short range Benchrest---10 1/2 pound rifles

I was able to demonstrate to my own satisfaction the superiority of the glue-in (when done properly), 30 years ago. With pillar bedding, it seemed like I would always have an errant shot, for which there was no explanation, at some point during the match. The glue-in fixed that. A rifle had to be bedded properly prior to gluing and great care has to be taken to avoid any trapped air. For this reason I have always preferred round actions for glue-ins. Flat bottoms seemed to occasionally trap air. I would not consider using a screwed in rifle for serious BR work.
The first glue-ins glued a section of the barrel in and floated the action. They shot OK but didn't seem to be all that great since they were often beaten by conventionally bedded rifles. As I said before, a properly glued rifle will NOT come apart. If you are able to put it in the freezer overnight then smack it with a rubber mallet and break it loose, it wasn't a good job. Regards, Bill
 
Mr. Leeper you sound like paul ross

we call him the man of the eighties as he is still living in the past.

And i am good friends with paul we talk almost every week.

A lot has changed in 30 years.

maybe this story will illustrate. yes glue ins if done properly will work great. Having said that he is the tale

a well known Br bullet maker and shooter had BAT machine build them a rifle after discussing that very thing, he did not like pillar bedding.

BAt build him a LV with a lilja barrel and just told him to shoot it like a glue in and screw in.

He shot his best 2 gun agg ever at a major match and he hates lilja barrels and hates pillars only. He set a record at that range and I bought the gun a few months ago. He never got it shooting once he was told it had a lilja barrel and it was screwed in, in fact he keeps saying he cannot get used to an opposite port ejector.

funny how we become set in our ways (from a long time ago) and think it may still apply.

not disagreeing but pillars if done properly also work, denny andrews, tom dickson, and others have finished in the top 5 in 2 guns at the nationals and the worlds with pillar bedded rifles only.

not to start a further war but anything if done properly works.
just further information. not trying to say pillar is better than glue-ins.

glue-ins appear to be safer for the novice, if done correctly or almost correctly.

and Gammon is right most will be glue ins at the super shoot,

BUT HOW MANY HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE LAST 3 YEARS, not that many, it seems most are shooting guns that were built a few years back,

glue ins are more popular but pillars have to be done by a master.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Leeper said:
I was able to demonstrate to my own satisfaction the superiority of the glue-in (when done properly), 30 years ago. With pillar bedding, it seemed like I would always have an errant shot, for which there was no explanation, at some point during the match. The glue-in fixed that.
A rifle had to be bedded properly prior to gluing and great care has to be taken to avoid any trapped air. For this reason I have always preferred round actions for glue-ins. Flat bottoms seemed to occasionally trap air. I would not consider using a screwed in rifle for serious BR work.
The first glue-ins glued a section of the barrel in and floated the action. They shot OK but didn't seem to be all that great since they were often beaten by conventionally bedded rifles. As I said before, a properly glued rifle will NOT come apart. If you are able to put it in the freezer overnight then smack it with a rubber mallet and break it loose, it wasn't a good job. Regards, Bill
Click to expand...

It's getting very hard to know which way to go; flat action no glue, or round action with glue. The majority of guys are shooting glue-ins, but then I am reading conversations about them taking their actions apart with mother's iron or putting them in freezers (Something I might do if I blew a bedding job and stuck the action to the stock.). In my ignorance I would think Bill has to be right, if the job is done right, the actions shouldn't come apart with these methods (Might still be OK if some kind of purpose created chemical will do it.). I'm back to wondering what problem the gluing in is supposed to solve. If it solves unexplained flyers, then OK fine...
To me there is a really interesting argument behind all this, but it is hard to know which direction to go in. Maybe it is a question of just following the pack and doing the best job one can do of setting the rifle up. Still, that rankles. It would be nice to see some evidence for gains that occur, over and above a decent bedding job before settling on doing it.
 
First time in a long time I have been classed as a novice. I was pillar bedding rifles in the mid seventies. I was bedding rifles on aluminum vee blocks at the same time. A lot has NOT changed in 30 years. Stock shapes have changed. Bullet shapes have been refined. Scopes have become bigger and heavier. Suppliers and manufacturers have come and gone. Basic rifle construction has changed very little in over 30 years. 30 years ago some people shot pillar bedded rifles, some shot glue-ins. Most used fibreglas stocks with the occasional wood stock and the occasional all-aluminum stock. Just like now.
Consistency has improved amongst accuracy gunsmiths. Good 'smiths are doing a better and more consistent job of barrel fitting and chambering.
That there are never any major changes in rifle construction techniques is not necessarily a bad thing. It only shows that further experimentation in that area is mostly unnecessary. Refinements are made mostly relating to throat dimensions but that's about it. The established techniques work.
There have been a couple of interesting recent developements.
The first is that some scopes have devolved to the point that freezing of the adjustments is contemplated by many as a normal procedure.
The second development has been the work with barrel tuners. I personally think most shooters should not have a tuner as it only gives them a means to screw things up but the concept is interesting. Regards, Bill
 
Leeper said:
That there are never any major changes in rifle construction techniques is not necessarily a bad thing. It only shows that further experimentation in that area is mostly unnecessary. Regards, Bill
Click to expand...

This may be true, but it could also mean that the right idea hasn't come along yet either. Respectfully, fred
 
if I have misspoke

I did not mean to.

a glue in will be fine.

a round or other action is fine.

get sorenson or remple to do it up or perhaps marksman and you will enjoy the rifle.

we benchrest types are quite particular in our thoughts, and may or may not be for every body.

if you ever are in calgary come to a br shoot and just see the equipment for yourself and then it will be easier to choose.

(or maybe you will want one of each)

everybody is almost correct on most posts in this thread, just individual differences.

Jefferson
 
Fred,
There is always room for experimentation but the room is somewhat confined in the short range BR arena. Whatever rifle building techniques are used, they have to be capable of performing equal to the established standard which is the glued-in receiver in a glass stock (or carbon fibre, or Kevlar). Action requirements are also well established though refinements are taking place.
There is room for a certain amount of experimentation in barrel attachment and , in fact, the advantage of a tapered inner and outer barrel seat has been demonstrated. Likewise, the use of a 30 degree locking lug and seat arrangment has potential. The thing is, current technology is sufficient to provide winning accuracy so there is little impetus toward change.
As far as stock fitting is concerned, one system which shows some real promise is one which essentially eliminates the stock as it currently exists. Something along the lines of the Tubbs rifles. Another system is one where the round receiver is clamped within the aluminum center section of the "stock" rather than being screwed in. The scope is mounted on the "stock". Both of these systems would be relatively expensive though and would likely only match what is already being accomplished with current favoured techniques; pre-eminent among which is the glue-in. Regards, Bill.
 
Thanks for explaining things Bill. I understand what you are saying and the possibilities you mentioned are interesting. It just occurred to me that the accuracy levels reported at 100 in sr br would make it difficult to measure any changes in accuracy, too. Testing might have to move further and further out, or maybe projectiles with smaller and smaller footprints will have to be used to see any differences. One thought that has occurred to me is the possibility of eliminating the action part of the rifle altogether. Acknowledging the very high artistry in what people are doing with actions and so on, it still doesn't make sense to me to have alot of moving parts and mechanical interfaces in something that is supposed to be extremely accurate through many repititions. I guess there is always the question of just where something stops being a rifle too. respectfully, fred
 
I have to agree with old "novice Leeper" on glue ins. I don't know why they work but a glue in done on a properly bedded rifle is quite easy to do, gives the best accuracy, does not come apart unless you heat the action for a while and wedge the barrel up... I have found this to be the consensus on Benchrest Central as well. The 6mmPPC and a glue in is the dominant force.

I remember the first glue in that Terry McCracken did for himself... it was when actions were being floated and a portion of the barrel was glued in... Terry's came loose after a while... I asked him how he cleaned the metal before gluing... he said he sanded the bedding and sanded the barrel and wiped it clean with lighter fluid... He was a bit embarrassed when I told him lighter fluid is a petroleum product with oil in it... I suggested lacquer thinner of acetone... it wasn't long before glued in actions took over the light class... and that was a long time ago. (For short range Centerfire BR)
 
Some grades of acetone and laquer thinner will also leave a residue.

Best 'dry' surface is created using aerosol brake cleaner (non chlorinated). Spray liberally and let air dry. That surface is now devoid of any oil so flash rust IS a possibility.

I bet sandblasting the surface would give the glue much more bite too.

Although, taking it apart later may become more problematic.

What type of epoxy are you guys using?
Jerry
 
mysticplayer said:
Some grades of acetone and laquer thinner will also leave a residue.

Best 'dry' surface is created using aerosol brake cleaner (non chlorinated). Spray liberally and let air dry. That surface is now devoid of any oil so flash rust IS a possibility.

I bet sandblasting the surface would give the glue much more bite too.

Although, taking it apart later may become more problematic.

What type of epoxy are you guys using?
Jerry
Click to expand...

After wiping the bedding with lacquer thinner I lightly sand that bedding and then blow the dust off and I use Brownell's AcraGlass... the liquid not the gel for the skim coat.... work it in well with a brush very thin... paint the metal with a brush very thin..... lay it in and lightly hold in down... clean up the edges as much as you can and let it cure... I like using a stock screw to hold it in place without tension... and after it has cured I use blue Loctite and install that screw lightly... if the epoxy should ever fail to hold, the screw will stop it from exiting the stock. I tape the top of action off at the stock line before starting ... it makes clean up easier...
 
Well people I am sitting here at Super Shoot Kelbly's in Ohio. Figured out how to use my laptop on Verison, (with a little help from my friends). Should be interesting. If you need to know things let me know.
Bill
 
cycbb486 said:
to share your thoughts in regards to the tuners if you have any?
Click to expand...

I am interested to the point of extreme accuracy as long as it falls within the rules. Do I have a tuner, NO. Do I ever plan to get a tuner, NO. If tuners fall within the guide lines of the rules, got no problem.
 
bill gammon said:
I am interested to the point of extreme accuracy as long as it falls within the rules. Do I have a tuner, NO. Do I ever plan to get a tuner, NO. If tuners fall within the guide lines of the rules, got no problem.
Click to expand...

2008 IBS Membership Meeting

January 18 &19, 2008

Results of Election
Wayne Shaw 2nd Vice President
Jim Goody - Executive Secretary
Some notes

All temporary Rule changes from last year became Permanent
GA 3 (Tuners) passed



.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom