Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats Edge or mcswirly

"comfortable" with and as durable as standard fill is two diffent things, but I won't hold your feet to the fire.

If your EDGE stock EVER fails McMillan will replace it or fix it.

That would be pretty darn cool. We need 2 each. One for a compression break and one for a flex break. Or maybe Dick D could save us the time cause you know he's got the results.

If you have this much trouble with simple reading comprehension, your trouble with a minor problem in your stock is very understandable.

Typical dodge the the question response, and result to insults. Classy!

Not always satisfied with Mfr testing. I'd also use a Chevy/Ford, driving over a rifle stock would break Toyota tie rod ends.

If the test should ever materialize, Rick would have to pass around the Prozac.

BS!

The OP's question was for a freaking .223. Explain to me why you'd need anything other than a EDGE with a .223.

Even if the fill used in the EDGE stocks isn't as durable (may or may not be) the material used in the shell is stiffer and more durable than that used in the standard construction stocks.
For my needs (and those of the OP) the stronger, stiffer shell combined with the weight savings inherent in EDGE stocks makes the EDGE a no-brainer.

As I see it the only possible reason to order a standard construction stock would be if you couldn't live without a Swirly.

I NEVER said that an EDGE would not be sufficient. I simply said it is not a "slam dunk" decision. Less weight is not a free ride. To each his own. And by the way, the caliber has nothing to do with field abuse.

Nobody I know of subjects his rifles to greater field abuse than Stick and IIRC he's a big fan of the EDGE.

And I'll take a stronger, stiffer shell rather than a more solid fill every time.

If the Edge shell is that much stronger than fiberglass why don't you see the Edge shell with standard fill. If McMillan could make a stronger stock for only a few dollars more wouldn't it stand to reason that they would?

The materials for the shell provide the strength and the materials for the EDGE shell is where the extra expense lie.
Fill is cheap.
Like I said, all of my EDGE stocks have been as stiff or stiffer than all of my standard construction stocks as well as being way lighter.

McMillan constructs all there stocks using paper m�ch�.

The difference in cost between edge and standard fiberglass stocks when you add pillars to the fiberglass for an apples to apples comparison is $75. I've got to believe that if the Edge shell is significantly stronger than the fiberglass shell then you would see Edge shell with standard fill. McMillan's website says the Edge material is "inherently" more stiff, which is not much of claim.

.....and Mexicans.

Sweet, my fever has broke (got the crud). I'm headed outside to enjoy this 80 degree weather. And for the record, I have an MPI lightweight stock, but keep that between us. I wonder if it has popsicle fill.

Inherently is a pretty strong word in my book.

As I said, the shell is where the strength in any composite stock is derived.
Fill adds very little to the strength or stiffness of a stock.
You could build a stock with no fill whatsoever and make it stiffer than any filled stock but it would require a completely encapsulated construction with the shell material spanning the action and barrel channel area. Expensive and difficult.
F1 cars have no fill. Nor do composite airframes.

One more thing, McMillan got out of the Remington KS contract, did a little marketing, and started selling old technology for more than their standard stocks. Thats all BS (or is it???)

I'm gonna call you on this one. 'Stick hates painted stocks.