Stock torque ?

I put the action back in the accu-stock and just tightened the take down screws until everything snugged up tight and the screws stopped turning without excessive force. Why wouldn't that work ? I don't have a torque wrench. But if the screws stop turning, that's all the tighter the screws will go right ? If torquing the screws make a difference that tells me the stock isn't snugged up tight to the action. Or am I way off in my logic ? Sorry for all the questions. This is my first round with the Accu-stock. All my other rifles are just pillar bedded and I just tighten them down till the screws stop and call it good. I'm trying to learn the stock, please help me understand why this is a unique system.

Torque keeps you from not only over torquing the screws but also giving you consistency if you remove the stock etc. Every screw on my rifles from the trigger guard to the scope caps has a torque value. Always recommended by manufacturer or what's worked best for me. Some stocks are picky and shoot best with different torques at different screws etc.

I've never had one loosen up on anything using torque wrench and blue locktite where necessary. I've also never stripped a screw (knock on wood) since using the wrench. The method you use will probably be just fine. But for consistency and fear of FUBARing something I use the wrench. To each there own

I started using a torque wrench for the simple fact that I would strip screws out or crush scope tubes trying to get the most grip I could so my rifle wouldn't loosen up and fail me at a bad time. After using the wrench I realized I was going way to much on everything

As already said it's possible to over torque. The accustock is basically a wedge that the receiver sits in, you could theoretically pull the receiver farther than intended by over torquing.

I broke down and ordered a torque wrench.

http://www.savageshooters.com/conten...-The-AccuStock

Check out this link. I stumbled upon it and followed the guidelines on my Mod 12 with Accustock. The accuracy of my .223 improved significantly. I'm a believer. I think JW published the article.

I "think" I'm understanding why torquing an Accu-stock is so critical. It looks like the back of the action has a small gap between the action and the bedding block, at a specific torque value. This tells, me anyway, that the torque of the rear screw changes the characteristics of the actions harmonics and or performance, with different torquing pressures. Or am I still way off ?

I apologize for being a pain about it, I'm just the kind of guy that has to figure out why thing work, instead of just being told "do this" and not understand why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RP12

I apologize for being a pain about it, I'm just the kind of guy that has to figure out why thing work, instead of just being told "do this" and not understand why.

---

I am with u, give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RP12

I "think" I'm understanding why torquing an Accu-stock is so critical. It looks like the back of the action has a small gap between the action and the bedding block, at a specific torque value. This tells, me anyway, that the torque of the rear screw changes the characteristics of the actions harmonics and or performance, with different torquing pressures. Or am I still way off ?

---

I can't answer your question definatively, maybe someone else can. As I understand it, though, the Accustock is designed to be drawn into the aluminum rails and actually squeezed by them in a manner completely contrary to traditional thinking. THe action is not simply resting on a bed with action screws at a certain torque. The rails surround it a bit. Gradually tightening the screws while alternating front to back is intended to get the correct amount of "squeeze" in an even manner around the action. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I don't think there is a specific "gap" they are looking for, though. Nor do I think it's as great system as Savage makes it out to be. To me, it's little more than an inexpensive way to make a cheap hunting stock better than "tupperware". Regardless, if it works for your rifle and your purposes, then that's all that matters.

If you insist on understanding the principal behind the engineering (a trait I admire and often share), you might not be "sold" on it.

I see the theory. If you can consistently mate the action to the stock where there is no movement between the 2, effectively making them one unit, your accuracy will be more consistent. Torquing in a specific sequence evenly tensions and mates the 2 components together. Much like torquing an oil pan in a specific sequence which helps to prevent leaks with the gasket. I imagine if you milled your stock and action from one mono block, your consistency would definitely go up and most likely accuracy would also. This is the same reason you bed a stock.

Rosewood

Check the last page for proper accustock torque/installation. There's a chance you could have a good outcome without a torque wrench, but why not remove that variable from the accuracy/consistency equation?

https://www.americanrifleman.org/Web...eaccustock.pdf