RokStok

[BCsteve]

Seems like UM has it covered with their repair, repaint, or replace policy. How people utilize or don’t utilize that is up to them. I don’t see one approach as more right than another.

This policy is a bit like what vehicle warranties have become.

And Vortex....

 

[PLhunter]

I’ve taken mine out shooting. Ergo and comfort were great, Groups had opened up with some splitting of the groups. Trying to figure out what’s going on. Pressure points are visible in the photos. Anyone have some ideas?

An observation for anyone getting a new rokstok and tightening the action screws. I didn’t notice this until I was trouble shooting. When tightening the rokstok it was sucking down closing the gap between barrel and channel but after about 30-40 lbs the barrel gap began to actually grow. I am assuming bending up from that contact point in front of the recoil lug or the stock bending down. I’m guessing that it was my action flexing making the gap grow. I also had early pressure signs no idea though how that could be related. So could just be a red herring that happened for some other reason.

But 65 lbs turns out to be a whole heck of a lot of torque.

 

[Ironoperator87]

An observation for anyone getting a new rokstok and tightening the action screws. I didn’t notice this until I was trouble shooting. When tightening the rokstok it was sucking down closing the gap between barrel and channel but after about 30-40 lbs the barrel gap began to actually grow. I am assuming bending up from that contact point in front of the recoil lug or the stock bending down. I’m guessing that it was my action flexing making the gap grow. I also had early pressure signs no idea though how that could be related. So could just be a red herring that happened for some other reason.

But 65 lbs turns out to be a whole heck of a lot of torque.

Hard to tell for sure from the pictures but it looks like there is a raised portion of the stock in front of the recoil lug that shouldn’t be there.

 

[PLhunter]

Hard to tell for sure from the pictures but it looks like there is a raised portion of the stock in front of the recoil lug that shouldn’t be there.
View attachment 822443

Yeah, the contact in front of the lug should be flush and those two shiny spots are where most of the pressure is digging in. The barrel actually raises as I tighten.

 

[TxLite]

Yeah, the contact in front of the lug should be flush and those two shiny spots are where most of the pressure is digging in. The barrel actually raises as I tighten.

That looks like something a dremel could fix pretty easily, but it might be worth calling UM if you aren’t comfortable with that.

 

[PLhunter]

That looks like something a dremel could fix pretty easily, but it might be worth calling UM if you aren’t comfortable with that.

Getting rid of any contact in front of the lug will be easy with the dremel. Creating flush contact won’t. Going to send UM the photos and see what they recommend.

 

[TxLite]

Getting rid of any contact in front of the lug will be easy with the dremel. Creating flush contact won’t. Going to send UM the photos and see what they recommend.

True.

Good luck. Worst case it might need to be bedded

 

[PLhunter]

Exactly. What not make them all right to begin with.

If my non paint stock is their near perfect…. It’s not horrific but I’d hope it’s certainly not the cream of the crop.

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

An observation for anyone getting a new rokstok and tightening the action screws. I didn’t notice this until I was trouble shooting. When tightening the rokstok it was sucking down closing the gap between barrel and channel but after about 30-40 lbs the barrel gap began to actually grow. I am assuming bending up from that contact point in front of the recoil lug or the stock bending down. I’m guessing that it was my action flexing making the gap grow. I also had early pressure signs no idea though how that could be related. So could just be a red herring that happened for some other reason.

But 65 lbs turns out to be a whole heck of a lot of torque.

65 ft lbs? That's a light torque for wheels on your car, not for a stock. 65 in/lbs... that's what you torque it to. I run higher on chassis.

If you torqued it to 65 ft lbs something gave and probably didn't spring back.

Ken

 

[kswaterfowl]

65 ft lbs? That's a light torque for wheels on your car, not for a stock. 65 in/lbs... that's what you torque it to. I run higher on chassis.

If you torqued it to 65 ft lbs something gave and probably didn't spring back.

Ken

I was wondering if he meant in/lbs or ft/lbs. I would be impressed if those action screws held up to 65 ft/lbs.