Torquing Savage Accustock - I wouldn't have believed it!

AWESOME post! I mentioned this some time ago when I saw this article:

ht tp://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/savage-action-screw-torque-tuning/

I loaded a few rounds to determine the most accurate torque but haven't got around to test it yet, you might have saved me some time there thanks!
 
sgt.rock said:
I wonder though, if there is a difference between a flimsy factory tupperware stock and a stiff laminate or fibreglass, in regards to how much is TOO MUCH. I don't think a tupperware stock would handle 80in/lbs well unless it had a full length bedding block.
Click to expand...

The Accustock does have a full length alu bedding block, as as noted, they seem to shoot better nowhere near 80 in/lbs.

There was a very good article on Accurate Shooter about this - http://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/savage-action-screw-torque-tuning/
 
Last edited:
Tcon said:
This article was posted years ago on accurate shooter:

http://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/savage-action-screw-torque-tuning/
Click to expand...

ALMAR said:
AWESOME post! I mentioned this some time ago when I saw this article:

http://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/savage-action-screw-torque-tuning/

I loaded a few rounds to determine the most accurate torque but haven't got around to test it yet, you might have saved me some time there thanks!
Click to expand...

flashman said:
There was a very good article on Accurate Shooter about this - http://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/savage-action-screw-torque-tuning/
Click to expand...


:d

Guess that's what happens when you click reply then go grab another coffee... Funny.
 
ShootingNewbie said:
I just read a week ago or so that McMillan recommends 45 in/lbs for their stocks. (Of course, I had torqued my McMillan up to 65 in/lbs literally just a couple of days before reading that, based on the recommendations from Choate on their stocks...)

Now I'm wondering if I should back the bolts back down to 45 or just leave them there. Haven't had a chance to shoot either rifle since bumping up the bolt torques.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever shoots best, but... why would you elect to follow Choate's recommendation instead of the manufacturers? Stocks are made of vastly differing materials, and with different methods of construction; what works for one could be sub optimal or harmful to another.
 
The "you can never have the action too tight" statement was from one guy. Stiller actions are pretty stout and yes it is devcon bedded into a very rigid stock. It makes sense that you would never want it to move in there but if you found something that works...use it. Some non permanent Loctite might be a good idea as 30-35in lbs is not a whole lot of torque.
 
Not to cause a SH!T storm but torque tuning indicates to me bedding with a poor fit... AND pretty much all factory stocks fall into this category.

When properly bedded, changes due to torque dissappear and you are only really after keeping the bolt from loosening.

Yes, higher and varying torque values can work but this is only temporary. The action bolts are not strong parts and not designed as stress members. As you put more rds into that rifle, that action is going to do its best to wiggle around. Eventually, this will bend and/or stretch the action bolts.... you get problems. You tighten more, and repeat the whole cycle.

We see alot of stretched and bent action bolts ... all shared the same need of torquing the bolts. In time, take the action out of the stock and look at the action bolt hole in the stock. I have seen a number that became partially "threaded" from the bolt being pounded into the walls of the "pillar".

Also, you will likely find a nice grey powder on the bottom of the receiver... usually in 2 thin lines on either side of the mag opening. wonder what that is made from?

YMMV.

Jerry
 
Mystic Precision said:
Not to cause a SH!T storm but torque tuning indicates to me bedding with a poor fit... AND pretty much all factory stocks fall into this category.

When properly bedded, changes due to torque dissappear and you are only really after keeping the bolt from loosening.

Yes, higher and varying torque values can work but this is only temporary. The action bolts are not strong parts and not designed as stress members. As you put more rds into that rifle, that action is going to do its best to wiggle around. Eventually, this will bend and/or stretch the action bolts.... you get problems. You tighten more, and repeat the whole cycle.

We see alot of stretched and bent action bolts ... all shared the same need of torquing the bolts. In time, take the action out of the stock and look at the action bolt hole in the stock. I have seen a number that became partially "threaded" from the bolt being pounded into the walls of the "pillar".

Also, you will likely find a nice grey powder on the bottom of the receiver... usually in 2 thin lines on either side of the mag opening. wonder what that is made from?

YMMV.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Jerry, Can you suggest a few aftermarket stocks then for this rifle that would do the trick and that don't cost an arm and a leg?
 
Last edited:
Mystic Precision said:
Not to cause a SH!T storm but torque tuning indicates to me bedding with a poor fit... AND pretty much all factory stocks fall into this category.

When properly bedded, changes due to torque dissappear and you are only really after keeping the bolt from loosening.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm, I dunno how there'd be much of an argument against what you say; I would think that the very fact that torque affects group size tells us there is some variability in the bedding / action relationship. IE, the opposite of consistency if you will.

I see it as more of making the best of what you've got, rather than the standard to aim for. Both things can be true; playing around with screw tension can optimize an Accustock Savage, but in a perfectly bedded action there should be no difference as you and swissinn point out.
 
Bedding is a simple and inexpensive solution to a never ending problem with factory rifles.

If you do not want it prof done, learn to do it yourself. It really isn't hard... but experience will help in getting better results.

Why use a temporary solution like Torque?

But... YMMV.

Jerry
 
Mystic Precision said:
Why use a temporary solution like Torque?
Click to expand...

I don't. All my PRs are bedded, my CZ455 too. Just finished an M305 for the fun of it, though really it was completely pointless. All done at my workbench. My only Savage is a 10FCM I use as a backup / loaner hunting rifle, so I haven't bothered to bed it as it's already several times more accurate than it needs it to be. Perhaps one of these winters I'll do it just for fun too. I can't bring myself to even think about bedding my Sako 85, so that one will stay as is too.

Not advocating torque voodoo; as I say, I think it's a technique to make the best of what you have, in the absence of a better stock, a chassis, or carrying out a bedding job.
 
flashman said:
The Accustock does have a full length alu bedding block, as as noted, they seem to shoot better anywhere near 80 in/lbs.

There was a very good article on Accurate Shooter about this - http://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/savage-action-screw-torque-tuning/
Click to expand...

Not true. The article you linked to is about the Savage match rifles that use a laminated wood stock. These do not have the Accustock type of aluminum bedding block. 80 in/lbs is way too high for an Accustock.
 
flashman said:
Well, whatever shoots best, but... why would you elect to follow Choate's recommendation instead of the manufacturers? Stocks are made of vastly differing materials, and with different methods of construction; what works for one could be sub optimal or harmful to another.
Click to expand...

Sorry, guess I didn't make that clear - I was setting up my 6br in its Choate stock and used Choate's recommendation of 65 for that, and then used the same setting on my 223 in its Macmillan stock.

Ended up hitting the range yesterday, and based on the results, I think I'll be backing the Macmillan down to their recommended 45 in/lbs.
 
762shooter said:
Not true. The article you linked to is about the Savage match rifles that use a laminated wood stock. These do not have the Accustock type of aluminum bedding block. 80 in/lbs is way too high for an Accustock.
Click to expand...

That's a typo or autocorrect glitch from my phone; it should read "nowhere" not "anywhere." "Shoot better anywhere near 80 in/lbs" is odd phrasing, to say the least.
 
ShootingNewbie said:
Sorry, guess I didn't make that clear - I was setting up my 6br in its Choate stock and used Choate's recommendation of 65 for that, and then used the same setting on my 223 in its Macmillan stock.

Ended up hitting the range yesterday, and based on the results, I think I'll be backing the Macmillan down to their recommended 45 in/lbs.
Click to expand...

Ah, roger. Yes, that's something to be careful of - what's good for one stock could potentially damage another. I would absolutely always follow mfg recommendations unless there was better evidence to the contrary.
 
Mystic Precision said:
The action bolts are not strong parts and not designed as stress members. As you put more rds into that rifle, that action is going to do its best to wiggle around. Eventually, this will bend and/or stretch the action bolts.... you get problems. You tighten more, and repeat the whole cycle.

We see alot of stretched and bent action bolts ... all shared the same need of torquing the bolts. In time, take the action out of the stock and look at the action bolt hole in the stock. I have seen a number that became partially "threaded" from the bolt being pounded into the walls of the "pillar".
Click to expand...

Kind of makes me wonder if there may be a market for specially engineered action bolts like there is for connecting rod bolts for performance built engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom