Bedding
- Thread starter peterdobson
- Start date
No, the sides should not have contact. When finished the barreled action should be able to fall out of the stock, if it doesn't then there is a bind somewhere. If the stock needs to be forced off of the action then it must also be forced onto the action. This indicates binds and stresses, which are undesirable.
I always taped the sides, front and bottom of a recoil lug before applying release agent. This give enough clearance for easy removal and installation of the bottom metal.
The biggest problem with not creating this clearance is it makes removing the metal difficult and on installing it is easy to scrape a bit of the bedding off, trapping it under the bottom of the lug and preventing the action in contacting the bedding properly.
The biggest problem with not creating this clearance is it makes removing the metal difficult and on installing it is easy to scrape a bit of the bedding off, trapping it under the bottom of the lug and preventing the action in contacting the bedding properly.
If you use black electrical tape, one layer on sides and bottom plus front of lug you will have no binding in this area.
As for the action falling out of the bedding I wouldn't say that, it should come out with a gentle lift.
As for the action falling out of the bedding I wouldn't say that, it should come out with a gentle lift.
Why would one bother to bed if one does not want contact?
We only use tape on the bottom of the recoil lug so that smallest bit of dirt has room when the recoil lug slides down while fitting the rifle. Goal is to have zero play as one does not want the rifle to wobble around in the stock when shooting. Accuracy International even glued their actions in to their stocks permanently.... they know why.
I just think the reason why many like the tape is because they can't really make out if their recoil lug has a positiv or negative release angle... as well as using household stuff as release agents.
edi
We only use tape on the bottom of the recoil lug so that smallest bit of dirt has room when the recoil lug slides down while fitting the rifle. Goal is to have zero play as one does not want the rifle to wobble around in the stock when shooting. Accuracy International even glued their actions in to their stocks permanently.... they know why.
I just think the reason why many like the tape is because they can't really make out if their recoil lug has a positiv or negative release angle... as well as using household stuff as release agents.
edi
It has never been demonstrated there is any benefit to bedding a recoil lug on the front, sides, or bottom. An it has never been demonstrated that paste wax is not an excellent release agent... and after 40 years of using commercial release agents, I found paste wax to be better. I used masking tape on the front, sides and bottom of a recoil lug because it was the easiest way to ensure a minimum clearance where it was desired.
Draw up what the recoil dampening looks like if you do not know where in that space your rifle is before firing. It is "bouncing around" shot for shot... or at least one does not know where it ends after recoil. Have a fixed bedding position with no movement and you know where the lug is and how the recoil is transferred. The reason why one beds. I have not heard a single reason for the tape method that convinced me. I learned about epoxy bedding in industrial machines, then later to rifles.
I have never heard of professional composite manufacturers using household components as an release agent. I know they can work and have used them before myself but not in production.
edi
Tape the front sides and bottom. Then put release agent on the tape. You want contact on the back. There’s no benefit to contact on the front and sides. Not putting a little gap in these areas might make it real hard to remove your barrelled action from the stock.
Last edited:
The use of a household product as a release agent became popular simply because it works better, FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, than the silicone based commercial release agents. It is easy to apply, can be used to temporarily block holes, is effective on all sorts of materials, and is easily cleaned up. It can be used to protect stock finishes from wayward epoxy; stock finishes which may be damaged by silicone sprays.
As far as bedding tight or providing clearance on the lug is concerned, the jury is, surprisingly enough, still out. When I did my first glass bedding job, (in 1966, at the age of 16), glass bedding was seen as a method to achieve the closest possible fit between stock and action. I was not yet involved in precision competition or rifle building and I bedded tight, with no clearance. I achieved decent results in spite of my ignorance. 10 years later, I had learned enough to know that I didn't know very much and I started paying attention to those who did. At the same time, I started taking an interest in serious rifle accuracy and benchrest shooting in particular. By this time it had become common practice to bed actions, especially Remingtons, with clearance at the front, sides, and bottom of the lug. A proper bedding job would allow the action to be easily removed from the stock once the screws were removed. That this formula was successful was borne out by the results on the line. That it wasn't perfect, was borne out by the occasional flyer. At the same time, high-power shooters were complaining that the round receiver of the Remington 700 and 40X was shifting in the stock due to torque. Some gunsmiths began to bed the sides of the recoil lug in an attempt to stop this shift in the bed. I cannot honestly say whether or not this was successful (or even necessary). Short range benchresters, always at the forefront of accuracy innovation, dealt with any tendency toward shifting in the bedding by gluing the receiver into the stock. This remains a viable and effective method of stock attachment and is undoubtedly where Accuracy International got the idea. The glue-in worked well enough that it was banned from use in Hunter class BR. Gunsmiths got around this by bedding conventionally (usually on pillars). They would then clean up the bedding, apply release agent to the receiver, and bed it again with epoxy only (no filler) while the bedding was curing the screws were torqued up and the action was not removed from the stock, though it could be if required. This fit into the letter of the rules if not the spirit. It was as close as one could come to a glue-in, without actually doing a glue-in.
Today, I still bed both ways, depending on the action type. Unless the screw goes into the lug, I always provide clearance under the lug. Unless there is no receiver forward of the lug, I never bed the rear of the barrel. On Remington 40X and Savage single shot actions, I always float the tang as well. The reason for taping continues to be ease of disassembly and re-assembly. I have seen winning rifles built using both methods. I would never be so arrogant as to claim my way of doing things was the very best way.
As far as bedding tight or providing clearance on the lug is concerned, the jury is, surprisingly enough, still out. When I did my first glass bedding job, (in 1966, at the age of 16), glass bedding was seen as a method to achieve the closest possible fit between stock and action. I was not yet involved in precision competition or rifle building and I bedded tight, with no clearance. I achieved decent results in spite of my ignorance. 10 years later, I had learned enough to know that I didn't know very much and I started paying attention to those who did. At the same time, I started taking an interest in serious rifle accuracy and benchrest shooting in particular. By this time it had become common practice to bed actions, especially Remingtons, with clearance at the front, sides, and bottom of the lug. A proper bedding job would allow the action to be easily removed from the stock once the screws were removed. That this formula was successful was borne out by the results on the line. That it wasn't perfect, was borne out by the occasional flyer. At the same time, high-power shooters were complaining that the round receiver of the Remington 700 and 40X was shifting in the stock due to torque. Some gunsmiths began to bed the sides of the recoil lug in an attempt to stop this shift in the bed. I cannot honestly say whether or not this was successful (or even necessary). Short range benchresters, always at the forefront of accuracy innovation, dealt with any tendency toward shifting in the bedding by gluing the receiver into the stock. This remains a viable and effective method of stock attachment and is undoubtedly where Accuracy International got the idea. The glue-in worked well enough that it was banned from use in Hunter class BR. Gunsmiths got around this by bedding conventionally (usually on pillars). They would then clean up the bedding, apply release agent to the receiver, and bed it again with epoxy only (no filler) while the bedding was curing the screws were torqued up and the action was not removed from the stock, though it could be if required. This fit into the letter of the rules if not the spirit. It was as close as one could come to a glue-in, without actually doing a glue-in.
Today, I still bed both ways, depending on the action type. Unless the screw goes into the lug, I always provide clearance under the lug. Unless there is no receiver forward of the lug, I never bed the rear of the barrel. On Remington 40X and Savage single shot actions, I always float the tang as well. The reason for taping continues to be ease of disassembly and re-assembly. I have seen winning rifles built using both methods. I would never be so arrogant as to claim my way of doing things was the very best way.
Accuracy wise it has not been demonstrated that bedding the sides of the lug is an advantage over having clearance on the front, sides and bottom of the lug. Loose action screws probably have more effect on action torque. There are a lot of theories but unless it can be repeatably demonstrated they remain theories. To help compensate for torque control only one side of the lug would require contact. (Dependant on right or left hand twist)
It also comes down to what "you" want to do, what you prefer to do...
This was, indeed, the theory put forth by all the proponents of the flat action bedding. As Dennis pointed out, actions shifting due to torque likely happened mostly because the screws were loose. Some use powdered rosin on the receiver to help keep things in place. I use flat bottomed actions quite often (I tape the sides and bottom of the lug on those too) but have never felt that they offered any particular advantage. Likewise, I have bedded the sides of recoil lugs and I have taped them. I have never seen any advantage to bedding tight, while taping the lug makes assembly and disassembly easier. For BR use, I will always glue-in.
I would ask for my money back if a gunsmith would bed a rifle for me that slops around in the stock, that is just lousy workmanship. As I said before the only reason for the tape and slop later is because some are unsure of their bedding technique and scared the action will not come out of the stock after bedding. This might have something to do with the household release agents being used instead of professional materials or being unsure of the release angles? Yes I know some household materials like Kiwi clear do work as release agents but not always and not all not all other household options. Saying that, some professional release agents also don't release well in certain circumstances.
Just read about Mountain Tactical Tikka T3 recoil lugs with tighter fit which reduces movement once bedded. We also get our T3 lugs manufactured with tighter fit for the same reason since many years and have bedded over 1000 T3's. All other type actions we bed are also bedded in latitude and torsional directions as tight as possible.
Has anyone proven that not bedding or bedding with slop (same thing) is better than tight bedding? What other reasons are there for for the tape approach? Other than releasing? If the action screws would hold the action in position then why bother with a recoil lug at all? I know one guy who designed and built actions without recoil lugs and had huge issues with stocks splitting.
My take is to bed an action in such a way that all recoil in length direction is taken by the recoil lug only, no other part of the action touches anything upright. In torsional direction either the action shape or a tight fitting recoil lug take these forces. Friction of the action does not really help with hundreds or shots being fired.
edi
Just read about Mountain Tactical Tikka T3 recoil lugs with tighter fit which reduces movement once bedded. We also get our T3 lugs manufactured with tighter fit for the same reason since many years and have bedded over 1000 T3's. All other type actions we bed are also bedded in latitude and torsional directions as tight as possible.
Has anyone proven that not bedding or bedding with slop (same thing) is better than tight bedding? What other reasons are there for for the tape approach? Other than releasing? If the action screws would hold the action in position then why bother with a recoil lug at all? I know one guy who designed and built actions without recoil lugs and had huge issues with stocks splitting.
My take is to bed an action in such a way that all recoil in length direction is taken by the recoil lug only, no other part of the action touches anything upright. In torsional direction either the action shape or a tight fitting recoil lug take these forces. Friction of the action does not really help with hundreds or shots being fired.
edi
I have posted many times that between no clearance on a lug and clearance on the front, sides and bottom (example - Rem 700) it has never been demonstrated either way is more accurate.
However with no clearance it is a pain in the ass for disassembly and assembly... with a chance shavings will build up under the lug on assembly... that is why I chosen to bed with lug clearance for over 50 years. I don't consider it "just lousy workmanship".
Read post 12 again.
As stated by the veteran smiths above, bedding with clearance on sides, bottom and front of recoil lug is an industry standard for world class competition rifles. It works, it works very well and it permits repeatable disassembly/assembly with greatly reduced risk of damaging the bedding compound.
Are there other methods? Absolutely! As Leeper mentioned, permanently epoxied in place has been a popular method in the BR game. Logic dictates that would be the "best" method as there is literally no "slop" and everything is unitized. The catch... Nothing can be removed. The majority of shooters have opted (and some competitions dictate) for the compromise of being able to remove/reassemble their firearms.
A size on size fit is never well suited to repeated disassembly/assembly. Something will wear and you now have clearance (slop). Worse than that, you have no control over where that wear has occurred. However, by intentionally creating clearance in a controlled location, we can prevent undue wear from occurring elsewhere.
That's what this game is all about in the first place isn't it? Repeatability.
The sides seem to be a recurring bottle neck here, The quick fix for that is to use a recoil lug with tapered sides. This can be bedded without side clearance as clearance begins as soon as upward motion begins. That said, the podium isn't dominated by a particular shape of recoil lug so once again, actions torqueing in the stock doesn't seem to be a real world problem. The actions are still bolted down after all. Our scopes, by contrast, are held in place by friction alone in a very small (by comparison) area of contact, and they seem to stay put.
In the end, there's nothing wrong with bedding without clearance. If that's what a customer wants, awesome! The rifle should shoot just as well, it'll just be less enjoyable to take apart and have a higher risk of bedding damage going back together.
Are there other methods? Absolutely! As Leeper mentioned, permanently epoxied in place has been a popular method in the BR game. Logic dictates that would be the "best" method as there is literally no "slop" and everything is unitized. The catch... Nothing can be removed. The majority of shooters have opted (and some competitions dictate) for the compromise of being able to remove/reassemble their firearms.
A size on size fit is never well suited to repeated disassembly/assembly. Something will wear and you now have clearance (slop). Worse than that, you have no control over where that wear has occurred. However, by intentionally creating clearance in a controlled location, we can prevent undue wear from occurring elsewhere.
That's what this game is all about in the first place isn't it? Repeatability.
The sides seem to be a recurring bottle neck here, The quick fix for that is to use a recoil lug with tapered sides. This can be bedded without side clearance as clearance begins as soon as upward motion begins. That said, the podium isn't dominated by a particular shape of recoil lug so once again, actions torqueing in the stock doesn't seem to be a real world problem. The actions are still bolted down after all. Our scopes, by contrast, are held in place by friction alone in a very small (by comparison) area of contact, and they seem to stay put.
In the end, there's nothing wrong with bedding without clearance. If that's what a customer wants, awesome! The rifle should shoot just as well, it'll just be less enjoyable to take apart and have a higher risk of bedding damage going back together.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I used to use the action screws, but do not any more - just headless aligning pins on the action and electrical tape around the front of the receiver and stock - goes, for me, to the idea that the point of epoxy bedding is to get the action and barrel laying in that epoxy bed with no tension - no twists or humps from tightened screws ... there are usually a couple wraps of that same electrician's vinyl tape around the barrel - near the forearm tip - to ensure barrel free float and that it is centered in the barrel channel - but I might be all wrong about that.
One of the more accurate hunting rifles that I did was a Remington 788 in 243 Win - that one was solid epoxy bedded from rear tang tip to forearm tip - and that one used the action screws - still not sure if it shot well because of my fussing, or in spite of it - I did that one before I heard to shoot a couple 5 shot groups first, then repeat with same loads done after - prove to self whether that job actually improved anything.
I have come to believe that only holes on target count - what someone says they did or did not do, or paid to have done, means about nothing unless there is a tight cluster of holes on the target - maybe the rifle needs epoxy bedding to do that - some do not. But is the holes that matter, not what is said about it ... Then is barrel float or tip pressure; chamber area to be bedded or not bedded, besides the action bedding - only holes on target will tell you if what you have is good enough or not. Big spread on paper might be due to a ding on the muzzle crown - nothing at all to do with the bedding.
Last edited:
You mean you just let the barreled action sit on the stock, relying on gravity?
