Benefit of floating recoil lug?
- Thread starter GMC403
- Start date
What does an epoxy bedding job do? It mates all surfaces PERFECTLY so that the two parts, action and stock, move AS ONE unit. But whatever, I don't really care what other people think or do, I am confident in my rifles and the bedding jobs I do because they give me consistent repeatable results. If yours do too then I am happy for you. Enough arguing already, lets just shoot!
I agree, it should create a perfect fit without any pressure points or stresses. But bedding doesn’t stop movement between the two surfaces. Clearances in the right spots will help ensure that it goes right back where it’s supposed to be after firing and I’m sure your bedding jobs have clearance in the right places. We probably do it the same way.
First, at no point did I say there should be no movement although I will, here and now, go out on a limb and say this would be the ideal. The truth is, however, that there is bound to be some movement in any assembly given the application of enough force.
Second, in reading at least one post, wherein the clearance in the floating lug was said to be part of an "engineered system" which provided a return-to battery effect, it certainly seemed like the floating lug was being touted as being superior. My point was only that the design was born of a desire to ease manufacturing rather than to improve performance.
That there is bound to be a certain amount of flex as a result of recoil forces is undeniable and there have obviously been numerous opinions over the years on which design would best handle these forces. So it is that we have actions with the recoil lug at the extreme front of the action and the front guard screw located behind it (Remington, Savage, Winchester), actions with the lug at the front and the screw threaded into it (sako), actions with the lug slightly back from the front with the screw threaded into it (Mauser, Enfield, Ruger), and even actions with the recoil surface at the rear (Steyr). While some designs may well deal with flex better than others, any advantages are probably better described as perceived rather than demonstrable. Every design has fostered various theories as to how they should be bedded to best handle the stresses from firing and I think it is safe to say there is still no unanimous agreement in any case.
It has certainly been demonstrated that lugs which are too thin or too small can cause problems due to flex or even distortion of the lug. This is why one sees bent lugs on Remingtons and Savages and this is also one reason for the proliferation of thicker, larger, aftermarket lugs.
When it comes to movement of the action in the bedding, possibly the greatest amount of movement is at the tang. This is especially true in a lightweight hunting rifle. When the rifle is fired the sides of the stock, outside the magazine well, flex outward and the tang will actually slip rearward slightly (this is why it is advisable to provide clearance behind the tang to prevent stock splitting). Once the recoil is over, the sidewalls return to their original state and the tang has to be able to slip forward (well crap! That's kind of a "return-to-battery" scenario, isn't it?). Possibly, managing this movement at the tang may be the most import aspect of bedding, after ensuring recoil lug contact. Again, this may be more a matter of perception than anything else and it has been pretty difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate what might be the best way to accommodate this movement. Over the years, people have shot with tight rear screws or loose rear screws. Tangs have been floated. The bedding has been lubricated with moly to let the receiver slip or dusted with rosin to try and hold it still. In the end, experimenters can only conclude that their pet method works too because the guy down the line is doing the exact opposite and having the same degree of success.
Savage has no screw in the tang but I'm pretty certain this was not done because of any concerns over tang movement but because there was no room for a screw with the tang safety in the way. That this may have worked out for them to manage tang movement is just a happy co-incidence rather than an engineered outcome.
By the way, solid bottomed actions in stocks with no magazine well are a little different but even though the stock may not flex outward, there is still a certain amount of compression of the recoil lug seat although it is hard to say how much. Still a good idea to clear behind the tang.
I guess the prudent thing to do is work with the strengths of the system that you have.
The Tikka has maintained or exceeded accuracy expectations at a lower cost to manufacture while keeping the cost/accuracy ratio in check.
Good explanation Leeper, thanks for sharing your knowledge.
The Tikka has maintained or exceeded accuracy expectations at a lower cost to manufacture while keeping the cost/accuracy ratio in check.
Good explanation Leeper, thanks for sharing your knowledge.
So has Savage with the Axis... probably equally accurate as the Tikka at half the price. Are they more or less accurate then any other mass production hunting rifle? Don't seem to be, seem to perform the same as any run of mill rifle. Accuracy is not an expensive quality to produce.
Personal preference here, I like solidly built rifles made of wood and steel, with no corners cut. I like that a manufacturer worked hard for my money, and don't mind paying for quality. I expect a $300 Axis to have corners cut in manufacturing, I don't expect it from a $900 Tikka, the cost cutting should be passed on to the consumer.
To be fair, back like 100 years ago they had scopes that were free to slide back and forth in their rings to avoid being destroyed by recoil. The US military used some scopes like that even.
I can certainly attest to the accuracy of the Axis. They don't come with a guarantee like the rifles twice their price do, but I've yet to see one that doesn't shoot. Mine is well under MOA with handloads, rifle shoots better than I do.
Isn't a Tikka more expensive than a Rem 700, Savage 116, or Howa 1500?
Last edited:
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
In regards to leeper's last post, over the years I have had many gunsmiths tell me how too properly bed a rifle, some were competition specialists and some custom hinting specialists.
Three in particular shot for the Canadian team in the World's and several Olympic and one had a hand in designing several Palma match rifles.
These three were of the same opinion as leeper, whatever works , and in the case of a company, whatever works and expedites manufacturing at the same time keeping costs down.
I have had people tell me I have to relieve all of the lug except the back, keep all the surfaces of thee lug bearing , relieve the bottom only , that NO direct pressure should be on the lug, only three screws will work, etc.
I also have match rifles built by world class manufacturers ( Omark, Musgrave, Anschutz, etc) that contradict every one of the above opinions I have seen and heard over 50 years of shooting matches in several different disciplines!
The one conversation and note that has stuck in my mind over the years was with a very well known competitor and gunsmith was this:
" the designs and methods we have for the most part in factory rifles were and are developed on the range and used in competition, however if the bean counters get involved it all goes out the window"!!
He also said that the bottom line is that the guys who were winning ten years ago will be winning today because they can shoot , not so much because they have discovered some secret gun thing, but because they know how to read wind and pay attention to the basics .
As far as hunting rifles go, I realized years ago something that I stand by today, and it pretty much mirrors the above.
Cat
Three in particular shot for the Canadian team in the World's and several Olympic and one had a hand in designing several Palma match rifles.
These three were of the same opinion as leeper, whatever works , and in the case of a company, whatever works and expedites manufacturing at the same time keeping costs down.
I have had people tell me I have to relieve all of the lug except the back, keep all the surfaces of thee lug bearing , relieve the bottom only , that NO direct pressure should be on the lug, only three screws will work, etc.
I also have match rifles built by world class manufacturers ( Omark, Musgrave, Anschutz, etc) that contradict every one of the above opinions I have seen and heard over 50 years of shooting matches in several different disciplines!
The one conversation and note that has stuck in my mind over the years was with a very well known competitor and gunsmith was this:
" the designs and methods we have for the most part in factory rifles were and are developed on the range and used in competition, however if the bean counters get involved it all goes out the window"!!
He also said that the bottom line is that the guys who were winning ten years ago will be winning today because they can shoot , not so much because they have discovered some secret gun thing, but because they know how to read wind and pay attention to the basics .
As far as hunting rifles go, I realized years ago something that I stand by today, and it pretty much mirrors the above.
Cat
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
Oh I didn't say they were practical, especially with today's scope technologies. I was simply pointing out that they were a thing that existed. Lol
