I have bedded more than 5 rifles and all, even the first effort, came out swimmingly. What I never did was a "before" and "after" comparison. There certainly are enough of those in the form of "after bedding the groups tightened up" variety. Testimonials abound. Can't argue with success. At least i can't. I am not really challenging anything though it often appears so to others. Let it be known that I not only am a true believer in Pillar Bedding but I use the process on all my rifles.
So here is the issue: Background) RJR sent me a most excellent post on the impact of tightening the action screws or having protrusions subject the action to stress that deforms the receiver. The impact on the guns integrity was beyond my imagination. It also raised questions about what I had been doing and the actual result.
I have seen terrific videos about pillar bedding and the final shot always shows a stock with the perfect cast of the bottom of the receiver and the recoil block. Really photogenic castings of the receiver bottom covered with a gleamingly smooth slab of epoxy with nary a bubble or fold. But under that epoxy sits some wood of either lam or solid personality. Laminated wood is superior to solid because of grain, color options and that the stock has a much less chance of warping into a twist or bend with environment fluctuations. Terrific stuff. BUT, lam and solid woods still expand andf "grow" as the humidity goes up and down and so does the action with temp. From where I sit you cannot get rid of this relative movement between the receiver and stock unless the stock is metal and somehow lets the action move withing it while the action is captured. I guess in my theoretical options a SS receiver would be best served by a SS receiver. But following the current wisdom we fill any void between the wood and receiver with epoxy that also has little give. Wetting wood has long been a trick used to cause horrendous pressures sufficient to crack granite. I know that as the humidity goes up that wood and epoxy are subjecting the receiver to pressures beyond that of any screw. It may be a tiny bit of movement but it is there.
The same must be true for the receiver dimension associated with temp. It must be moving and if there is contact that contact might be a pivot.
All that should provoke some enlightening conversation among people far smarter than myself. I expect I will benefit.
Now to another angle: There is a way to mount a rifle without touching the receiver. I am referring to the method where the barrel is clamped in a block and the front of the barrel and the entire receiver are left to float. From the targets shown in these articles I assume that there is no other way to "bed" a rifle that wouldn't result in better accuracy and precision. And that completely ignores the defeat of the last vestige of recoil. I have never seen one of these block mounted guns sporting a brake or flip suppressor barrel device. Pardon the humor. Does this device prove that "no contact and distortion" is the optimum? Would never work with a Mountain Rifle, I'll grant you.
My thought was to bed the action on pillars that sit proud of the stock and free of any pressures from the stock whether it be "now" or in the future. I also thought that it would be better to bed the entire recoil lug if the rear was allowed to float/slide along the rear block. I imagine the loosening and then re-tightening the action on the rear screw alone would neutralize the action/stock union till either warmed or became wet. The "rules" call for ever so slight torque/pressure from the rear pillar anyway.
Happy new year
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks