Christensen Arms Mesa first impressions and initial review

FURMAN

WKR
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,793
The Christensen Arms Mesa is Christensen’s new entry-level rifle for 2017. With a MSRP of $1295 this rifle will give many more a chance to experience what Christensen has to offer at a more affordable price. Let’s take a look at the specifications. It has a Christensen Arms 416R stainless steel button rifled barrel with a featherweight contour, removable stainless steel seamless radial brake coated in a tungsten Cerakote finish, with a match chamber, and has been hand lapped. The barrel is 22in. long and is free floating. The action is a Christensen Arms 416 stainless steel billet receiver with an enlarged ejection port and side bolt release also with a tungsten Cerakote finish. The bolt has been nitride treated and has an M16 extractor. It has been fluted as well as the bolt knob and bolt shroud. A Triggertech trigger has been installed and according to Christensen Arms is adjustable from 2.5-3.5lbs. The action has been spot bedded into a sporter style Christensen Arms carbon fiber composite stock that is fitted with a Limbsaver recoil pad. It has a billet aluminum machined hinged floor plate bottom metal. The Mesa will weigh 6.5lbs for a short action and 7.3 for a long and comes with a one MOA guarantee.
Now let’s go over my initial impression of, and thoughts about, the rifle. My rifle is chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor. The rifle comes in a cheap plastic gun case, which is more than any other rifle I have seen at this price point. It will suffice for short trips to the range. The fit and finish is on par with most customs I have had my hands on. The action has been, what Christensen calls, spot bedded. There is a little dab of bedding material in the recoil lug area and rear pillar. This by no means is a replacement for a complete bedding job but is, in my opinion, better than nothing. I have no doubt this, in combination with the free floated barrel, is a contributor to the rifles accuracy. The trigger was set at 3lbs out of the box. I immediately adjusted to as low as it would go which was 2lbs. Like mentioned above Christensen says it is adjustable from 2.5-3.5lbs. This brings me to my first issue with the rifle. Triggertech says this trigger should adjust to 1.5lbs. This is my fifth Triggertech and only two would meet the spec. Christensen as covered their bases with their higher advertised weight. Having said that they are great triggers and I think most would be more than happy with them. In my opinion they are much nicer than Timneys. My rifle weighed 6lbs 12oz, which is over the 6.5lbs advertised by quite a bit, relatively speaking. The side bolt release is nice and really should be the standard in a rifle built today. The M-16 extractor is a nice feature and I feel is the best extractor, next to the Mauser claw. The nitrided bolt adds a very welcome slickness to the cycling of the action and I would say the bolt cocking effort is on par if not a little better than a factory Remington 700. Every custom action I have cycled is a little easier than the Christensen to cock but I see little real world advantage to this in a hunting rifle. The ejection port has a larger area relieved at the rear but I struggle to see the purpose since they chose to use a 2.850 magazine box which brings me to my second issue with the rifle. I see no need for a semi custom, or a factory rifle of any kind for that matter, to have such a short magazine box in this day in age. As you can see in the pictures the magazine cutout is no different than a factory Remington 700. I checked the three bullets I had on hand and none of them would realistically be able to touch the lands and be fed from the magazine. The OAL for 142gr SMKs is 2.849, the Berger 140gr Hybrid is 2.879, and the 143 ELD-X is 2.883. I seriously doubt this will make a big enough difference to notice but I just don’t get it. This problem is not limited to Christensen Arms. As a matter of fact they are not the worst offender. Those are my only two issues with the rifle and neither would stop me from buying it.
I started the review with five different boxes of factory ammo. I shot 140gr American Eagle OTM, 143gr ELD-X Hornady Precision Hunter, 120gr ELD-M Hornady Match, 140gr ELD-M Hornady Match, and 142gr SMK Atomic Ammunition. The rifle appears to like both weights of the Hornady Match Ammo. I know a couple of three shot groups are not absolute proof but it shows promise and I really could not care less what the 100 yard groups look like. When weather permits I will test more at 600yds. I just received Copper Creek ammo loaded with 140gr Berger Elite hunters, 130gr Berger hunting VLDs, and 143gr Hornady ELD-Xs. I will be testing those as time permits. After I have tested the Copper Creek ammo I have some Berger 140 Elite hunters and some 143 Hornady ELD-Xs I will load with some H4350. I will do at least one follow up review after some more shooting with the different ammo and hand loads.
With the brake and the Limbsaver recoil pad this rifle recoils slightly more than my 20 cal varmint rifles and makes seeing hits easy. This rifle is really intended for, what I would say is, a majority of hunters’ styles. It is more of a spot and stalk or backpack hunting rifle and indications are it will be able to stretch the distance a little but with the classic style stock it obviously is not going to be the best rifle for long range shooting. When I think of the rifles I would own that might compete with this the only one that really comes to mind would be the Tikka. If I did go that route I would most likely put it in a Bell and Carlson stock and It would be a few hundred dollars cheaper but would not have the brake. The Tikka in a Bell and Carlson stock would also be a few ounces heavier and if you went with one of the magnum calibers the Tikka would be hindered by the even shorter magazine box and ridiculously slow twists. If you absolutely know you will not be shooting over 200 yards I can’t see the justification of the price of this rifle but for those who hunt out west and are willing to practice or are already capable of shooter farther this is a great rifle at a great price for what you get. In the end you have to seriously consider your wants and needs to decide if this is the rifle for you. As stated above I will be doing further testing with factory ammo, Copper Creek ammo, and some hand loads. I will update as I get more data. My overall initial impression is this rifle pleasantly surprises me. I like it much more than I thought I would. Please feel free to ask any questions. I will try to answer as soon as possible. Thanks for reading.



 
Last edited:
OP
FURMAN

FURMAN

WKR
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,793
966F7B91-E9CA-4F0A-A6A4-88B8159E6350_zpskmvnx1b0.jpg

278E8412-C39C-4886-BC63-4F75FD43AAFB_zpsokgest5p.jpg

ea2c0cba70169d7e46d2e2c00c97f90e.jpg

8a95d1cae88667e2f449f9c4d5cb311e.jpg
160bca1c4254a79042f5b42657e9c7c4.jpg

6c9d6f05961b693e90cab30c6043bcc1.jpg

2a6b78a68ba6e45364e9db5b22665c2b.jpg

0f8189ef61b2ae5a2f9a3f57bfd6e52d.jpg
 
Last edited:

Timberninja

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
277
Thanks for the review! I'm really tempted to get this rifle in 7mm. The weight seems to be quite a lot higher than listed though, the spec on their website for a long action is 6.7..

How is the bolt/scope clearance?
 
Last edited:

Rorschach

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
244
Location
NC
Caliber of the one you were shooting? Can probably infer from the factory loads you shot, but that might be good information to explicitly state.

I know a couple of three shot groups are not absolute proof but it shows promise and I really could not care less what the 100 yard groups look like. When weather permits I will test more at 600yds.

I think the 100yd groups may give a better indication of what the rifle is capable of (vs. 600yd groups), which would be of value as part of an objective review. To you, personally, I can see where 600yd groups would be invaluable, as that includes information about what you're capable of along with the rifle, in terms of wind calls. But, to folks reading the review here, I believe 100yd groups might be of interest...unless you're going to wait for totally windless conditions in which to conduct your 600yd grouping exercise.

It is more of a spot and stalk or backpack hunting rifle and indications are it will be able to stretch the distance a little but with the classic style stalk it obviously is not going to be the best rifle for long range shooting.

Was this supposed to read 'stock'? Also, can you explain a little about what makes the stock not the best for long range shooting (assuming it's supposed to read 'stock')? Does this mean like benchrest-style long range shooting, or something different?

Thanks for posting the information, rf.
 
Last edited:
OP
FURMAN

FURMAN

WKR
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,793
I updated and edited the original post.

If you click on Mesa on their website it says 6.5 and 7.3 respectively. They were dismissive when I asked about the differing weights on the site. The Mesa is not the only rifle on their site with confusing weights. For shooting prone, which is what most long range shooting is, this rifle has too much drop at the comb and heel for a great cheek weld. I appreciate your feedback on shooting more at 100 yards. I have limited factory ammo and need to evaluate at longer range to see if I want to buy more. I will definitely shoot more 100 yard groups when I start reloading for it and update the post accordingly. When I do load testing at longer distances I shoot only in calm conditions but even with a 5mph wind there can be a horizontal component. I mainly evaluate for vertical. When I practice with a known good load I will shoot in all conditions in which I believe I would actually take a shot. Having said that a 5mph wind can turn a .3 group into a .5 or group or larger, at 100 yards, but you get the point. Obviously it has a much larger impact at distance. Thanks again for the feedback. Check back and I will get some more 100 yard groups. I have to wait for the Kansas winds to die.
 
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
620
Location
Colorado
Then they are way off. They shouldn't market the weight it they are a quarter pound off. I thought the mesa would be a hit at 6.5 pounds. That kind of stuff aggravates me.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 

Rorschach

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
244
Location
NC
Does anyone know if the Ridgeline's advertised vs. actual weight is off by that much?
 
OP
FURMAN

FURMAN

WKR
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,793
I am teetering on trying a Ridgeline next. I know there are a few floating around on this forum. Like I said I will be updating with more data as soon as I get a day off with calm conditions.
 

Axlrod

WKR
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
1,163
Location
SW Montana
I ordered a ridgeline in 28 Nos. Will post results when i get it. They said 5-6 weeks when I ordered 10 days ago
 

ams

WKR
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
579
Location
Northern CA
I'm really interested in this rifle so thank you for the review. I was comparing the tikka the same way with an upgraded stock, threaded barrel and brake, then cerakote and I'm pretty much at the same cost. I think I'll go with the Mesa....... and a tikka, but mesa first.
 
OP
FURMAN

FURMAN

WKR
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,793
I added some pics of groups with Copper Creek Ammo. I pulled one of the 130 Bergers and one of the 140 Bergers. I also made some scope adjustments between groups. The 140 Elite Hunter Copper Creek loads are going to group under .75moa in this rifle which is not good enough for me but maybe some would be happy with that. Obviously just because it shoots that way in this rifle does not mean it will in the next. Next I am going to load some 140 Elite Hunters with H4350 and some 120 ELDMs with Varget and do some OCW testing.
 
OP
FURMAN

FURMAN

WKR
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,793
Here is the bolt to scope clearance. It is the same as everything I run with rails.
D1D76438-0428-43E4-8042-FA5BF00DEA4A_zpsm6x1cmkk.jpg
 
OP
FURMAN

FURMAN

WKR
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,793
Ok, so I am done with the first round of OCW. I shot 38.7-40.5 grains of Varget, increasing .3 grains each group, with 120 Hornady ELDMs seated at 2.180 to the ogive. I also shot 40.4-42.5 grains of H4350, increasing .3 grains each group, with 140 Berger Elite Hunters seated at 2.120 at the ogive. There was a nice node at 39.9-40.2 grains of Varget with the ELDMs and not quite as nice of a node to 42.5 grains of H4350 with the Bergers. My plan is to load up some more of both bullets with those powder charges and move the seating depth -.010, -.020, +.010, and +.020 from where the OCW was shot. I will report back when this is complete. I have little doubt that this rifle is going to shoot .5moa with at least these two bullets. Be careful if you plan to shoot these in your rifle as I did go above book max. Make sure you stop at any indication of pressure. The top two are the Bergers and the bottom two are the Hornadys
4hWI6Stl.jpg
VB92lQ8l.jpg

nHZ0rltl.jpg
AxYDypHl.jpg
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
95
Location
NC
FWIW, and this is just the way I do things, when I'm doing load development for a hunting rifle using the Berger VLDs or Hornday ELDs, I start working up the load using the OCW method from .010" off the lands. Once a solid node is identified I then check seating depth by shooting five round groups with jumps of .010", .040", and .070".

If the .040" or .070" jump produces a noticeably improved group I then go .010" above and below the new jump and shoot those for groups. After that 'Ill play with components to lower the SD/ES.

If group size doesn't improve significantly, I look for the best SD and ES and then go .010" above and below that jump and shoot those for groups.

To be honest, though, I very rarely see much benefit in testing jump differences less than .030" when using a VLD bullet. If the gun doesn't like a .010" jump for instance, in my experience it will rarely like a .020" jump, and won't start showing a noticeable improvement until I get at least .020" away from the baseline CBTO.

One other thing I've found helpful is to shoot the OCW with a consistent target. I've found the OCW more readily identifes nodes than Audette's ladder test, and I like being able to easily compare all groups. The target I use is below:

3Pvv9YE.jpg


Again, just the way I do it.
 
OP
FURMAN

FURMAN

WKR
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,793
I appreciate your insight but I will address a couple of your points. Number one I am not going to go to deep with different methods of load development inside this thread for the sake of keeping this about this rifle. I am absolutely positive there are people out there with far more experience than me and I am always open minded to learning new methods. I have developed loads for over twenty rifles. Most of them with Berger bullets. ALL of them have responded to seating depth changes of .005 so the less than .030 is out the window. Number two this rifle can NOT be loaded with bullets at the lands(which I would prefer) and still be magazine fed. I am fully aware of Berger's method for seating depth testing. I have never found it necessary. I have a consistent target. It is a small dot. I overlap all targets and check for point of impact, not just a small group. Lastly I chose the OCW for time savings for the purpose of this review. I have, however, found just the opposite of you. I find the Ladder test(my modified version) gives me more reliably accurate long range loads which is what I am after. While I find targets such as the one you posted to be far more appealing to the eye I also find them to be distracting when I am shooting.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
95
Location
NC
I appreciate your insight but I will address a couple of your points. Number one I am not going to go to deep with different methods of load development inside this thread for the sake of keeping this about this rifle. I am absolutely positive there are people out there with far more experience than me and I am always open minded to learning new methods. I have developed loads for over twenty rifles. Most of them with Berger bullets. ALL of them have responded to seating depth changes of .005 so the less than .030 is out the window. Number two this rifle can NOT be loaded with bullets at the lands(which I would prefer) and still be magazine fed. I am fully aware of Berger's method for seating depth testing. I have never found it necessary. I have a consistent target. It is a small dot. I overlap all targets and check for point of impact, not just a small group. Lastly I chose the OCW for time savings for the purpose of this review. I have, however, found just the opposite of you. I find the Ladder test(my modified version) gives me more reliably accurate long range loads which is what I am after. While I find targets such as the one you posted to be far more appealing to the eye I also find them to be distracting when I am shooting.

Interesting thoughts. I used the ladder method for several years before trying and eventually converting to the OCW method. In my experience, it's been much superior at identifying scatter/accuracy nodes. Either method can clearly be effective.

Good info on the seating depth. If I were trying to get into the .2s I might expend the effort to adjust seating depth by .010", but at that point I'm more concerned about SD/ES.

Just read back to your OP and saw the mention of the short magazine. Not a huge issue in the grand scheme of things, but that's a pet peeve of mine.

In any case, glad your way works for you. It's always interesting seeing how others do things.
 
Top