Anybody bedding their Cadex builds?

[Shooter ----/]

Id be listening to the manufacture over a gunsmith. The chassis system has patents shared by Remington and cadex, therefore the r&d is backing the manufacturer over the gunsmith.

lol!!!!

I'd believe the guy that builds some of the most accurate precision rifles in Canada and possibly North America over Remington. Cadex's chassis is a quick, one size fits all system. When you get down to needing to perfectly fit one specific action, proper bedding is it.

 

[arcticcathonda]

How does the rifle shoot? 1/2" groups? Does it NEED to be messed with?

Yeah, why mess with it if you aren't having issues. Cross that bridge when you get to it. Go shoot and enjoy your Rifle!

 

[Shooter ----/]

Full Definition of "Precision".
1 :adapted for extremely accurate measurement or operation
2 :held to low tolerance in manufacture
3 :marked by precision of execution

In this forum, at least to me, you keep working at making you and your rifle better. Throwing up your hands and saying "good enough" doesn't really fit in. Although you must make sure you enjoy the rifle along the way.

 

[Brianma65]

The rifle only shoots 1/2 In my dreams as most of the components are still in the mail. I have no problem with the bedding other than is it reversible. And then for resale purposes only.

 

[Trevor60]

I will let you know come next year.

The Chou’s are chambering my Cadex rifle but I requested that they not bed the chassis. I will test and can always bed later if I don’t like the performance I am getting.

Here is the argument; the Cadex chassis has 4 roller pins that work in unison however they are still 4 individual roller pins. If anyone of the 4 pins has a notably different pin tension it would act differently and cause the 3 remaining to compensate for the fourth.

Whereas bedding the action has a pliable compound that conforms to the action and hardens to have solid contact between the action and the stock which is then torqued to a specific spec.

If you look at BR rifles allot of them glue in their actions…


If you want to test the Cadex roller system adjust your action screw torque settings 50in/bs 55 in/bs 65 in/bs and so on, at some point all four rollers should engage and the rifle will shoot tighter groups then the other settings.

 

[Mister Donut]

interesting. I never thought this would ever be an issue, let alone a discussion. One of the reasons I went with the Cadex Chassis is so I could skip bedding my rifle. Guess I'll have to sit back and see what the pros say and possibly re-evaluate my thinking?

 

[Brianma65]

interesting. I never thought this would ever be an issue, let alone a discussion. One of the reasons I went with the Cadex Chassis is so I could skip bedding my rifle. Guess I'll have to sit back and see what the pros say and possibly re-evaluate my thinking?

well Kevin Chou recommends bedding the Cadex.. Is he not a pro ?

 

[Mister Donut]

well Kevin Chou recommends bedding the Cadex.. Is he not a pro ?

One of the pros, for sure. And for the record, I'm, not disputing the Chou's opinion, I just want to see if any others will chime in.

PGW were using the Cadex chassis for one of their rifles, and ATRS have also incorporated the chassis into their builds.

 

[Brianma65]

I couldn't get my Rem 700 to shoot under 1 1/2 MOA. I installed the Cadex and got consistently just under 1 MOA. So will the bedding and new barrel get me closer to 1/2 MOA , or just barrel?. And maybe the new barrel will be crap...

 

[Mister Donut]

I couldn't get my Rem 700 to shoot under 1 1/2 MOA. I installed the Cadex and got consistently just under 1 MOA. So will the bedding and new barrel get me closer to 1/2 MOA , or just barrel?. And maybe the new barrel will be crap...

Well, that's the thing, seems like it couldn't hurt to bed it if done right (and it will be if done by the Chous), but will there be an improvement and will there be a noticeable difference between rollers and a Chou-bedding? If we're talking a quarter MOA improvement over, then the chassis market should start from scratch.

 

[uncledillers]

I am not a gunsmith. I am not a rifle manufacturer. But I do have an opinion and a open forum to share said opinion,so here we go. Ill start with a couple of observations about the stock and a rifle action.

Fisrt of when you look at the cadex bedding system. It consists of 4x roller pins. they look to be maybe 3/8 in diameter, maybe smaller, and maybe 1/2 in long. There are 2 pins on either side of the action screws. The recoil slot I assume is a square notch with plenty room around the sides and bottom of the recoil lug. Also I will take it that the action screw holes are larger than that action screws, as are they are in most applications usually does, so there are no other forces being put on the screws other than the clamping compression.

Now if we look A remington receiver has a 1.38 in diameter.

First point, when two circles or radius are touching each other, there is a very small foot print. Iam not sure how to figure out the exact width of each point of contact but I am sure its small, like a pencil line small. Maybe .020 in. So your total foot print and support of the action is 4x 1/2in long, 20 thou wide contact points. That does't seem to be a hell of a lot.
To expand on this, the pins are probably a precisely machined polished diameter, a factory action is not, and often has a parkerized finish, with is not smooth. So smoother roller on a ruff and non precise reciever would give even less surface in those already small contact points.

For that alone, I would bed.

Point 2. What does this stock have to prevent the action from twisting or clocking in the stock. From what I can see, only to things. One being the friction between the back of the recoil lug and the stock. The other, are the 4 small contact points of the pins... which are on rollers. So if anything I would think the rollers would aid in the twisting of the action.

Considering both factors, I would think that if a person installed one of these onto their rifles, and years later removed it, you you finds 4 pencil thin wear marks dug into the receiver, and wear marks in the action holes where the action twisted until the action screw came into contact with the side of the wholes.

I would think a traditional bedding would do a better job than this system.

 

[bsand]

That's your experience, I'm consistently under 3/4 moa with my 5r in a cadex chassis with a Timney trigger. It's been that way since the beginning.

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

One of the pros, for sure. And for the record, I'm, not disputing the Chou's opinion, I just want to see if any others will chime in.

PGW were using the Cadex chassis for one of their rifles, and ATRS have also incorporated the chassis into their builds.

There are several opinions on bedding of any type of stock. Each builder of precision rifles uses what works best in their experience.
When Cadex 1st came out with their chassis we tried 1 on a 700 and with use of plastigage ( engine rebuilders use this for bearing crush) we found that the 4 roller pins had less that .0002 difference from worst contact to best contact. "Maybe" this could be improved by bedding but I am skeptical.

WE firmly believe that IF any procedure is not going to improve accuracy demonstrably, we won't do it. I am not saying that the Chou's are wrong, but it seems their experiences differ from ours, just as some feel in a conventional stock that bedding should only go to the front of the recoil lug and not support the barrel shank, whereas others have had better success with bedding the shank as well.
At the end of the day the rifle will quickly tell a person whether it shoots well or not. Bedding in a chassis is simple to do after the fact. Getting full contact of the entire action type bedding in a chassis is harder than in a conventional stock, so most that we have seen bedded are simply bedding compound on the contact points.

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

I am not a gunsmith. I am not a rifle manufacturer. But I do have an opinion and a open forum to share said opinion,so here we go. Ill start with a couple of observations about the stock and a rifle action.

Fisrt of when you look at the cadex bedding system. It consists of 4x roller pins. they look to be maybe 3/8 in diameter, maybe smaller, and maybe 1/2 in long. There are 2 pins on either side of the action screws. The recoil slot I assume is a square notch with plenty room around the sides and bottom of the recoil lug. Also I will take it that the action screw holes are larger than that action screws, as are they are in most applications usually does, so there are no other forces being put on the screws other than the clamping compression.

Now if we look A remington receiver has a 1.38 in diameter.

First point, when two circles or radius are touching each other, there is a very small foot print. Iam not sure how to figure out the exact width of each point of contact but I am sure its small, like a pencil line small. Maybe .020 in. So your total foot print and support of the action is 4x 1/2in long, 20 thou wide contact points. That does't seem to be a hell of a lot.
To expand on this, the pins are probably a precisely machined polished diameter, a factory action is not, and often has a parkerized finish, with is not smooth. So smoother roller on a ruff and non precise reciever would give even less surface in those already small contact points.

For that alone, I would bed.

Point 2. What does this stock have to prevent the action from twisting or clocking in the stock. From what I can see, only to things. One being the friction between the back of the recoil lug and the stock. The other, are the 4 small contact points of the pins... which are on rollers. So if anything I would think the rollers would aid in the twisting of the action.

Considering both factors, I would think that if a person installed one of these onto their rifles, and years later removed it, you you finds 4 pencil thin wear marks dug into the receiver, and wear marks in the action holes where the action twisted until the action screw came into contact with the side of the wholes.

I would think a traditional bedding would do a better job than this system.

Your logic is sound and I agree with your post 100% in theory. We have tried it both ways and did not find any significant difference in the rifles accuracy. SO LONG AS the torque on the action screws was maintained religiously.

" Considering both factors, I would think that if a person installed one of these onto their rifles, and years later removed it, you you finds 4 pencil thin wear marks dug into the receiver, and wear marks in the action holes where the action twisted until the action screw came into contact with the side of the wholes." ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

 

[Brianma65]

I would like to try the rifle without the bedding for sure, but here's the thing, if I want to add bedding later , it's a PITA for me , to have to repackage everything and send it off for a couple months. My thought is if it won't hurt anything and may even improve things, why not do it now, while its at the smith. It's not a whole lot more $$$

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

I would like to try the rifle without the bedding for sure, but here's the thing, if I want to add bedding later , it's a PITA for me , to have to repackage everything and send it off for a couple months. My thought is if it won't hurt anything and may even improve things, why not do it now, while its at the smith. It's not a whole lot more $$$

That is logical.

 

[arcticcathonda]

Full Definition of "Precision".
1 :adapted for extremely accurate measurement or operation
2 :held to low tolerance in manufacture
3 :marked by precision of execution

In this forum, at least to me, you keep working at making you and your rifle better. Throwing up your hands and saying "good enough" doesn't really fit in. Although you must make sure you enjoy the rifle along the way.

No one said give up. But it is best to go through and identify the weakest link in your process. Your number 3 points stands out. Execution. How many people are solid 0.5 MOA shooters? To me, once I got my rifle to 0.5MOA, I focused on working on me. Only once that consistency came was there reason to develop a more precise rifle.

I always think of it as race cars. Sure you can build a race car, but can you drive it? If not, racing school would be a worthy investment....

 

[Brianma65]

Thanks to every one who replied, both professionals and shooters. I thought about all that was said and even though the bedding may not be needed , I'll get it done. My reason being, as I said earlier, time and money. I have a Cadex chassis, Proof CFW 20 in barrel (308). Stiller Tac 30 action , Timmy trigger. ( my limit financially).Once it gets back from the Chou I'll do some shooting. I'm confident that if the gun is capable of 3/4 MOA , then I am also. the reason I chose the Chou Brothers is because of their reputation and location. I know there are others capable of the same quality of work (ATRS for one). Also I wanted a well known Smith so that I wouldn't be regretting my decision, down the road.

 

[Suputin]

So bedding and eliminating any possible pressure points won't help?

Which pressure points would those be? The action is supported on four steel rollers. There can be no other pressure points with this system.

 

[Mister Donut]

There are several opinions on bedding of any type of stock. Each builder of precision rifles uses what works best in their experience.
When Cadex 1st came out with their chassis we tried 1 on a 700 and with use of plastigage ( engine rebuilders use this for bearing crush) we found that the 4 roller pins had less that .0002 difference from worst contact to best contact. "Maybe" this could be improved by bedding but I am skeptical.

WE firmly believe that IF any procedure is not going to improve accuracy demonstrably, we won't do it. I am not saying that the Chou's are wrong, but it seems their experiences differ from ours, just as some feel in a conventional stock that bedding should only go to the front of the recoil lug and not support the barrel shank, whereas others have had better success with bedding the shank as well.
At the end of the day the rifle will quickly tell a person whether it shoots well or not. Bedding in a chassis is simple to do after the fact. Getting full contact of the entire action type bedding in a chassis is harder than in a conventional stock, so most that we have seen bedded are simply bedding compound on the contact points.

Thanks for posting, I feel relieved to know that there's only a .0002 difference. Besides, I'm not at a level where I will notice such a negligible difference.