Quote Originally Posted by kelbro
I tried the same experiment on a couple of two-screw actions that were pillared and fully floated. Saw no difference in point of impact relative to any torques over 30 lb/in. Subsequent action bedding (tang left floating) had no effect on these two rigs.
I have read tons of commentary and anecdotal reports about action screw torque having a BIG affect on group size over the years. Way way to much "evidence" for any sane person to disregard the topic. What has always bothered me is that NOBODY has ever offered an explanation for just WHY this is true. I take a lot of things on faith and do stuff "just because" but almost all of that relates to dealing with women. Being confused isn't a state I seek, neither. I am certain there are explanations out there that I have never heard and I want to.

In an unbedded or pillar'd action I can easily see where the action would flex and jump around. The case for those accurizing projects was made to me long ago. To my logic, bedding the action should have been sufficient to immobilize the action and establish the "union" of the action/stock and pilars should be insufficient due to the reduced area of contact and the resulting inevitable increase in flex. BUT, I am wrong, based on tons of findings. Does anyone understand why?

In my Swede's, the rear tang screw needs to be tight to prevent the action from moving around under recoil but in them that screw is one of the two action screws. What is the theory that the rear tang in a Savage MUST float?

I can easily accept that having action screws loose will yield erratic groups. After tightening in increments the groups contract and that seems logical. Why would making the bond between the action and stock tighter ruin the groups?

I can't be the only one that doesn't understand this or wants to.

Help?

John