AccuRails for LRPV?

I'm sold on the AccuStock concept, or more particularly the AccuRails in the AccuStock. When Savage say that AccuRails give bedding stability improvement over expensive custom stocks, I am willing to believe them. I want to buy an LRPV (6BR 1 in 8) that has an AccuRails stock. Today, the LRPV comes with an expensive custom stock without AccuRails. Has anyone heard anything about Savage's plans in this regard for their 2010 model lineup? I guess it would mean modifications to the target action, but Savage haven't been shy about changes in the past.

The LRPV stock does not need accurails. They are a fancy named gimmick for an improvement to the tupperware stocks. If you want to believe they are better than a custom stock, you've never seen a custom stock.
The accurails don't do anything that a bedding job would'nt cure, and the wedge is a sales gimmick.
Bedding is either right or wrong, period. If it is stress free and shoots to best of is potential it will not get any better, no matter what the method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharpshooter

The LRPV stock does not need accurails. They are a fancy named gimmick for an improvement to the tupperware stocks. If you want to believe they are better than a custom stock, you've never seen a custom stock.
The accurails don't do anything that a bedding job would'nt cure, and the wedge is a sales gimmick.
Bedding is either right or wrong, period. If it is stress free and shoots to best of is potential it will not get any better, no matter what the method.

---

AHMEN Brother

Savage's argument in favour of AccuRails is fairly persuasive, and should not be dismissed so quickly. Remember, they have done high speed photography of how actions move in stocks during firing, so they can back up their claims.

Have a read of the reviews:
http://www.shootingtimes.com/gunsmit...904/index.html
https://www.americanrifleman.org/Art...?cid=1&id=1583

Do I think an HSP stock with AccuRails would shoot better than an HSP stock without AccuRails? I think that is a real possibility.
I refer to HSP here because that is what is used with the LRPV.

Again, I refer you to the work done by Savage with high speed photography of actions moving in stocks during firing. Your favourite custom stock might not fare as well as you would like in similar observations.

If you want a nice wooden stock with the rails then go here. They did the prototyping for Savage on the Accustock. I am not getting into whether it is better or worse, but if you want one they make them and they do very nice woodwork.

http://www.accurateinnovations.com/index.html

Evidentally your BS detector is busted... ;D
You need to distinquish the HYPE from the HELP. Savage rifles are the most forgiving of any gun on the planet when it comes to bedding. It's not 21st century nano technology, it's basic physics. Like I sad before, bedding is either right, or wrong....there is no inbetween. Even if the bedding on a certain stock is 100% correct, there are other aspects of the stock itself that will lead to accuracy errors.
Savage test fires their rifles from a rest that employs 2 pnuematic vises clamped on the rifle. The whole rest is adjusted via handwheels for elevation and windage. This allows no shooter error, or the rifle to recoil. The same rifle shot from a conventional rest with sand bags will that will allow the gun to move out of battery, will shoot different, as well as the shooter.
The common "tupperware " stocks as they have been refered to, do not have bedding problems....they have a "flimsy " problem. Shot from a machine rest as Savage uses, they will shoot fine, but from a conventional rest, they lack in performance due to the flimsy nature of the forend and the design of the stock.
In conclusion, the Accustock is certainly better than it's all plastic counter parts, but it's not a cure all. ;)

Savage's observations of how receivers move in their bedding during firing is the first I have heard mentioned. Actual observation of this movement changes things ... you don't have to guess or hope what might be going on anymore. If want to know what is actually going on, there is no substitute for direct observation. There is nothing like it to cut through BS.

Without such observations, there is no basis for hoping that the dynamics of receiver movement is a simple thing.

Since one of Savage's goals in this work is to have the receiver and stock recoiling as a unit, it seems unlikely they used a standard non-recoiling test rig for the observations.

Savage's claim is that AccuRails holds the receiver differently than other bedding blocks. There is nothing you have said which directly addresses that claim or the matter of direct observation of movement.

As for the cheap tupperware thing, I have been talking about a HSP with AccuRails versus without AccuRails as currently supplied, not AccuStock (see above).

Reminds me of a recent conversation I had with a local PD sniper. I advised his Rem 700 is MOST definitely moving in his HS Precision stock. He did not believe it was. Removed the action and showed him the telltale signs on the receiver and the aluminum block in the rifle. We then proceeded to bed his action as well.

All I can say is this:
I have a model 10 precision carbine with the accu-stock. To truly appreciate the accu-stock you need to actually shot one. I have put over 200 rounds through mine. I find that the accu-stock is a improvement over the classic plastic stocks that Savage has used for some time now, but it is not perfect and not to the quality of a good aftermarket stock. The accu stock still flexes.

I can not say that the accu-stock shoots any better than any other Savage. From shooting many different Savages, I would not say the accu-stock is better than the factory laminate stocks, or the HS precision stock, actually I would say it doesn't compare.

I would say that I like the bolt release on the trigger guard (Found on the accu-stock guns) much better, at first I did not think I would like it, but after using it it is just easier and smoother.

Well, as for observation, I have done it firsthand. Savage "mass produces" on the average about 500 rifles per day. With that said, I have been "refining" these rifles
exclusively for the last 12 years. I have observed many of the changes in improvement of design, I also pay attention to all the quirks associated with the changes. The quirks stand out more than the "improvements".
Let me share some of my observations:
Starting with the "tupperware stock, the original design did not use pillars. The biggest problem with this, is the action screws would pull through the stock from lack of support surrounding the screw. In 1996 a front pillar was added to support the front screw. But this left a problem on the rear screw, especially when a plastic trigger guard was used. In 1997, a rear pillar was added to correct the problem, but again with a plastic trigger guard is was useless because the screw pulled through the trigger guard. Adding a steel trigger guard cured the ills.
The compound used in the "tupperware" stocks is soft enough to wrap itself around the receiver and gain a large percentage of contact, a desirable thing.
Bedding this area is futile, because you gain almost nothing. The main downfall is the remaider of the stock is also this soft material that has no primary rigidity. While having a good fit on the receiver, the rest is like a noodle. Ask anyone who has attemped to shoot one off a bipod.
Enter the H-S stocks. These stocks utilize a fiberglass shell filled with high density foam and reinforced with an aluminum skeleton. The skeleton runs from the pistol grip to the forend, incorporating a bedding block under the receiver with pillars that extend through the bottom. The bedding block portion is neither radiused correctly nor a vee-block, but machined with 2 seperate radius sizes, one in the center that is smaller than the o.d. of the receiver and a larger one that is slightly larger than the receiver. This makes a seat for the receiver that
will contact on 2 points opposite one another at 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock, much like a vee-block, with less gap. Theoretically this system is supposed to be the answer to all ills, but is has it's drawbacks. If the bedding blocks were machined perfect,(not that they aren't)
the receivers aren't truly cylindrical at all. Imperfections in polishing and heat treat warpage cause the contact points to shift from being perpendicular to the action screws. If the receivers were cylindrically ground after heat treat, they would mate up perfectly, but we don't live in a perfect world.
The aluminum is denser than plastic, and when the screws are drawn up, it will distort the action...unlike a plastic stock. Which brings me to my next point, receiver distortion. Rifles that are constructed with a rigid one piece bolt are subject to more harmful stress than Savage's floating bolt head design. The rear of the bolt can be deflected up to 1-1/2 degrees and still hold 100% contact on the locking lugs, (try that with a Remington.) That one of the reasons that a Savage is so forgiving on bedding errors.
Alas the Accustock with "accurails"....seems like anything that has the "accu_____(fill in the blank) is the best thing since smokeless powder.
The basis of the Accustock came mainly for 2 reasons:
1. shooters complaining about the flimsy stocks in general, and with the new addition of the DBM models, the cut-out was so large for the magazine frame that left very little material on each side that made a flimsy stock," super flimsy".
2. To keep the "F"(synthetic line) going, they needed a solution without the higher costs of H-S Precision stocks. The solution was to marriage the 2 together on a budget, plastic injected stocks with an aluminum spine.

At the heart of the Accustock is an aluminum extrusion that has a shape similiar to the letter "E", only laying down. The center rail is approx. 3/8" wide and runs the entire length of the receiver, with the exception of where the magazine cut out is made. The action screws go through this rail and draw the bottom of the receiver to contact this area primarily.This center rail has a cross cut to allow the recoil lug to bear directly on the end of the center rail.
The 2 outside rails of the "E" are slightly smaller than the diameter of the receiver, and when the screws are drawn tight to make contact with the bottom of the receiver and the center rail, the side rails spread slightly to make contact with the outside of the receiver. The idea was to have contact at 3 places, 9 o"clock, 6 o'clock and 3 o'clock. The only reason this is better than 2 points of contact like on the H-S stock, is that the aluminum extrusion is weak enough to spread and grip the receiver higher to the centerline.
The "Accuwedge" is a devise that simply insures that the recoil lug is against the cross cut in the center rail when the action screws are tightened, an operation that could otherwise be accomplished by standing the gun on it's butt and letting gravity seat the lug when tightening the action screws, and that's all it does. It's nothing more that a P.I.T.A. when re-assembling a gun, and personally I would remove it.
I've seen my share of more Accustocks with bedding problems , than without. Seems like the majority have a problem of the recoil lug bottoming on the cross cut before the receiver touches the center rail. Usually this will cause vertical stringing and flyers.
Bottom line is, production stocks all have tolerance issues. Some are better than others, depending on the combination of parts. After all, they are still mass produced to a certain price point. Custom stocks are just that, custom...that's why the higher cost. With a proper bedding job they don't even compare to a factory stock.

My observations and conclusions are not based on hi-speed photography, theory and engineering models. They are based on real world data, actually paper......target paper ;D

It is always interesting to hear of people's experiences and how they drew their conclusions from those experiences.

This topic is about AccuRails in HSP not AccuStock, so we are talking about the differences between bedding blocks when the stock material is similar.

Any conclusions about receiver motion during firing arrived at without actually seeing the motion just can't carry the weight of conclusions arrived at after actually seeing movies of receivers wriggling around in bedding blocks. This moves it out of the realms of theory or belief. The benefit of actually being able to see the dynamics of receiver motion is plain enough.

You can't usefully say that a bedding job is proper without these movies. You just don't know how much better you might be doing on the range.

I suspect we won't have to wait too many years before high speed cameras are inexpensive enough for customers to do their own high speed photography, and actually see the receiver dynamics of different guns and loads.

Evidentally you are an engineering type,no doubt with some letters after your name, maybe Phd. I think that stands for post hole digger or something of that sort. ;D
Not that I don't think that you bring up good points, but you seem to want to take the word of an advertizing campaign right to the bank. You will have to understand that most of the engineers at Savage are college trained to be engineers and nothing more. Notice I said "trained" and not "educated". The fact is, this staff of engineers has very little personal firearms experience outside of their job. None of them shoot on a regular basis, or compete in matches with the rifles they design or build. Now if you don't want to beleive this, call Chris Bezzina, director of engineering. He actually fessed up to this when I spoke with him when he started that job.
There is alot of things that an engineer can qualify on paper and computer models and even with hi-speed photography, but this is what they do to justify their job.

Back to this rail thing...if this system was so good, it would have been discovered years ago by a bench rester. Bench rest shooters are the leaders in accuracy innovations, not gun manufacturers. They tend to think outside the box and have the necessity to make rifles more accurate, no matter what the cost. That why when bedding problems plagued them, someone did something completely off the wall....they glued their actions into the stock. A system that is proven and is still in use today.
Accurails may be fine for a production stock, and even good in a HS stock for that matter, but there is nothing better than a good bedding job in a quality custom stock. A 100% glove fit will be better than 2 or 3 point contact.
You have have brought up good points of discussion, but you are really over thinking this thing. ;D