Axis mods: A solution in search of a problem?

I've always been a mod guy. You should see my camper. And my wood shop. Heh heh. Love mods.

I'm fascinated by the stock mods for the Axis, in particular. My question is, how much of a difference in performance do these mods really make? In some of the posts I've seen, people haven't even fired their rifle yet but they're making the mods. I'd like to hear from people who went to the range with the rifle as it came from the factory, were dissatisfied with the performance, made some mods, and saw some improvement in performance that made it worthwhile.

TIA

I'd like to see scientific data on which modifications are the most effective at shrinking group size. If I had to guess, I'd put them in the following order for the Axis:

1. Trigger
2. Comb height
3. Barrel
4. Scope and mount
5. Bedding
6. Stock composition
7. Paint color

These are factors organic to the rifle, so I've not included "handloading", though that's a popular suggestion.

I unashamedly modify the triggers and combs of rifles that don't meet my needs before they even get to the range. Those are easy to pick up on without firing a shot, much like the flexible forend and wrist. It's also a cheap and easy fix, especially if Rockite is used.

Thanks for humoring me. I'm about as old school as one can get. Yesterday was the first time in my 64 years that I ever fired a shot through a scope. I got rid of my hunting guns years ago. I recently retired and, while looking for hobbies to keep me out and about, recalled fondly my days on a Marine Corps rifle range creating tight groups with an M-16, iron sights, at 500 meters. So here I am.

I can definitely understand the trigger situation. Not everyone likes a stiff trigger, although mine has a nice crisp break to it. It may be one of the things I will change down the road, but for sure that plastic trigger guard assembly has to go.

Comb height is fine for me right now, but I have ordered a new scope since the cheap one that came with it has a very awkward focus design. I expect I will be making some sort of comb adjustment when that gets here.

Barrel: I've not come across any barrel mod threads but I will check it out.

Bedding: I guess almost all long range shooters do this. It looks like a fun mod. But, I keep thinking back to that M-16 that had probably belonged to a dozen Marines before me and how effective it was unmodified. I suppose time will tell on that one.

The Boyd's stocks look great, but first I have to convince myself that the one I have is not sufficient. I can see where it might not take a lot of abuse in the field, but for right now anyway, my shooting will be done on the range only. And now I'm reading of mods to the Boyd's too? Yikes.

I have to ask...paint color? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryM

Thanks for humoring me. I'm about as old school as one can get. Yesterday was the first time in my 64 years that I ever fired a shot through a scope. I got rid of my hunting guns years ago. I recently retired and, while looking for hobbies to keep me out and about, recalled fondly my days on a Marine Corps rifle range creating tight groups with an M-16, iron sights, at 500 meters. So here I am.

I can definitely understand the trigger situation. Not everyone likes a stiff trigger, although mine has a nice crisp break to it. It may be one of the things I will change down the road, but for sure that plastic trigger guard assembly has to go.

Comb height is fine for me right now, but I have ordered a new scope since the cheap one that came with it has a very awkward focus design. I expect I will be making some sort of comb adjustment when that gets here.

Barrel: I've not come across any barrel mod threads but I will check it out.

Bedding: I guess almost all long range shooters do this. It looks like a fun mod. But, I keep thinking back to that M-16 that had probably belonged to a dozen Marines before me and how effective it was unmodified. I suppose time will tell on that one.

The Boyd's stocks look great, but first I have to convince myself that the one I have is not sufficient. I can see where it might not take a lot of abuse in the field, but for right now anyway, my shooting will be done on the range only. And now I'm reading of mods to the Boyd's too? Yikes.

I have to ask...paint color? ;)

---

Haaaahaaa!

Everyone knows coyote tan makes a gun shoot more accurately!

I was going to put "paint color" before "stock composition" just to show how little I thought stock composition mattered. I left it in there partly as a joke and partly because there is some subjectivity in shooting. Without a robot rest, there's more potential accuracy lost by the shooter than the rifle. It follows then that the shooter's attitude toward the gun can affect their performance with it. That's not to say a rat rod-looking gun can't both shoot well and be shot well. My first Axis build was a rat rod for a long time, but the shooter's beliefs about capability of the gun weren't based on its appearance. If I hadn't built it myself, however, things might have been different.

Excellent points, Dr. T. I'm a believer that psychology plays a big role in shooting. We talk ourselves into--and out of--all sorts of things. We create our own reality that isn't always...real.

Not sure I know what a robot rest is, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the various contraptions which hold a rifle so all we have to do is squeeze the trigger.

This is leads in nicely to my other post which asks for feedback on breathing control and lowering heart rate. We do all sorts of things to fine tune our equipment, but what about ourselves? What do we do to our bodies and minds to prepare for time on the range? I'm not a tree hugger, but I do believe in a sort of meditation, whether a formal methodology or our own version, to "get in the zone."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim46ok

Haaaahaaa!

---

What aren't you buying, friend? I'm guessing the iron sights at 500 meters. True as true can be. I just came across an article that says the Marines have phased out iron sights on their combat rifles. But up until a few years ago every Marine, regardless of MOS, had to qualify once a year on a range at 100, 300 and 500 meters with iron sights. In basic we spent two weeks at the range. The first week spent training and "snapping in" or dry firing at targets. The second week was live fire, with qualification at the end of the week.

The Marines know what they're doing when it comes to weaponry, but to me not training troops on iron sights would be a major disadvantage if something ever happened to that expensive optic. Scopes are a big advantage when they work, but when they fail what do you have left?

I bought an Axis this spring and made some posts about it. This was in 243 and it came without bases so I put on some Talley one piece rings/bases and put on a Zeiss Terra scope I had bout last year and went to the range with some factory ammo. Federal 100 or 90gr I believe. After sighting it in at 50 I moved it to 100 and despite the heavy trigger managed to get it to shoot right at MOA.
I did some research on the triggers and decided to buy a Rifle Basix trigger and installed it using the directions and putting some locktite on the screws. I waited a week or so and went back and got it to shoot just under MOA, close to 3/4 MOA and called it good.
So no real mods but I did use a torque wrench on the stock when I put it back together. I bought a trigger gauge and it is about 20oz which is fine for the range but I bought this to hunt with so when I have the time I will adjust it heavier.
I bought this rifle because it was lightweight and inexpensive so for me it does what I need at a price I can live with. I intend to use it for Javelina and Coyotes so MOA is just fine as most all shots will be 25 to 100 yards.

Thanks for your post. The more I go over the older threads, and then examine my stock, I think that Savage made some changes. There is no perceptible flex in the grip area of my stock, nor is there a gap on the backside of the trigger guard. It fits tight.

In regards to the action screws, do you feel it makes a difference which one is tightened first?

TIA

I didn't follow any sequence just did them both gradually moving back and forth between them. I don't remember the exact number but probably around 45 in pounds. Wouldn't be hard for me to check though if you're interested. I'm not sure what Savage recommends,

Thanks, but I can check it out too. Don't bother.

Stock composition does make a difference to top shooters. Harmonics?

I have been a rabid Savageaholic for quite a few years so after reading a few positive reviews, My brother and I both ordered one through our local gun shop when they first came out and were called the Savage "Edge". Mine was in 7-08 and his was a .270. To say I was dis satisfied with it's out of the box performance would be an understatement. Mine was all over the place and might hit a pie plate at 100. His was a little more accurate than mine and he enjoyed his for what it was and entry level rifle that shot minute of deer.
The original "edge/axis" triggers were horrendous so they were the first thing to receive a little love with new springs. This did help both rifles quite a bit.
The first disassembly revealed a design that after years of tinkering on 110 platform rifles was alien to us both and we're pretty good tinkers and backwoods engineers. Between the stock design and the recoil lug arrangement and virtually no modularity with the 110 or any aftermarket available, coupled with the buckshot looking groups I was shooting with it, I was turned off immediately. I still dont care for the design even though now there is at least some aftermarket support and a few things like the trigger have been improved by Savage.
I cut my losses, took a beating and sold my 7-08 rings and bases included, for about half what I paid after a hundred rounds or so. My brother kept his and after several hundred rounds it got more and more accurate until it was grouping very well right around 1". After several years and some really nice deer and rather than sinking more money into his rifle, he found a used youth model 111 in .270 with a factory brake at a great price. He upgraded and sold his "edge" though he also only got less than half of the original purchase price.
As far as helping the rifle in the accuracy dept., what I seemed to notice was that shooting/ break in and finding some ammo it they liked really seemed to help as much as anything available at the time. i've noticed the same thing with several 110s as well. What I'd tell anybody considering an axis based on my experiences is, "Go find yourself a good deal on a 110 based rifle to start with." Yes there is that much difference in em, and in my opinion those differences are worth every penny.

Some guys would rather to stuff an American V8 into a Prius no matter what the cost.
More power to em.
Yeah I've done some projects just for the sake of hobby but it's much easier and more cost effective sometimes if you want performance just to start with a known performer.
Good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Stock composition does make a difference to top shooters. Harmonics?

---

I know. If I was a top shooter I wouldn't have bought the Axis. lol

To me the Axis stock feels bouncy. The rubbery recoil pad probably contributes to this perception. I went Boyds but they have gone up on price substantially. Will probably try replacing the recoil pad and some of the rattle can mods if I buy any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Stock composition does make a difference to top shooters. Harmonics?

---

The question I'd still ask is how much accuracy would a top shooter expect to lose if the only thing that changed about their rig is the stock composition. We can even step away from Axises for this discussion. Say our top shooter is using a custom rifle built on a Panda action with a Krieger barrel and a professionally pillared and bedded McMillan stock. What if they woke up on match day and found their gun had transformed into a custom rifle built on a Panda action with a Krieger barrel and a professionally pillared and bedded plastic stock? How much would their scores change if it was wood? We'll assume our top shooter is using an OCW load or otherwise has a load that optimizes the accuracy of the new setup to the extent the old load optimized the old setup. If our top shooter can turn in 0.125 inch groups at 100 yards from the bench with the original rifle, will they suddenly find the plastic stock rifle's groups have expanded to 0.156 inch? 0.188 inch? 0.5 inch? 1 inch? More than that? Intuitions fail me here, as I don't think I've ever just changed the stock of a rifle. I think my first Axis may have gone from a factory stock to a factory stock with a few layers of fiberglass and epoxy laid around the forearm and action area and some epoxy in the wrist, but that didn't have nearly the impact of shimming the trigger if it had any impact at all.

I imagine doing the experiments required to genuinely quantify accurizing modifications is going to be cost prohibitive and may actually be impossible because of the subjectivity I mentioned earlier and piece-to-piece variations in factory guns. We can always qualify modifications as helpful, unhelpful, and harmful, but it's difficult to get a grasp of whether the cost of a modification is worthwhile if we don't know how much it will help (or hurt). The other major factor in deciding if a modification is worth it is the necessary or desired performance. I chose benchrest in my thought experiment not only because it--more than most shooting games--is about throwing money at a gun until the groups shrink but because success is having the smallest group. High power shooters don't really need a gun that will shoot 0.1 MOA when the smallest target they'll contend with is about 1 MOA. It'd be nice to have that margin for shooter error, but as long as they can hit the X-ring with each shot, those resources are better spent elsewhere.

So, to bring myself laboriously back to the OP's original question, the best anecdote I have to justify trigger work as my #1 choice is a .338 Federal Axis I built. It was shooting 1.5-2 inch groups with a trigger that was either not shimmed or just shimmed with no spring replacement. Either way, once the trigger was up to snuff, it was shooting just over 1 inch groups. But that's a gun I never shot very much and only fed it relatively cheap hunting ammo.

I'm certainly no weapons expert but I do know from other hobbies/sports that sometimes people looking for an edge will employ a concept and claim it as fact whether it's ever really been proven or not. Word gets passed around, and like athletes we can be superstitious and if someone claims that a flexible forearm is bad, then by God let's all stiffen them up.

Again, I may be missing something obvious here, but with a floating barrel like the Axis has, I wonder just how much a flexible forearm makes a difference to bench rest shooters? I could understand it more with hunters shooting from an offhand or other position without a rest, maybe.

I mentioned in another thread that I think Savage must have changed or modified their Axis stock mold somewhat. There is no perceivable flex in the grip area of mine, and no gap in the backside of the trigger guard. It is tight.

Bottom line, I think we pay far more attention to equipment tweaks and far less to tweaking what we do personally when we shoot.