I'm looking for more info on this stock. I have only seen two pics of it, and neither was really informative. One is the pic from the A-sq web page and the other is just a pic of the butt end in their book.

If anyone has an A-sq rifle and could measure a few of the important dimensions, it would be much appreciated. Stuff like height and width of the butt, distance the comb is below center of bore, does it have any negative angle to the comb or is it straight, depth and width of the fore end, width and shape of the palm swell...all the pertinent stuff. I'm just trying to understand how well their claim that it reduces recoil can be justified. I may even attempt some similar modifications on a beater stock I have here to test things out, but I don't know quite where to begin.

Now I realize that the general consensus is that the stock is too ugly to even be a decent club, but please let's leave out those opinions for now. All I need is numbers. Form follows function, at least for me.

If you are too embarrassed to publicly admit you own a rifle with a stock like this, please just PM me any info you wish to share. I promise to keep it a secret!

Why not just speak with A-Square directly?

George

Send me your address and pay the shipping to and from and I'll send you a fiberglass one you can measure. I want it back though.

I happen to like Art's guns--I have a 416 Rigby that shoots great!

Ed

the stock is copyrighted, and 2A is KNOWN for going after persons infirming, real or implied ...

as for opinions, just measure a railroad tie, roughly shaped as a gunstock club, by a myoptic ...

form DOES follow function, and 2A is the only person making that "style" stock.. why? it doesn't FUNCTION as a hunting rifle .. if form follows function, its best to build some experience in what the FUNCTION is ..

and a coilchunk stock AINT the "best" at anything but being one of the few copyright GUN HANDLES ..

its too thick, to wide, too heavy, and frankly, too ugly to be the height of function ...

the boyds JRS Classic is much better at handling recoil, in a hunting gun, in my studied opinion.

2A won't give you a single dimension

Yup.

The critical dimensions are big, thick and ugly.

Kidding aside, best bet is to get one from a nice guy like 505ED and measure it.

Then find a railroad tie to use as a blank!

Before I read Jeffes post I too was going to suggest a trip to the closest railroad track with a tape measure. He beat me to it. i can't add any value other than humor to this post!-Rob

I beg to differ! I've had 8 A-Square rifle, if I remember, from 6.5-06 to 577 T-Rex. I have never found another rifle as capable of handling recoil as an A-Square stock. Part of the reason is probably pure physics...with the butt being deeper and thicker than a typical stock, it probably has 75% more contact area upon which to distribute recoil forces. The ones I've had have been far more accurate than they needed to be. As far as the company...forget it. Nobody answers the phone, no returned phone calls, no email response...I don't know if they're currently "in" or "out" of business, but it doesn't seem to matter. Art made great contributions to the development of the African big-bore calibers and cartridges, but that was another time and place in history.

See - right away with the railroad tie cracks! As mentioned, A-sq doesn't give out any info, even if you can miraculously get ahold of someone at the company, hence the post.

505ED, I will take you up on your offer. I didn't even know they made a fiberglass version. I thought they only did wood stocks. I'm not going to duplicate it (don't want Mr. AA coming after me!!), but I do want to see one up close. Thanks.

it's not a crack, cap't, its truth -- since NO ONE, outside of the benchrest world, follows those lines, its certainly not the end all ... though everyone knows to reduce felt recoil, you widen the pad ...

the fiberglass is an MPI, which i think slightly more of than the coilchunk...

FUGLY -- that about covers it

Obviously this stock is one person's/company's perception or interpretation of the best way to do it. And making the pad bigger is at least a portion of the obvious answer - it's just physics of less PSI during recoil. I was just curious about how much bigger they went. That and the 'special grip area' that's supposed to help things. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if no one else uses this pattern. There are all manner of weird sniper/tactical style stocks (chassis?) that to me are fugly too. Doesn't mean that they don't do their job with aplomb. Remember: beauty is in the eye of the beerholder... I can appreciate what they do and how they do it, even if the style is non-traditional.

I guess if it's not a "real" A-sq stock it may not have all their special features. Perhaps I don't need to see this one after all. I can enlarge the pad area myself. I was just wondering if it really lived up to the hype, regardless of how it looks.

MPI makes a good synthetic stock based on the A-square pattern, the link to the stock including a picture is posted below.
I have been through this before with people who bad-mouth the stocks. I have yet to find one of those who have owned or even shot a rifle with the stock mounted on it. Pretty poor form in my opinion in evaluating a piece of equipment!
I have one of the MPI stocks that I shot for years on a .338/.416 wildcat that uses 119 grains of H-870 behind a 225 grain bullet at 3288 fps. That produces a lot of recoil, and that rifle could be shot all day long from the bench or in the field. I don't care what people say about the looks of the thing - it functions as claimed. My nieces, the heaviest of whom weighs 100 pounds each shot the gun from the bench several times without any complaint!
I will make you the same offer as made above, mine being an MPI however.

http://www.mpistocks.com/asquare.htm

nevermind ..
I've handled both, and made stocks for bigkickign guns ...

The MPI is the one A-square uses on there rifle. If you would like to look at it just let me know. I like Biebs have used an A-square rifle a number of times. I will tell you that the 3 A-square rifles that I have shot recoil less than a like caliber in a different brand. I have a 416 rigby in a Hanniable rifle--it is one of the few right hand rifles that I have kept, as it is very accurate and easy to shoot.

As for getting Art or anyone on the phone from A-square well--- I'll echo what everyone else said....Good luck.... If they made a left handed haniable rifle I'd be first in line.

Well back-at-ya jeffeosso. Don't much care about BTDT. Been to a lot of places done a lot of things others have done and been to, never found that accounted for any more or less agreement, just a statement to stoke your own ego.
You make a statement that I don't know you, and then run your mouth about your experience and that's fine. I apprecieate people who have multiple experiences and share those in a well-meaning fashion. You however don't know me, and yes sir I have been through much of the same things that you have in developing stocks. I have designed and built stocks and I have tested them. Again, I take nothing away from you knowledge, just your statement of function without ANY reference to having shot a heavy recoiling rifle using the stock. I agree they look different, but to say that they don't function as claimed is simply not true in my experience.
Now, as to your offhand assertion that the rifle that I referred to is about the same as a 338 Lapua, it is about as close to the Lapua as the 30-06 is to a 300 Win Mag. I have extensive shooting experience with both calibers, so don't old-head me on that one. My assertions come from familiarity with the two calibers, as well as QuickLoad comparisons.
Bye-the-way, the MPI stocked rifle was used in the field for about five years. I took a moose and several elk with that rifle. All of the game were taken off-hand, so I am not following you "stunt" assertion.
Finally, your comments about muzzle brakes as opposed to stock design in this instance does not match my experience. My rifle had a Vias brake as well as the MPI stock. The brake was used for extended sessions off the bench, but was removed while hunting. Certainly the brake reduces recoil, but no more so than the stock. Now in closing BTDT.
Your comment about the size of the butt doesn't hold either. I am 6'10" and weigh 310 pounds. That butt seems just about right, and works fine for me in a 15.25 in length of pull. Just goes to show that one size doesn't fit all! Never smashed any fingers either.
Doesn't mean that you doing the same thing would result in the same opinion, but doesn't make my opinion of any less significance than yours. Just my support of your by-line opinions vary!

Bender,
you might read the revised, "it doesn't matter" comments i made immediately afterward

you stating, with a broadbrush, that all folks knocking the coil chunk must have no experience with them is blankly false, when, in fact, rob and I both have ...
you win ...
yay bender

Really, appreciate your condensation, after all yours is the only opinion of significance.

I think most folks that ditch on the A-square coil chek,have never shot or seen one, or have only shot one at the range or held it and looked at it and said--Oh thats ugly---and felt safe because they knew the majorty would agree.

I agree they will not win a beauty contest but they fit me and I guess I'm a one off. I also have a dentist friend that has shot a load of stuff with his in a 500 A-square ( several Buffalo,several Elephant, hippo)and he would not use anything else--he even has a nice 450/400 Jeffery that I'd love to have--he picks the A-square over it everytime (dont know why???). Also, I'd venture to say ol Art has shot more stuff than 99% of most folks on this board...and he came up with it for some reason...must have worked for him too.

Not trying to but state a few facts from some one that has one and has used it.

Ed

All I'm saying is that the damned things are big, thick and ugly, not that they don't work to lessen felt recoil.

I'll say one other thing.

A stock does not have to be big, thick and ugly in order to function in a way that effectively lessens felt recoil.

Just check out the stocks that AHR are putting on their rifles.

I have one of their rifles in .500 A-Square caliber. The English walnut stock on that rifle is both functional and beautiful.

I hasten to add that all I'm stating is MHO. Far be it from me to tell any other man what's best for him!

To each his own.

I too can not comment on an A-square stock but if your goal is to have a "shootable" ultra-bore, then I agree with Mike and suggest a look at AHR's design. Maybe speak with Wayne - he always responds to requests and is a heck of a nice guy to boot.

I have a most "wonderfull" A-Square T-Rex with the amazing coil check stock on it and in my humble opinion its a POS! I say that based on 30 yrs experience shooting, hunting and yes actually BUILDING bigbore rifles ( which includes stockmaking) .If you guys like the Coil Check stock design, that great, but I'd prefer a railroad tie myself.

step right up .. the coilchunk is back ..



ugly as it ever was

quote:

a trip to the closest railroad track with a tape measure

I had forgot they moved to Glenrock, my family lives in Wyoming. I'll ask that next time someone drives through Glenrock they stop by Arts to see what the deal is.

Glenrock is gunsmith Central!

http://www.glenrock.org/index....B83D-94824F09DFB7%7D

an old paint plant.. good for them.. and "state of the ART" rifles...

contact info -
http://www.manta.com/c/mtcqy2k...quare-of-wyoming-llc

note, art is NOT the ceo ...

just called - still using surplus enfields, not a made action.

good luck to em

quote:

March 14, 2007 press announcement

Riiiiiiight ...

Try 307 436 5677,,,just spoke to both Art and Randy this morning

quote:

Originally posted by 505ED:
I think most folks that ditch on the A-square coil chek,have never shot or seen one, or have only shot one at the range or held it and looked at it and said--Oh thats ugly---and felt safe because they knew the majorty would agree.

I agree they will not win a beauty contest but they fit me and I guess I'm a one off. I also have a dentist friend that has shot a load of stuff with his in a 500 A-square ( several Buffalo,several Elephant, hippo)and he would not use anything else--he even has a nice 450/400 Jeffery that I'd love to have--he picks the A-square over it everytime (dont know why???). Also, I'd venture to say ol Art has shot more stuff than 99% of most folks on this board...and he came up with it for some reason...must have worked for him too.

Not trying to but state a few facts from some one that has one and has used it.

Ed

I've always thought that the stock design was influenced by the design of the M1 Garand stock, including no checkering. Shot enough of those to conclude they work just fine for folks who have never shot a medium caliber before.

We have two A-Square rifles, a 577 T.Rex and a 300 Pegasus.

I have not met anyone who liked the stock on the 577 T.Rex.

The 300 Pegasus is one of the most inaccurate factory rifles we have had.

After a few shots, one can clearly see the throat erosion taking hold.

I suppose this is what one should expect using such an over bore cartridge.

quote:

jeffeosso: to reduce felt recoil, you widen the pad

I have a 500A2 with a classic British-style stock. I had the butt made a little wider than usual and I think it makes a noticeable difference in reducing felt recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
We have two A-Square rifles, a 577 T.Rex and a 300 Pegasus.

I have not met anyone who liked the stock on the 577 T.Rex.

The 300 Pegasus is one of the most inaccurate factory rifles we have had.
...

This is one of the interesting things I find about A2 - In the gun rags and gun publications A-square is prasied.

On forums like these, with a few notable exceptions, most of what I seem to read screams: "Stay Away!"