I now doubt the way I did it. I used action screws to tighten, then wrapped with surgical tubes, and then loosened the action screws. Learned from Youtube.
Bedding
- Thread starter peterdobson
- Start date
I now doubt the way I did it. I used action screws to tighten, then wrapped with surgical tubes, and then loosened the action screws. Learned from Youtube.
Jonnyofalltrades
Regular
- Location
- North-central Saskatchewan
"Best" for one application, and one application only.
The stock is level held in a vise. I experiment with the support in the barrel channel holding the action level before placing the bedding compound and lowering the metal into the stock... squeezing the metal into the bedding and then one screw loosely just to hold it square... on occasion I have used one light wrap of tubing on the action. But the whole idea is to induce no stress.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Perhaps base your assessment on the results that you get. Does not matter what you did or did not do, if the groups are what you expect them to be. That is assuming that your shooting skill (or lack of it) are not the problem, and that you are using decent rests and decent techniques, etc. Epoxy bedding is one part of about 20 parts on the way to 0.25" 10 shot groups at 100 yards (or similar). If you do better than that, this CGN likely the wrong place for advice for you.
I will wait for a couple of days to let the epoxy harden fully, and then take to the range for the moment of truth. I can do 0.5MOA 3-4 shot groups but never 0.25 10 shots. Never thought it was possible. I guess I will find out.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I believe bench rest shooters were getting smaller than 0.25" groups perhaps in the 1990's - read up on the Houston Warehouse Experiment - I think they were in the "teens" back then. Perhaps 1970's, using my Savage 112V in 22-250 and my hand loads, a friend that I worked with shot a 5 shot group from sandbags at our 100 yard range - we did not have proper measuring stuff there - we could completely cover that group with the case head of a fired 22-250 case - completely cover the ragged hole with 5 lumps to it. Personally, although I tried many times, I never was able to duplicate the group that I watched that guy shoot - with my stuff!!!
Yup, as often as not, the rifle gets blamed for the shooter's inability. I had to learn that lesson the hard way myself.
Al Mirdoch bought the first Rem 700 BDL heavy barrel in .308 that came into Barotto Sports in Calgary. It was in the early 70's I think.
I bedded it (with clearance on the front, sides and bottom of the recoil lug), recrowned it, worked the trigger... he shot fantastic groups with that rifle... and in one registered match at the Namaka Bench Rest Shooter's range shot a 5 shot group measuring .090" and there was a moving backer behind that target showing 5 shots. He won a lot of hunter class matches with that rifle. Maximum 10 pounds and 6x scope.
So as I thought, only for the reason of ease of fitting you prefer to bed the surface of electrical tape instead of the recoil lug. That is not bedding the lug. Not my fault you have done that for 50 years ..... I have also messed with epoxy since the late sixties as a kid and worked with mold making /precision molding since 18.
Just remove sharp edges on your remmy lug, check that there are no negative release angles, use proper release agents and have only tape on the bottom face of the lug (or set back that surface after bedding to avoid hydraulic lock of dirt /oil) and bed. You will see that you have repeatable tight fitting action.. no shavings, no wobble and you know the position of your rifle. With your method you lost repeatability from day one.
Highly metal/mineral filled epoxy does not wear away that easy, similar materials are used to make moulds as well as similar fill being used in plastic bearing materials.
The tight fitting action without the stock or action being stressed will transmit the recoil into your stock as good as it will get without gluing in an action.
Just because a few on youtube who don't seem to know much about mold making and release angles etc made bedding videos of a flawed method does not mean it is the standard of rifle bedding.
A few years ago we had one physics uni and one firearms test facility in Germany do the maths on recoil of a hunting rifles. All this was based on tight fitting actions not a stepped recoil. On a 308 hunting rifle you'd have about 2mm backwards movement under recoil before the bullet leaves the barrel, these two mm are important to be consistent without a jolt of an action moving in a stock which might change launch angle or harmonics. So I don't really care if some don't see the benefit of a tight fitting action.
edi
Jonnyofalltrades
Regular
- Location
- North-central Saskatchewan
Edi, your stocks are beautiful, and I think they are wonderful, but all we have to go on is your opinion. Either do unbiased experiments and document the results, or say "in my opinion" before making sweeping statements.
Accusing guntech and Leeper of poor craftsmanship? Craftsman is their middle name.
I am amazed at the depth of knowledge and skill in this area of the forum. This doesn't exist in any other forum that I know of, or maybe it is just buried under the trolling.
Accusing guntech and Leeper of poor craftsmanship? Craftsman is their middle name.
I am amazed at the depth of knowledge and skill in this area of the forum. This doesn't exist in any other forum that I know of, or maybe it is just buried under the trolling.
Take it easy johnny, Leeper and guntech know their stuff and make or made a living doing it.
They're both usually very gracious and are willing to discuss differences of opinion.
That's what's going on here, discussing differences in opinion.
I know a lot of folks that purchase a new rifle or have a barrelled receiver finished to the point it can be put into a stock and bedded. Many of those folks still quite litterally bed those rifles solid and non removeable into those stocks, wood or composite.
It's a matter of opinion, usually tempered with experience.
The bedding procedure will often depend on what the rifle is being used for.
When I bed my own, personal rifles, I don't leave clearance on the side or the front of the receiver recoil lug, however, I do put a double thickness of tape on the bottom of the lug just in case a bit of the epoxy scrapes off when the receiver is reinstalled after cleaning up the release agent. This tiny space at the bottom will give the detritous a place to fall into without effecting the positioning of the receiver in the rest of the bedding.
That's just "IMHO"
Some folks take bedding very seriously and it's understandable the opinions can be harsh at times.
They're both usually very gracious and are willing to discuss differences of opinion.
That's what's going on here, discussing differences in opinion.
I know a lot of folks that purchase a new rifle or have a barrelled receiver finished to the point it can be put into a stock and bedded. Many of those folks still quite litterally bed those rifles solid and non removeable into those stocks, wood or composite.
It's a matter of opinion, usually tempered with experience.
The bedding procedure will often depend on what the rifle is being used for.
When I bed my own, personal rifles, I don't leave clearance on the side or the front of the receiver recoil lug, however, I do put a double thickness of tape on the bottom of the lug just in case a bit of the epoxy scrapes off when the receiver is reinstalled after cleaning up the release agent. This tiny space at the bottom will give the detritous a place to fall into without effecting the positioning of the receiver in the rest of the bedding.
That's just "IMHO"
Some folks take bedding very seriously and it's understandable the opinions can be harsh at times.
Jonnyofalltrades
Regular
- Location
- North-central Saskatchewan
Absolutely mean no disrespect to anyone's opinions or experiences.
Rereading my last post, it sounds snide. My apologies.
Rereading my last post, it sounds snide. My apologies.
When rifles bedded your way ALWAYS win , and NEVER get beat by one bedded in another manner, THEN you can state that your way is best. The provision of clearance on the front sides and bottom of the recoil lug is accepted practice and has been for fifty years. So is providing clearance at the tang or any other rear-facing surface other than the lug. This is not to say that tightly bedded actions will not shoot as well, and it may well be that the provision of clearance is simply a matter of pragmatism (making disassembly and re-assembly easier). The truth is that it works. With a rifle bedded with clearance on front sides and bottom, it should be possible to disassemble the rifle in the middle of a group, and have the first shot after re-assembly hit in the group. The late Bob Forslund demonstrated this to me with his rifle, and said that was the mark of a proper bedding job (he stated this in somewhat more colourful terms). I agree. By the way, Bob and Albert did as much experimentation in the area of bedding techniques as anyone I've known. They were very open-minded and willing to try anything which made sense to them. Anyone who competed with them can attest to their abilities.
Ultimately, it is the performance in competition, or at least in unbiased testing which proves the viability of any given technique. Different methods are just that, different. They are not a mark of poor workmanship. Unless they consistently lose in competition; then the method can be said to suck.
Ultimately, it is the performance in competition, or at least in unbiased testing which proves the viability of any given technique. Different methods are just that, different. They are not a mark of poor workmanship. Unless they consistently lose in competition; then the method can be said to suck.
I look at this purely from a technical side and think we can all learn from these discussions even if they seem a bit OTT . I would like to understand the reasoning behind some ones solutions be it in bedding or other technical aspects. I have no intensions to insult anyone on here, maybe my wordings should have been "lousy solution" in my opinion instead of "lousy workmanship". One can see there seem to be two camps, those who bed tight and those who bed loose. It is not one sided. There is not a standard way of bedding a remmy. I'm off now for the evening fox, knocked 5 so far in the last week.
edi
edi
Jonnyofalltrades
Regular
- Location
- North-central Saskatchewan
The ironic thing is that, after all this argu, er, debating, I just might try bedding my next Rem 700 project a little differently....
Try it, just to see if it's really as awful as I remember it.
Try it, just to see if it's really as awful as I remember it.
Thanks Jonny, The reason I did not say in my opinion in that case was because it is not only my opinion. It is also what I learned in engineering Uni/apprenticeship. Something to do with tolerances of machine parts. A good tradesman must have a deeper knowledge in theory as well as good workmanship to turn the theory into praxis. If either is missing or a flawed theory then the craftmanship is poor. As a customer I would be disappointed if my rifle would be bedded in such a way that it can move around in the action, no matter what make of rifle. This is what I learned and what I believe in until a better theory comes up or proven wrong.
edi
But it is still only your opinion. It is unproven on the range or in the field. If a customer prefers to have a rifle bedded tight, I would do so, and have done so, but it is not my preference; at least not on a 700. Nonetheless, I do not consider alternative methodology to necessarily be flawed, providing it can prove effectiveness on the range.
Theory's are just theory's and opinions are opinions. The fact is it has not been proven that clearance on the front, sides and bottom of a recoil lug is detrimental in accuracy, 700 action or not. There is no evidence to that effect what ever. It is not a theory.
I too, on a customers request, would bed the lug tight but I would advise against it and point out potential problems.
