DBM Conversion (Right/Wrong Bottom Metal or Trigger Guard)

[RustyShackle]

That looks killer! My only regret with my Boyd’s was not getting the checkering, gets slick when wet.

You might decide a shaw bbl in 7mm-08 is next on your upgrade list!

[gnumadic]

That looks killer! My only regret with my Boyd’s was not getting the checkering, gets slick when wet.

You might decide a shaw bbl in 7mm-08 is next on your upgrade list!

Thanks! I debated on the stippling versus going smooth (and saving $55). I also thought about trying to texture the stock myself. I'm glad I went with the laser cut stippling, but I do wish Boyds had more options. I wanted the full wrap center-point style but it wasn't available when I ordered it.

Funny about the continued upgrading. That's the thing about Savage rifles...they're like the car you can work on yourself! I'm actually thinking about an optics upgrade, starting with a one-piece scope mount. I didn't notice it before but I had some issues with the two-piece Weaver bases and Burris Zee rings aligning evenly. Perhaps an EGW base is up next.

The scope is a Sightron S1 3-9x40 (made in Japan...before the S1 production went to the Philippines). It's great for what I paid for it. However, I have a Leupold VX-3i on my 6.5 Grendel AR and I'm spoiled now.

[RustyShackle]

I’ve got a VX3i too. Nice glass. Although my Bushnell elites are probably every bit as clear.

With a detachable magazine a single piece base isn’t a bad idea. I’m surprised you had issue with the Burris sig rings. They are one of my favorite.

[gnumadic]

I’ve got a VX3i too. Nice glass. Although my Bushnell elites are probably every bit as clear.

With a detachable magazine a single piece base isn’t a bad idea. I’m surprised you had issue with the Burris sig rings. They are one of my favorite.

I think I had two issues going on. First, the two piece bases were not in complete alignment with each other. If I ran a level across the front and rear bases, then they were not even...not huge but slight. It could be the holes in the action or the bases themselves. That’s why I was thinking about a one piece base.

The other issue I had was with the Burris Signature Rings and the plastic inserts. One of them kept falling out of alignment with the top of the ring during installation. I finally flexed it outwardly enough so that friction kept it in place long enough to tighten the ring down. I don’t remember it being a problem when the rings were brand new. Perhaps it’s because they were several years old.

[RustyShackle]

Hmm, seems like I had a similar issue some time back. I just clipped the insert over the scope and then placed the upper half of the ring, pushed down and inserted the screws. My biggest gripe with the sig rings is the clamp design. Although I’m sure it’s very adequate, it’s not robust. Seems like a set of Warne rings machined for inserts would be the ticket.

I’m debating refinishing and attempting some checkering on my Boyd’s. What’s the worst that could happen? Lol.

[gnumadic]

Hmm, seems like I had a similar issue some time back. I just clipped the insert over the scope and then placed the upper half of the ring, pushed down and inserted the screws. My biggest gripe with the sig rings is the clamp design. Although I’m sure it’s very adequate, it’s not robust. Seems like a set of Warne rings machined for inserts would be the ticket.

I’m debating refinishing and attempting some checkering on my Boyd’s. What’s the worst that could happen? Lol.

I think I could do stippling and make it look good. Checkering would definitely take some practice. I do have a Boyd's stock that was mis-cut. It was beyond the return period when I discovered it, so they would only give me $30 off a new stock. I think I'll hang on to it as a practice piece.

So I went ahead and ordered a one-piece Evolution Gun Works base, along with some low Warne rings. I might as well get that VX-3i while I'm at it!

[gnumadic]

Also, I wanted to give a quick range report, along with a newbie mistake that others might benefit from reading. I sighted it in with a point blank range of about 22 yards--which with the load I was shooting should be 3.41" high at 100 yards, back to zero at 262 yards, and 4" low at 308 yards.

I backed out to 100 yards to validate the short range session. The first couple groups were around MOA. And then the next two just opened up. Like 4-5". I needed to leave to meet one of my kids at the school bus, so at first I chalked it up to being in a hurry.

After thinking about it for a while I checked the action screws, which I had initially tightened to about 35 in/lbs. They came out a little too easily. That totally would have caused the groups to open up.

With a little more research on torque specs for various stocks, including pillar bedded actions, I realized that I had not adequately cleaned out the action screw holes after the bedding job. D'oh! There was still some shoe polish in there, which I'm sure was causing the screws to slowly back out.

So now it's cleaned/degreased and all put back together. I also went up to 40 in/lbs on the torque, as most of what I've seen is 35-40 in/lbs as a range. And next time I go to the shooting range I will bring my torque driver with me, too!

[gnumadic]

I have had three trips to the range since this DBM conversion and pillar/bedding job. All three have been disappointing. Trip number one was described above. Before trip number two I installed a one-piece 0 MOA base by EGW and a new Leupold VX-3i 3.5-10x40 scope. I still couldn't shoot decent groups.

So I went home and disassembled everything. Thoroughly cleaned it. Checked to see that the barrel was free-floated (and the barrel nut). Made sure no wood was coming in contact with the trigger mechanism. Sanded out some more wood from the tang area so that a business card could pass (previously I was using a paper receipt). Put it all back together and torqued the action screws with a fat wrench to 40 in/lbs. Below is a result of today's range session.

Group 1 - about 1.25"...adjusted the scope a few clicks right and down (goal was to be 3.4" high at 100 yds).
Group 2 - not what I was expecting given the adjustments to the scope.
Group 3 - dialed the height adjustment back a click or two.
Group 4 - no scope adjustments...similar horizontal group but an inch lower.
Group 5 - my last 5 rounds. I suppose it's minute of deer <100 yards but I just don't trust it.



I gave the barrel time to cool between sets (walking to the target to check). I took my time, stayed relaxed, etc. I made sure that the action screws weren't loosening. The trigger is light (Rifle Basix SAV-1). There was some light wind but I waited till there were lulls. For comparison, I was shooting MOA this morning with my 6.5 Grendel, so I don't think it was me, the rest, the wind, etc. I think it's the rifle. And it previously shot MOA in that ugly tupperware stock (which I no longer have unfortunately) and heavy factory trigger.

As for the new scope, it's worth noting that my first range session was with another scope and I had similar lackluster results. I'm also using Warne rings, which I dry torqued to spec (25 in/lb). And again, with the old Sightron scope I was shooting tight groups with the factory stock.

What advice do you all have? Is there anything else I can do on my own, short of re-bedding it? I suppose I could try different torque amounts on the action screws, but I've already blown $60 in ammo getting to this point. Should I take it to a gun smith? I'd almost rather put the next $60 in ammo toward that. I have to say I'm disappointed because one of the benefits of a Savage/Stevens is being able to work on it yourself. Kind of like an old car.

[gnumadic]

Wait...something just occurred to me while I was driving (was...I’m typing this at Chick-til-A). Do I need to epoxy bed the bottom metal? The trigger guard fits pretty tight in the Boyd’s stock, but there seems to be some clearance around the bottom metal (even though it seems to cinch tight). Could that be causing the errant shots—that is, causing the action to move under recoil?

[celltech]

This is my $0.02 worth.... with full on metal pillars you should be able to go much higher on the torque, like 65 in/lb. Try that on the front and play around with lowering the rear torque if necessary. Some people report quite different results with different rear screw values. Just make sure the front action screw is not hitting the bolt and grind it down as necessary.

[gnumadic]

Would more torque keep the bottom metal from moving laterally under recoil? I was thinking that if the bottom of the action screw isn't fixed in place with the stock (just like the top/action is secure due to the bedding job), then the rig is ultimately not stable. With the old plastic stock the rifle had a blind magazine, so the front action screw sat in a pillar escutcheon.

Here are videos I took this afternoon of the bottom metal and trigger guard (note: could not figure out how to embed).

Bottom Metal/Front Action Screw
https://player.vimeo.com/video/298771638


Trigger Guard/Rear Action Screw
https://player.vimeo.com/video/298771648


It may also be worth noting that on the bedding job I did a single layer of masking tape on the sides and front of the recoil lug. So there's a tiny bit of lateral play already (maybe I shouldn't have done the tape but it's what most people here seem to do).