Rokstok Lite

[WstrnCP]

The original rokstock is probably the better option but it also depends on what caliber you're planning on shooting

I mostly shoot a .223 and 6.5cm. Waiting for that tikka 6cm…

 

[Speaks]

I mostly shoot a .223 and 6.5cm. Waiting for that tikka 6cm…

I am planning on moving my 223 from a regular to a lite, I also hope to put my 22cm in a lite.

I plan to keep my 6.5cm and 6.5prc in a regular. I am not sure about the 6cm, will likely keep it in a regular for now but maybe let it try on a lite once I get my hands on one and see. Given I already own 4 regulars thats the easy starting point and will see down the road.

 

[WCT3]

I mostly shoot a .223 and 6.5cm. Waiting for that tikka 6cm…

I agree with @Speaks, 223 will be fine in the lite and 6cm could go either way. But if you want maximum shootability the original would work for all of them

 

[Antares]

This is about as lite as I can go and still spot 75% of my shots with a 6UM and the RS lite in field shooting positions. Put it in a Rokstok and I'm spotting 90%+. Put it back, into a Tikka Factory stock and I'm less than 30%

View attachment 990252View attachment 990253

What’s the barrel length on this, Ryan? 18”

I generally prefer walnut over maple, but that looks f*ckin tits.

I’m seriously thinking about a 14” 6CM in a RS Lite w/ an OG6.5. Would you have any concerns about that setup I may have overlooked?

 

[Sundodger]

The issue, is that weight “added” is almost universally going to make it more front heavy- which throws off balance and shootability. A heavier barrel, needs a heavier stock to balance right. Same with larger suppressors. Scopes, etc. There is no free lunch- a lighter stock just exaggerates that.




The issue is the balance is thrown off and shootability goes down.




What rings do you think are “heavier duty” that weigh more?





What is “better”?




How is that better? And that puts you over weight?



Throws off balance and lowers shootability.




The Lites are coming with Pachmeyer recoil pads. What recoil pad has lower “transmissibility” and is designed correctly?

My comment wasn’t intended to disparage the component choices on your rifle, I’ll be honest, I didn’t even look at the picture close enough to see what they were, sorry if it came across that way.

Your point about potentially ending up with an unbalanced rifle was my intention. I think about it in the same way I think of race car classes with minimum weights. The race cars in those classes are well below the minimum weight, but then they strategically add weight back on. Yes, some of it is in the form of better components, but also placement of weights. Attaching lead bricks to the bottom of the frame to lower CG, placing weights to optimize polar movement of inertial, etc.

My understanding of the Rostock design was to mimize felt recoil by just drawing up a free body diagram before designing it. Why not take the same mentality to mass distribution as was done for geometry?

If you can make a stock stronger and lighter, then be free to put that weight elsewhere, who wouldn’t want that? At the very minimum it gives more options.

 

[Formidilosus]

Novice hunter and shooter here. Where do you like the balance point for shootability?

That’s a bit harder to explain with words and pictures. Think low center of gravity, and slightly muzzle forward- just in front of the magwell.

 

[Formidilosus]

So, being that I suck at shooting, if my main goal is to be a better shooter in field positions, an original Rokstok sounds like the better option? I’m always trying to cut weight and 8oz is not insignificant, but maybe it’s weight well spent if it means better shooting.

Not necessarily. The design of the lite (lower CG) closed the gap between them for most shooters and cartridges. I haven’t done a bunch of shooting with heavier recoiling rounds with the lite to compare, but what I have done what Ryan posted is about right- there is a slight trade off in spotting shots with 15+ ft-lbs of recoil (+/-). Most of that seems to be due to weight, as while the ROKStok has a 1/4” higher recoil pad, the Lite has a slightly lower CG and they seem to offset each other a bit. But, the 8oz or so less weight does affect it.

 

[Formidilosus]

My comment wasn’t intended to disparage the component choices on your rifle, I’ll be honest, I didn’t even look at the picture close enough to see what they were, sorry if it came across that way.

I don’t care if you disparage gear. But, that’s kind of what I was getting at; you’re just seeing the weight for weights sake- you didn’t look to see what actual components were used to understand that it at the weights for “better”.

Your point about potentially ending up with an unbalanced rifle was my intention.

If that was the intention, then relook at the picture and understand that the guns CG and balance is as perfect as any rifle I have ever shot or seen- that includes competition rifles. It’s already below the weight at 24oz to where if you add a heavier barrel, heavier suppressor, heavier scope- you need to add weight to the stock as it is.

I think about it in the same way I think of race car classes with minimum weights. The race cars in those classes are well below the minimum weight, but then they strategically add weight back on. Yes, some of it is in the form of better components, but also placement of weights. Attaching lead bricks to the bottom of the frame to lower CG, placing weights to optimize polar movement of inertial, etc.

You already to do that at 24oz to do any of what you wrote.

My understanding of the Rostock design was to mimize felt recoil by just drawing up a free body diagram before designing it.

It’s a lot more than that.

Why not take the same mentality to mass distribution as was done for geometry?

What makes you believe that wasn’t done?

If you can make a stock stronger and lighter, then be free to put that weight elsewhere, who wouldn’t want that? At the very minimum it gives more options.

Again, it’s already too light for what you are saying you want to do. If anyone buys this stock and want to put a 22” heavier barrel on it- you’re going to want to add weight to the back end of the stock.

 

[WstrnCP]

Not necessarily. The design of the lite (lower CG) closed the gap between them for most shooters and cartridges. I haven’t done a bunch of shooting with heavier recoiling rounds with the lite to compare, but what I have done what Ryan posted is about right- there is a slight trade off in spotting shots with 15+ ft-lbs of recoil (+/-). Most of that seems to be due to weight, as while the ROKStok has a 1/4” higher recoil pad, the Lite has a slightly lower CG and they seem to offset each other a bit. But, the 8oz or so less weight does affect it.

Great info, thanks.

 

[Timjohnson11]

If you had $1000 to spend, an original Rokstok, $500 of ammo and this drill would be a hard combination to beat in order to improve at field shooting…

Would love to know how to pick up a Rokstock for $500… I’m in market but I’m seeing nearly $700 out the door on their website for what I would consider a basic version (solely adding swing swivels and pic rail).

 

[Mtslackcountry]

Well I bit the bullet and ordered a regular rokstok today. Will drop a 22" 6.5 prc tikka in it and let some lead fly sometime this spring... I relly love the factory stock plus veritcal grip and ctr cheek piece. Have 2 rifles setup that way and soon to be a 3rd. If this Rokstok is as good as everyone is saying I will have to bust out my checkbook... I like to keep all my rifles wearing the same components for consistency. Cheers!

 

[wyosam]

For those who have shot this stock, do you find the same ring height to work as the regular rokstock?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ryan Avery]

What’s the barrel length on this, Ryan? 18”

I generally prefer walnut over maple, but that looks f*ckin tits.

I’m seriously thinking about a 14” 6CM in a RS Lite w/ an OG6.5. Would you have any concerns about that setup I may have overlooked?

Yes 18”

I too am a walnut fan, but this stock is purdy!

Your setup sounds sweet. I would reload a 14” to get a little speed back. An 18” total barrel length would be like packing a LR pistol!

 

[Ryan Avery]

For those who have shot this stock, do you find the same ring height to work as the regular rokstock?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes

 

[Ryan Avery]

So I’m assuming this is the 300WM magazine? And have you changed the bolt stop to long or just kept it as a magnum?

Yes on the mag

The bolt stop location doesn't seem to matter

 

[Ryan Avery]

What distance and position are you referring to with your percentages? Or are those numbers supposed to be for any distance and position?

For the sake of argument 300 yards and pretty much anything but offhand

 

[Ryan Avery]

So, being that I suck at shooting, if my main goal is to be a better shooter in field positions, an original Rokstok sounds like the better option? I’m always trying to cut weight and 8oz is not insignificant, but maybe it’s weight well spent if it means better shooting.

Rokstok!

 

[Moosehunter]

Sooo...did I miss it or when can I order one?

 

[Formidilosus]

Sooo...did I miss it or when can I order one?

It’ll be a bit.

 

[Moosehunter]

It’ll be a bit.

Thankyou. Lots of noise in this thread and wasn't sure. I'll keep my eyes out