AG Alpine Hunter VS AG Adjustable Hunter

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Trying to lighten up my go to bolt gun, a Bighorn TL3. I ordered a prefit Proof carbon barrel for it, and while I had it disassembled I decided to weigh the MPA BA light chassis it was wearing... the BA lite had an advertised weight of 2.9 lbs. Not super light, but light enough. I was shocked to find it actually weighed 3.75 lbs! My total rifle was weighing 12.8 lbs without a bipod!

Either way, it was time for a lighter option. The chassis is getting sold. My goal for this rifle is under 12 lbs with a suppressor, ideally closer to 10. To me that's a good balance of shoot-ability and portability. My goal for this rifle isn't the lightest gun possible, I would go with a different action and scope altogether for that. But I want something light enough I can hump it around the west without wanting to kill myself at the end of the day and still be comfortable shooting distance.

I've settled on AG Composites for the stock, and the AG Alpine Hunter seemed like a good fit, at 31 oz (1.9 lbs) that's a significant weight savings. Total rifle weight would be down to 11.35 lbs. That said I have high cheek bones, and at the spec'ed stock height of .2in below bore I would need to build up the stock somehow to get a good cheek weld. However I do that will add some weight (triad tactical pad weighs 5oz)

That leaves the AG Adjustable Hunter as an option. A bit more pricey, but if I am already spending $600 another $150 is worth it for what I want. But at 38 oz (2.38 lbs) its noticeably heavier than the Alpine hunter. Significant? No. But enough its a consideration. Total rifle weight would be at 11.78 lbs.

Yeah I am probably overthinking this one, but with the money involved I want to make the right call.

Anyone with either stock care to comment? Are adjustable cheek risers worth the weight?

Thanks!

 

[Brightwhite]

What size scope are you running? If it were me and my goal was to lighten my setup I would just go with the standard stock then focus on an optic in the 40-44mm objective range and running low or super low rings to get a better cheek weld.

Also, get in touch with Mike @ Hells Canyon, he does a light weight adjustable cheek piece that only adds I think 4-5oz he says. I don't want to speak for him, but he is also an AG dealer and can likely order your stock, hardware, etc to get you all setup, then ship him your rifle to fit and bed the action.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

What size scope are you running? If it were me and my goal was to lighten my setup I would just go with the standard stock then focus on an optic in the 40-44mm objective range and running low or super low rings to get a better cheek weld.

Also, get in touch with Mike @ Hells Canyon, he does a light weight adjustable cheek piece that only adds I think 4-5oz he says. I don't want to speak for him, but he is also an AG dealer and can likely order your stock, hardware, etc to get you all setup, then ship him your rifle to fit and bed the action.

I’m running a Razor HD gen 1 5-20x for now. I plan on upgrading to a Razor AMG in the future.

I decided to go with the non adjustable alpine hunter and a triad tactical pad after debating it today. Several reasons.

I’ve got a pad similar to triad that is on a lever gun. It works well, is stable, and more comfortable than a traditional stock with some slight padding. It’s easy removed for cleaning and doesn’t have to subsequently be readjusted.

If I really want to cut weight I can just ditch the pad. It offers functionality in the ability to store range cards and other misc items such as Allen wrenches to tighten scope rings etc.

Finally it costs less.

All in all, the logical solution for me and my needs was just rock a decent pad.

 

[HellsCanyon]

I’m running a Razor HD gen 1 5-20x for now. I plan on upgrading to a Razor AMG in the future.

I decided to go with the non adjustable alpine hunter and a triad tactical pad after debating it today. Several reasons.

I’ve got a pad similar to triad that is on a lever gun. It works well, is stable, and more comfortable than a traditional stock with some slight padding. It’s easy removed for cleaning and doesn’t have to subsequently be readjusted.

If I really want to cut weight I can just ditch the pad. It offers functionality in the ability to store range cards and other misc items such as Allen wrenches to tighten scope rings etc.

Finally it costs less.

All in all, the logical solution for me and my needs was just rock a decent pad.

If you want to install a lightweight kydex cheek piece it’s not hard at all and only adds 5 or so oz of weight. Hope you like that stock it’s one of my most popular models!

Mike


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ein]

Im slowly inletting one. It’s super handy. The ergonomics are WAY better than McMillans options.

 

[khuber84]

I have one of these on my manners eh1, it's adjustable with shims, Ryan Pierce sells em on his builds, he may sell one individually. I think it'd work on the ag stock. Also take a look at JCS composites, they make 30-32oz adjustable tactical and sporter stocks.

 

[DangerRanger]

I’m in much the same situation. Looking for a stock for a tl3 300 win mag and I have high cheek bones.

Remember you’re only adding 7 oz with the adjustable hardware, and that stock is still a pound and a half lighter than what you already use.

 

[HellsCanyon]

I’ve still got a couple builds going on the McMillan game wardens (which I almost never use anymore) and they definitely need a higher comb. Snagged one of these off amazon and combined it with a neoprene stock cover and it’s a huge improvement for only 3 oz weight penalty. Handy for when a customer requests load development on their build and I need a temporary solution. Kind of sucks to cover up a high value custom rifle but I can’t argue with the improved ergonomics. Really like the neoprene material best as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk