Accustock vertical restraint

[noflier]

My Accustock has two action screws (front and rear). Question: When these two action screws are properly torqued, does the action sit only on the aluminum side rails, or does the action also bottom out and sit hard on the bottom center aluminum pillars? I purchased a 10T-SR which has accustock, accutrigger, DBM, and bottom bolt release. I watched the Savage Arms video on accustock and I also read some info on accustock, but I still don't know what is the actual vertical restraint for my cylindrical shaped receiver?

[noflier]

I have some more data. This is a new 10T-SR 6.5 Creedmoor just out of the box and never yet been fired. But I'm interested or concerned already about accuracy/repeatability potential with the unorthodox accustock after reading some other threads and I was wanting to understand how the accustock secures the receiver. So I took some data on my rifle before it was ever fired. With the rifle upside down and the magazine removed, I was able to get a 0.003" paper feeler gauge between the receiver bottom diameter and the aluminum center spine (pillar). My front and rear action anchor points appear to be uneven (meaning not the same). At 10 in-lbs torque the spine near the front action screw is far from touching, and the rear is already touching. As I go up in 5 in-lbs increments all the way to 35 in-lbs, the action is indeed drawn into the stock but the front never touches and the rear is always touching. concerned with the

[smokinjoe]

My model 16 accustock is seated at front and rear action screws.

[Zero333]

I should sit all along the aluminum rails and on the action screw area of the accustock.

At least that's what I remember the footprint looked like on the bottom of the action when removed from the stock.

[RP12]

I hear ya brother. I've been trying to understand the stock too.

[hereinaz]

Bottomed out and squeezed on the sides is the way I understand the design of the accustock.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[noflier]

OK so I'm trying to think of ways to get the area around my front action screw to be securely touched down on the aluminum spine. I ask myself what is keeping it from touching down as the action screw is properly torqued? Could the aluminum channels be too tight? Could the recoil lug be bottoming out? Could the barrel nut be hitting the aluminum spine before the area around the action screw can touch down? And how can I solve this? It will be a couple weeks yet before I can get to a range so I figure now is the time.

[RP12]

Best thing to do is get a caliper and measure the lug and recess to eliminate that possibility.

[noflier]

Best thing to do is get a caliper and measure the lug and recess to eliminate that possibility.

The lug height measures 0.288".
The lug recess in the aluminum pillar measures 0.308".
So I have 0.020" (twenty thousandths) clearance, so the lug is not bottoming out.

Therefore I'm still look for the reason that the front screw aluminum pillar area does not touch the bottom of the steel cylindrical receiver even after proper mounting screw torqueing sequence.

I also note that with my caliper I can measure that the front part of the aluminum channel is narrower than the rear. In other words the aluminum extrusion is deflected or warped a bit which could affect the front mount.

[foxx]

I think you are over critiquing the design of the Accustock. I am not saying you shouldn't do so, I am saying you are exposing the limitations of it's design. Some will fit one way, others another. The Accustock is not as technically advanced or as successful a design as Savage paints it. Basically, it squeezes the action on all sides and sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. My advice is to not try so hard to justify or not justify it. Install the action by gradually tightening and alternating between the two screws. Test for accuracy. If it shoots, be happy. If it doesn't, give up and grind away enough of the side rails so they no longer squeeze the action and then bed it with the bottom of the action resting on the top of the middle "spine" or whatever you wanna call that center rail.

The Accustock is nothing more than an inexpensive way to make a very cheap plastic stock slightly better than an ordinary cheap plastic factory stock. A lot of factory "hype". From my experience, they can (but don't always) make what would have been maybe a 250-300 yard 1 MOA deer/varmint hunting rifle into a 500 yard 1 MOA deer/predator/varmint hunting rifle. They DON'T make them into a world class target or varmint rifle. Sometimes, they mess up what would have been a 1 MOA rifle, making it worse. When they make it worse, I do as I said and bed them. After doing so, they easily shoot better than 1 MOA out to 500 yards or so.

[tobnpr]

^^ Agree.
In a perfect world...
Theoretically...
If every dimension of the chassis and the receiver were within a couple tenths of what it is supposed to be.
I'm a huge Savage fan, but their claim that the Accustock chassis is somehow better than a correctly
done, stress-free epoxy bedding job is as much hogwash.

Skim-bedding integral bedding blocks is commonly needed and done in much more expensive stocks.

Put a magnetic indicator base on the front receiver ring, and a dial indicator on the rear. See if the action flexes as you tighten the action screws. If I were a betting man...

[noflier]

[QUOTE=foxx;419139]I think you are over critiquing the design of the Accustock.

Possibly. That probably comes from my mechanical engineering background. I understand that the Accustock is a mass production way of simulating a labor intensive custom bedding job. But the issue that concerns me is that on my rifle since the my action does not bottom out securely even after proper torqueing, it is like having a bedding job done but then leaving the action floating high off the bedding job by not torqueing the mounting screws.
This forum has helped me understand what is typical of the quality control of other Accustock units out in the field. Now I will have to decide what to do with my firearm since I am concerned with accuracy, reliability, and safety.

[foxx]

I understand. I am saying it needs to have the rails ground away so the action will sit on the top of that middle rail then bed it. The only alternative to that is to send it to Savage and see if they will replace it. Personally, i would do the bedding i am suggesting and call it good.

I would be happy to do it for you, no charge.

PM sent.

Also, as for safety concerns and the Accustock, I would recommend torquing the front action screw at least until the bottom of the action meets the front pillar. If it won't touch the front pillar with any amount of reasonable torquing, contact Savage and inform them of your observations. What affect that will have on accuracy and your particular rifle is an unknown. "Over torquing" the front screw is certainly not a safety issue, though, because the rifle is not made "unsafe" because you choose to tighten the front screw more than what is advised to achieve optimal accuracy.

[hereinaz]

Now I know what I am going to do to my accustock! Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Robinhood]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the action is not touching the bottom rail?

[foxx]

noflier, please don't take this wrong. I don't mean to be rude or to attack you, honestly :)

I am asking you sincerely:
What part of your engineering background taught you to trust that products manufactured and sold by other designers, (be they engineers or not) actually work the way they are intended or purported to work? If Savage said yours' isn't supposed to touch the bottom rail when "properly" torqued, and it shoots well, would you feel better about it? What if they said yours IS supposed to just ride tightly against the front action screw pillar (area nearest front action screw hole), but it won't shoot accurately that way, how would you feel about it? What if it is the most accurate rifle they ever built, but also the ONLY one with a slight gap? Would you encourage the company to change their design?

My point is, it's supposed to hold the action secure, and the THEORY behind it is kinda wack, really. No other company or gunsmith in the world subscribes to the theory that applying three dimensional pressure on the action achieves better accuracy than simple, stress free bedding job. In any event, when building accurate rifles, theory doesn't mean diddly squat if it shoots accurately. More than any other application I can think of, when it comes to stocks and mounting stocks to barrelled actions, the proof is in the pudding. The ONLY thing that matters is results. THat's not to say you should be shooting a rifle with a broken stock that could separate and stab you in the hand, of course, but these things were not built for engineers and the company does not expect you to have to use a torque wrench to remove and replace the stock so as to avoid any safety issues.

Just shoot the dang thing. If it's as accurate as you hoped it would be, be glad. If it ain't then try doing something something reasonably different with it.

[RustyShackle]

Hmmm, interesting observations. I checked my accustocked rifle and it is also in the .003 realm from bottoming out on what would be thencertical restraint post(pillar) rifle still shoots fine at this point. I can visually see that the ejection port gains elevation from the tang end going towards the bbl against the edge of the stock, although the injection molded portion of the stock might be to blame for visual change.

Guess i will take it apart and see what I can figure out. On a side note I hate taking this out of the accustock as the tolerances on something are out and screws don’t quite line up with the action. Not sure if it’s the receiver, the accustock, or the bottom metal. But considering all that it still shoots sub moa. So I think I’ll just leave it alone until it bothers me enough to start monkeying with it.

[foxx]

,,,,,

[Robinhood]

Again, I am curious how we have arrived at this conclusion. .003 could be a high spot. Blueing might help/ maybe a custom lapping bar. The OP has provided no information to this question.

[foxx]

Hmmm, interesting observations. I checked my accustocked rifle and it is also in the .003 realm from bottoming out on what would be thencertical restraint post(pillar) rifle still shoots fine at this point. I can visually see that the ejection port gains elevation from the tang end going towards the bbl against the edge of the stock, although the injection molded portion of the stock might be to blame for visual change.

Guess i will take it apart and see what I can figure out. On a side note I hate taking this out of the accustock as the tolerances on something are out and screws don’t quite line up with the action. Not sure if it’s the receiver, the accustock, or the bottom metal. But considering all that it still shoots sub moa. So I think I’ll just leave it alone until it bothers me enough to start monkeying with it.

Good plan. :)