Can you give me some advise? I ordered a Warne Picatinny base to mount on a Savage LE2b. I'm using TPS rings to mount a 6.5x20x50 Leupold scope . I've heard that bonding the base to the reciever can make the action stiffer and so some possible improvement in accuracy. I would be interested to know your views. What material to use for bonding and the best way to go about doing the process? Great site with great people giving great advise! Thank-you all!
Making it Stiffer
- Thread starter pinedweller
- Start date
- Location
- Hillbilly shack in the boonies
http://www.######stories.com/
Now it does
Now it does
Last edited:
gunrunner100
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- NW Ontario
If you have access to Acra-Glas Gel, this has been used by people along with the screws. Follow the directions closely and carefully when using this stuff, and remember to use the release agent on parts you don't want bonded.
- Location
- calgary alberta
The reason some of us bond actions on is to prevent the rail from being torqued on enough to potetially stress the action. Usually only 1 end is torqued on tight with the screws, then the bonding agent is allowed to set up under both ends, once hard the other end is tightened, just enough to keep the screws in place. This can be effective to deal with tolerance differences.
It doen NOT make the action stiffer, or the rail anymore secure really, more just perfect alignment due to the cast in place shim effect of the bonding agent
It doen NOT make the action stiffer, or the rail anymore secure really, more just perfect alignment due to the cast in place shim effect of the bonding agent
J
JoeP's old business account
Guest
Bonding the rail to the receiver is a simple attempt at trying to make an inexpensive PGW action clone....Kidding.
Since most receiver exteriors are not perfectly concentric and do have surface irregularities, bonding a loosely fitted base to the receiver helps keep things straight...assuming the base is straight to start with. In addition, on a properly prepared surface it helps take up some shear load between the base and the receiver. It will also help fit a machined base lug to the receiver by filling any clearances/voids. You really need to do a good surface prep to get the full benefit. I prefer 8-40 screws myself.
Is it necessary to glue it to the receiver? Well, I don't but I do bed the bases in most instances. Checking the ring alignment by a light lapping will determine how all the parts fit together....
Actual lab testing would be ideal in establishing fact from fiction.
Since most receiver exteriors are not perfectly concentric and do have surface irregularities, bonding a loosely fitted base to the receiver helps keep things straight...assuming the base is straight to start with. In addition, on a properly prepared surface it helps take up some shear load between the base and the receiver. It will also help fit a machined base lug to the receiver by filling any clearances/voids. You really need to do a good surface prep to get the full benefit. I prefer 8-40 screws myself.
Is it necessary to glue it to the receiver? Well, I don't but I do bed the bases in most instances. Checking the ring alignment by a light lapping will determine how all the parts fit together....
Actual lab testing would be ideal in establishing fact from fiction.
- Location
- calgary alberta
The idea of the bonding is 99% to make sure that the differences between the action tolerances and the rail tolerances are zero. Some added sheer strength is added to the end result, but that is secondary in purpose.
In the perfect world this would not have any benefit, for the rails mating surface would be an exact mirror image of the actions mating surface. Unfortunately this is not the case. I see many rails that have more stiffness than the action they are intended to be used on, sometimes there is several thou difference in the height of the action, from front to rear. Or they manner in which they are machined leaves gaps in the mating surface areas Shims are 1 crude answer, bedding compound is a far more accurate solution.
To re tap to 8x40 , is in my opinion , of little value, unless holes are stripped, or huge optics are being used. The potential for bending a rail or distorting an action from bigger screws on an imperfectly mated scope rail/action is increased due to the greater torque the 8x40s will take over the 6x48s that seem to be the industry standard.
Retapping to 8x40 makes good sense however if really heavy optics are to be used. I in fact use 10x32s to hold the rails onto my 50s, as the optics used there tend to be really huge.
In the perfect world this would not have any benefit, for the rails mating surface would be an exact mirror image of the actions mating surface. Unfortunately this is not the case. I see many rails that have more stiffness than the action they are intended to be used on, sometimes there is several thou difference in the height of the action, from front to rear. Or they manner in which they are machined leaves gaps in the mating surface areas Shims are 1 crude answer, bedding compound is a far more accurate solution.
To re tap to 8x40 , is in my opinion , of little value, unless holes are stripped, or huge optics are being used. The potential for bending a rail or distorting an action from bigger screws on an imperfectly mated scope rail/action is increased due to the greater torque the 8x40s will take over the 6x48s that seem to be the industry standard.
Retapping to 8x40 makes good sense however if really heavy optics are to be used. I in fact use 10x32s to hold the rails onto my 50s, as the optics used there tend to be really huge.
