it. There is no an adjusting, playing around with anything. Torque the Action screws to 60in.lbs. and go shoot!
Instead, a chassis actually gives the rifle the best possible consistency & therefore, the best opportunity for good accuracy. The best “bang for the buck” is likely the MDT Oryx Chassis, because of its affordability vs the performance. And chassis are definitely “turn key”, or plug ‘n play, as you put it. There is no an adjusting, playing around with anything. Torque the Action screws to 60in.lbs. and go shoot!
My 110 223 varmint came with the Accustock. It's very accurate.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2026
- Messages
- 353
I think it depends upon whether your current stock fits you and if it is really rigid.
I shoot from bench so the added weight of the chassis configurations didn't bother me, actually that helped keep things more stable and that added to improving my results.
I went to chassis on 6 of my most accurate rifles because three of them had stocks that flexed, and all didn't leave the barrel untouched from the lug to the muzzle, and all were too short for me from trigger to butt.
The chassis with extenders fit my long arms and were more rigid and the barrels were free floating from the lug to the muzzle.
The result was that all of the rifles shot better in a chassis, but probably because they fit me better and didn't flex or touch the barrels. My average group sizes were smaller with chassis - I think that is what you mean by accuracy and One-Ten means by consistency.
If I was a hunter, I would have a different opinion. I wouldn't want to lug the heavier chassis set ups around in the field.
I shoot from bench so the added weight of the chassis configurations didn't bother me, actually that helped keep things more stable and that added to improving my results.
I went to chassis on 6 of my most accurate rifles because three of them had stocks that flexed, and all didn't leave the barrel untouched from the lug to the muzzle, and all were too short for me from trigger to butt.
The chassis with extenders fit my long arms and were more rigid and the barrels were free floating from the lug to the muzzle.
The result was that all of the rifles shot better in a chassis, but probably because they fit me better and didn't flex or touch the barrels. My average group sizes were smaller with chassis - I think that is what you mean by accuracy and One-Ten means by consistency.
If I was a hunter, I would have a different opinion. I wouldn't want to lug the heavier chassis set ups around in the field.
I filled in the webbing on my Ruger stock. With JB weld. It has 0 flex now. And it added some weight.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2026
- Messages
- 353
Whatever works for you and gets results is the right thing to do.
For me the fit and added weight made all the difference
For me the fit and added weight made all the difference
My model 10 started off as a new on sale buy. The stock was crap plastic that I could easily twist in my hands. Would not hold a zero at any distance. My son bought this several years ago and eventually gave it to me. I stripped it down to the action and started over.
Added, a KRG Bravo stock, JARD trigger, 24" Wilson barrel in 6 BR. It is now a tack driver. I really like the chassis style stock. When you can a stock flex in your hand when firing a shot, that's not a good thing for accuracy. I also prefer the added weight.
My Savage 110 PCS handgun came on an MDT chassis. It too is very accurate, but not as heavy as the model 10.
Added, a KRG Bravo stock, JARD trigger, 24" Wilson barrel in 6 BR. It is now a tack driver. I really like the chassis style stock. When you can a stock flex in your hand when firing a shot, that's not a good thing for accuracy. I also prefer the added weight.
My Savage 110 PCS handgun came on an MDT chassis. It too is very accurate, but not as heavy as the model 10.
If only a budget, look at a Choate stock. VERY strong, full aluminum bedding block and if memory serves me, under $300. I have an old 110FP in one and it really made a huge difference in accuracy over the factory plastic crap Savage put on it.
I replaced my 110 accustock with a Bell Carlson Savage M40, so far I really like it. Nice thing about chassis stocks (M40 is not) is their adjustable length of pull and cheek piece riser. For what I think was $30 extra B C molded my stock to my length of pull specs and theres all kinds of cheek piece add ons if youd like that.
I tried a MTD Oryx but did not like the way it fit my reciever/barrel....barrel channel at reciever was fine but at end of stock the barrel sat so far out of stock you could slide a flat piece of cardboard between them.....just didnt look right.
I also like a skim bed which I could not do with accustock but works very well with B C stock....length of pull to me is a little underated, so in my opionion, whatever you chose, make sure it fits you
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2026
- Messages
- 353
Your barrel doesn't know it is 1/4 inch or 1/16 of an inch above the bottom of the stock or chassis. It just shoots better if it is not touching anything.
My barrels are all heavy varmint or bull barrels. The chassis has room for the big honking barrel widths.
My barrels are all heavy varmint or bull barrels. The chassis has room for the big honking barrel widths.
ONE-TEN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2026
- Messages
- 1,055
Yeah, like CF just noted: rifles shoot better when they are 100% free floated. So the cardboard being able to slide between barrel & chassis is a GOOD thing. I think what you are dealing with is a matter of visual aesthetics you don’t like. Which is fine. I’m thinking also, maybe your 110 has a Sporter barrel? Which would account for the extra space. But if you had a Bull Barrel, it wouldn’t look like that.
Still though, I completely understand. I absolutely believe shooters should have their firearms look the way THEY find visually appealing. I certainly do! It’s actually quite important they LOOK the way I want.
Yes, a barrel should free float, we all agree to that. I'l try to re-explain again: at the end of the stock, the BOTTOM of the barrel sat a quarter of an inch higher than the TOP of stock. The bottom side of barrel was not 1/4 to 1/16 from the bottom of the stock grove, it was literally out of the stock....it was 3/4" from the bottom of the grove. Thats a little more than free floated
ONE-TEN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2026
- Messages
- 1,055
Oh I understood completely what you meant. Once again, what model 110 do you have? Does it use a Sporter style barrel?
Looks like this one I bet, right?
There is nothing wrong with it. It’s simply made to for any barrel. So it must have a large diameter barrel channel. Here it is with a heavier barrel. You can see the gap is much less.
But it’s moot. As I said, I completely support you in your decision!
Each of has all the right to have the rifle look the way WE want it to. 
It’s one reason I prefer tube style firearms. This is the front of my Savage bench gun.
Savage 110 Varmint Grey 223 #57066. Criterion heavy varmint barrel. A few stock companys who make various stocks for many Savage rifles did not have a stock for this rifle. Something about it is different.Oh I understood completely what you meant. Once again, what model 110 do you have? Does it use a Sporter style barrel?
Looks like this one I bet, right?
There is nothing wrong with it. It’s simply made to for any barrel. So it must have a large diameter barrel channel. Here it is with a heavier barrel. You can see the gap is much less.
But it’s moot. As I said, I completely support you in your decision!
It’s one reason I prefer tube style firearms. This is the front of my Savage bench gun.
Heard nothing but good about the Oryx stock, by no means bashing MTD, their a great company. Guess my point to WNYBILL is shop around, find what you like and call, talk to the stock manufactures so you get what want.
Always appreciate you guys and your good advice
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2026
- Messages
- 353
Wow, I have 6 MDT chassis and all of the barrels are parallel to the chassis but not touching,
two are heavy Bulls and the others are varmint barrels.
Could it be that the action bolts were interchanged?
two are heavy Bulls and the others are varmint barrels.
Could it be that the action bolts were interchanged?
