Why extra thick Rem 700 recoil lug?

A

Allen Gun Works

Revolted
Rating - 100%
209   0   0
Location
Trenton
Just wondering what the thinking is behind this. I know that it is a frequent upgrade and just wondered why. Is stock inletting required in every case?

Final question, would making the lug out of titanium alleviate the need for the extra thickness?
 
In theory, it makes the lug stiffer, and can provide a larger bedding surface. A custom lug is more likely to be parallel faced, which is also a benefit. Most require slight changes to the inletting. I generally use them.
Titanium, I cannot say.
 
I like the looks of the Holland lug as it is the same diameter as the 700 action. If they did not make it slightly thicker it would be out of proportion. I don't like the real thick ones as much simply because of the measurement factor when machining and fitting. My one inch depth mic is a little short.

I have never seen a factory lug that was bent from shooting if the action was screwed down tight in the stock so I don't know if the extra thickness is really of any benefit. (Accuracy wise) ...

It would require extensive testing of many barreled actions, first with a factory lug and then altering to accept the thicker lug with no changes to headspace to determine any difference in accuracy.
 
I know smiths with access to a surface grinder will cleanup factory lugs. They are not exactly parallel faced, based on the ones I have measured. Perhaps precision is more important that actual thickness.
 
I will make note of that. The reason I ask is that we are looking at having a line of Rem 700 parts and upgrades made. We have access to a very competent manufacturing company that will make us whatever we want.

I was thinking titanium because it obviously has the strength, and could be used as an OEM replacement without having to inlet the stock. The only prohibitive factor would be that it would not easily be reamed and therefore replacement barrels would have to conform to the Remington tenon diameter. This would not be a problem in most cases. But if the threads on the receiver were recut and the tenon diameter needed to be thicker then the titanium lug would not fit. I personally don't see the need to recut the receiver threads, so it would be a small issue.
 
Well - I wouldnt use titanium - for a given dimension, it is not as stiff as steel. The property we're talking about is modulus of elasticity (E), which is about half that of steel. So if two lugs were built to the same dimension, the one in titanium would flex twice as much as the steel one.
 
Last edited:
cosmic said:
Well - I wouldnt use titanium - for a given dimension, it is not as stiff as steel. The property we're talking about is modulus of elasticity (E), which is about half that of steel. So if two lugs were built to the same dimension, the one in titanium would flex twice as much as the steel one.
Click to expand...

I did not know that. Back to the drawing board.:runaway:
 
I think the factory lug is stiff enough and true enough. It has a lousy shape though.

There is no documentation I am aware of that proves a stiffer lug or one made more true than the factory lug is any better. I believe it falls into the category that some things are better when bigger and stiffer. :D

That being said I really like the way Holland makes their lug larger to match the receiver size and tapered on the lower profile.

I don't think it matters a fat rats ass if the lug is true within one thou or one ten thousands of an inch ... it it just that some people feel if you can make it that true it must be better.
 
I agree that truer is better. But, like you say, how much better?

I think we will ditch the titanium idea and make an oversize lug since that is what people use the most, and most importantly what sells!!

I think we will go with something like the Holland and have it predrilled so it can be pinned if need be.
 
CyberK said:
I think we will go with something like the Holland and have it predrilled so it can be pinned if need be.
Click to expand...

Good move... the Holland lug is very popular...there is no patent on it...

If you make it the same dimension as Holland then the Holland lug indexing clamp for the 700 can be used to locate it as well and lots of gunsmiths have them already.

A tip about pinning... often when torquing the barrel onto the action the lug will rotate slightly and break the pin and/or distort the hole in the receiver...

I always place a small bit of oil and abrasive grit between the action and the lug and grease the shoulder of the barrel now. It really assists in keeping the lug indexed properly. It changes the barrel fit by a thousands of an inch so I figure that in my fitting.
 
We are already making thicker lugs simply because we can no longer get Tubb or Holland from the US.
The reason I prefer to use the thicker lugs is most of the rebarrelling I do is with heavy barrels.
Rightly or wrongly I still believe the more support 1 can give a heavy barrel the better as it should in theory take some of the tension off of the tenon of the action.
I decide rather than all edges to be sharp 90s that to have a nice radiused corner where the lug sits in the stock as well as around the barrel would be a nice touch. Knowing that a true 90 degree angle is weaker than a rediused 1 I do not like to put true 90s on my barrel shank to lug joint, the radius precludes this on both parts.

ATRSparts005.jpg
 
Last edited:
Exactly the reason we want to get some made in bulk. I am sure most smiths would rather purchase a quality Canadian made product than take the time to produce something on their own that ends up costing more and take precious time out of their busy work day.

We are going to take all of the feedback from this thread and try to put together a couple of options. Keeping the retail cost low will be the goal. Since we are not set up to install these yet, we will most likely look for a few Canadian retailers, preferably someone who is going to use them on their own rifles.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
The reason I prefer to use the thicker lugs is most of the rebarrelling I do is with heavy barrels.
Rightly or wrongly I still believe the more support 1 can give a heavy barrel the better as it should in theory take some of the tension off of the tenon of the action.
Click to expand...
How does it accomplish that? Usually the bottom of the lug is bedded to not touch the stock and the front given some clearance. I thought the lug was supposed to flex a little under recoil.

BTW, Nice looking lug.
 
canuckhunter said:
How does it accomplish that? Usually the bottom of the lug is bedded to not touch the stock and the front given some clearance. I thought the lug was supposed to flex a little under recoil.

BTW, Nice looking lug.
Click to expand...

X2

Any bedding job I do I put 2 layers of masking tape around the outside peremeter of the lug- so the only bedding contact is the front and the back of the lug.

Hey I don't know if this is better but the precision gunsmith I use does it this way and I just do as he does.
 
canuckhunter said:
How does it accomplish that? Usually the bottom of the lug is bedded to not touch the stock and the front given some clearance. I thought the lug was supposed to flex a little under recoil.

BTW, Nice looking lug.
Click to expand...

I do NOT leave any space around the lug when I bed a rifle and bed the length of the chamber before floating the rest of the barrel.
That is how I was taught and it seems to work for me, the accuracy of the rifles built here speak for themselves.
 
Tape on the bottom, front and sides of the lug. i leave the back bare with nothing but release agent. I was using a factory lug from a sendero on a heavy barrel gun i am building. The was one of those "not parallel" ones as i was installing the barrel into the action, i hear a pop and the lug was split on one side. Barrel and receiver were true. Tight contact on one side and a gap on the other. The thicker and matching profile on the custom lugs not only look better but I am pretty sure they won't break either.
 
It really isn't that one method of lug bedding creates better accuracy.. they will all shoot well if the lug and action are bedded with no stress ...

But I much prefer the clearance left by the tape on the front, sides and bottom of the lug for a couple of reasons and a long unanswered thought ...

It is much easier to remove and install the action in the stock.

If the lug fits real tight is is quite possible for bedding compound to scrape and build up under the lug as you have to struggle to get it back in the stock... it does not go in or out of the stock easy... if any debris does build up you won't see it and it may cause an accuracy problem.

My thought is if it is of no accuracy benefit, why bed the complete lug and make it so hard to remove and install the action?

Come on Rick... switch over... :D
 
guntech said:
If the lug fits real tight is is quite possible for bedding compound to scrape and build up under the lug as you have to struggle to get it back in the stock... it does not go in or out of the stock easy... if any debris does build up you won't see it and it may cause an accuracy problem.
Click to expand...

This makes alot of sense. Good post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom