There is no "return-to battery" unless the action slides back and forth. While there may be plenty of force to slide it back, there is little to move it forth; unless the screws are loose and the shooter is certain the barreled action is forward. The only possible excuse for a floating recoil lug is to allow looser manufacturing tolerances in fitting of the lug and of the stock. Like the floating bolt head, the benefit is a make-believe excuse for expediency.
Benefit of floating recoil lug?
- Thread starter GMC403
- Start date
I agree completely. Right out of the box, when things are tight and new. But in a heavier recoiling caliber, how are they after 500 or 1000 rounds? The only guys I know that shoot Tika's, that are higher volume shooters, have redone the barrel/lug. I'm not claiming that Tika's is wrong, or right, better or worse, just that what is being claimed goes against the conventional logic of the last 70 years of shooting enthusiasts. To be honest, it sounds like a bunch of complex jargon and mumbo-jumbo to impress/confuse the common buyer, to come up with an reason for a simple cost-cutting measure
If the tikka style recoil lug is epoxy bedded into the stock, there shouldn't be any room for the lug to move in the stock at all. It should be a pretty solid part of the stock and shouldn't beat up the epoxy bedding any worse than a rem700 style lug that sits in epoxy bedding.
Return to battery system? Any knowledgeable firearms enthusiast will tell you things need to be locked down and tight, no movement for consistent shot to shot accuracy. I love Tikka rifles, they are my preferred factory rifle in fact. In the T3 I always replace the aluminum lug with a steel one that is bedded to the action, and I want it fitted so there is no movement. Once this is done I see no practical advantage of the Holland style lug over this system at all, they both achieve the same thing, they just do it differently.
The floating lug being promoted as a feature fits in with the theme of matte metal finishes being flogged as non reflective, tupperware stocks that cost pennies being lightweight and weatherproof and so on.
On the other hand, most rifles shoot better than most people can shoot or need so little harm is done.
On the other hand, most rifles shoot better than most people can shoot or need so little harm is done.
The action screws are torqued to specific value, sometimes this is so a wood or synthetic stock is not compressed. Pillars allow more torque to be applied without ill effects, but still have a value which in a lot of cases is nowhere near the yield strength of the fastener.
So locking everything down 'gooten' tight so there is no movement may not be the way to go depending on the bedding system employed. Tikka T3 stock, action, recoil lug is a system that works together. The recoil lug where it contacts the receiver slot needs ~0.001" clearance, when assembling the stock to the barreled action the procedure is to tighten the action screws some then with a plastic mallet or thumping the butt on the floor to ensure the lug is forward in the slot then torque the action screws ~ 35 inch pounds.
When the rifle is fired the recoil force is rearward that is why the lug must be forward in the slot (also scope rings on a picatinny rail must be forward in their slots as the majority of the force applied is rearward, these cross bolts a generally torqued to 20-25 inch pounds, but has nothing to do with rifle vibration dynamics) the clearance between the lug and the slot is taken up when this force is removed due to the effects of inertia of the barreled action (Newtons third law) this movement is dictated by the clearance in the slot/lug relationship and is arrested by the action screws, they act like springs, actually they are springs in this application. The deformation of the screws 'movement' can be adjusted by the torque applied to them.
One more example is with a Savage Mod 12 LRP bedding system, which is basically an aluminum V-block system and 2 meaningful action screws. Some people bed these actions, this negates the 'engineered' system at play here. I guess they do this because the rifle is not as accurate as they want. Thinking in the terms of a system, the vibration patterns are 'adjusted' by having the forward screw torqued to a value that holds the thing together and the rear one torqued to an amount that tunes the vibration pattern to produce an accurate system.
Working on this premise the Savage I have has been tuned to one ragged hole at 100m and will hold 0.6moa to 1000 yds when I'm up to it (5 shot groups). This is an off the shelf factory rifle. Many people have accuracy issues with these rifles.
The T3 is good out of the box (varmint models even better) and will put 5 into an inch at 100m with not to much load development. A proper bedding job (being mind full of the system employed), in my experience will take the rifle into the 0.3's and 0.4's.
YMMV
I agree with you completely that the two recoil lug systems achieve the same thing when they are installed properly. But, do you actually believe that there is no movement between the metal and the bedding material during firing? I'm not sure that "knowledgeable firearm enthusiasts" would agree with you.
This is such a load of absolute BS that it is difficult to get to the bottom but are you saying that the barrelled action is supposed to move in the bed and the screws are there to act as springs to return the barrelled action to a neutral position?
The truth is that Tikka uses the recoil lug system they use because it is cheaper to produce than an integral lug. They did it for this reason in the 1970's and they do it for the same reason now. In recent years companies have learned they can float any sort of half-assed production technique out there if they tell the consumer it is an engineered solution. This is just like Savage and their floating bolt heads. They use the floating bolt head line to explain those which are loose in the body and just say nothing about those which are tight. A bedding system which allows the receiver to bend is an engineered system which provides tune-ability. BS.
I've got a couple of BR rifles (which shoot pretty good) on which I actually glued the receiver into the stock. Plainly, I should break the bond, grease those puppies up and let the screws act as springs. Maybe bed some flex into the interface so it's tune able.
The truth is that Tikka uses the recoil lug system they use because it is cheaper to produce than an integral lug. They did it for this reason in the 1970's and they do it for the same reason now. In recent years companies have learned they can float any sort of half-assed production technique out there if they tell the consumer it is an engineered solution. This is just like Savage and their floating bolt heads. They use the floating bolt head line to explain those which are loose in the body and just say nothing about those which are tight. A bedding system which allows the receiver to bend is an engineered system which provides tune-ability. BS.
I've got a couple of BR rifles (which shoot pretty good) on which I actually glued the receiver into the stock. Plainly, I should break the bond, grease those puppies up and let the screws act as springs. Maybe bed some flex into the interface so it's tune able.
How can there not be movement between the metal and the bedding material? During firing the pressure in the chamber/barrel increases by tens of thousands psi and back down again in a fraction of a second, as well as temp change. There’s stress waves traveling through the metal as well as twisting and bending forces. How could there not be movement between the metal and bedding material? When bedding is done properly everything is able to return to the same place for the next firing.
The original question didn’t ask about Benchrest rifles and the systems that might work best for them and they’re purposes. We are talking about floating recoil lug design vs a rem700 style in the “hunting and sporting arms” forum.
Last edited:
I think you should add a recoil spring to return it to battery. Rather then rely on the screws.
Even the m700 style has issues. The recoil lug was bent on my 300 RUM after about a thousand rounds. But if the tikka is aluminium it's just asking for issues down the roads. I like the idea of dove-tailing in a steel recoil lug.
Of course there is a certain amount of movement or flex in any system but the intent of the recoil lug is to transfer recoil forces to the stock in a manner which is consistent and eliminates the chance of damage to the stock and bedding. The floating lug is made that way so the factory doesn't have to rely on someone to get it in the right spot. It can just slip in and find it's place.The clearance, which will vary from minimal to substantial, is there as a matter of expedience only.
It might benefit you all to remember that virtually all of the bedding techniques used for custom hunting rifles or for remedial bedding on factory rifles were developed in by benchrest builders fifty years ago or more. The same guys who were building highly accurate varmint and hunting rifles often spent their weekends at various bench rest venues. This is where pillar bedding was developed and where various techniques were tested, refined, and used or discarded depending on the results. Some bedding techniques transferred right into the long range arena but. in many cases the the differences in the rifle meant some changes were necessary. Larger cartridges with more recoil in heavier stocks which were held tightly meant the recoil lug was subjected to greater force. Longer barrels meant less rigidity, longer barrel times, and for various reasons, glue-ins were not desirable. Still, techniques were refinements of those used by both short range and 1000 yard BR gunsmiths and shooters.
Fast forward a few more years and now you are dealing with stocks made of flexible materials and stocks which are best used "as-is" because bedding materials won't stick and remedial work is less successful. The best way to sell a cheap, injection-molded stock and a slip-in recoil lug to a gullible public is to emphasize that it is an engineered system (which, indeed, it is) and make the claim that it is done to improve performance rather than save dollars. In reality, the advertising should go, "Look! We can do this stuff really cheaply and it still works!".
I know what the purpose of a recoil lug is. Up to this point you've been arguing that there should be no movement between metal and bedding material, now you admit there is. I don't need a history lesson on bench rest shooting. The simple answer to the original question is that the floating recoil lug and the rem700 style recoil lug achieve the same results when done properly, regardless of whether one method is cheaper to manufacture or not.
Nobody in this thread claimed that a floating recoil lug performs any better than a rem700 style recoil lug.
Nobody in this thread claimed that a floating recoil lug performs any better than a rem700 style recoil lug.
Last edited:
Well thats my mistake then for not getting the original question right. I guess a more complete answer would be that, if the floating lug is cheaper to maufacture, there is no benefit to the buyer unless that cost savings reflects in the cost of the rifle. As for performance, either style installed properly get great results. Both styles have different techniques for bedding them properly and that could be considered as not a benefit as well.
This was /is Remingtons effort at a cost cutting measure as opposed to the integral on the M 70. It allowed Remington to use a cheaper tube type receiver. However, the sandwiched lug needs to be flat on 4 surfaces. With Remingtons QC in the near past that may not always happen.
Sorry, didnt explain properly. The lug has to be flat to the receiver, back side of lug, front side of lug to the barrel. if not there can be stress points.
