Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles What's your criteria for bedding a "hunting" rifle action/recoil lug?

What is your criteria for bedding a "hunting" rifle action and/or recoil lug? Other than a Savage Weather Warrior that has been a disaster from day one, all of my bolt action hunting rifles are Kimbers (four Montanas and one Talkeetna) and I've never seen the need to bed them. I'm not claiming that they don't need to be bedded, just that based on my criteria of repeatable accuracy and precision, they don't seem to need it. So back to my original question, how do you decide that you need to bed a hunting rifle?

I only bed the ones I own.

If a bolt gun isn't collectible, it gets bedded.

Why not have a perfect fit when it is so easy?

I only bed them if they don't shoot to my expectations and I suspect it is the bedding that is causing the problems. On a varmint rifle that may be 1/2 MOA, on a big game rifle it is usually 1 MOA.

The only time I don't bed something is if it's collectible and doesn't need it.

Or if I'm just shooting it bone stock to gain knowledge to pass along. "Right out of the box" type info.



Dave

I bed everything, though only 2 of my 4 Kimber MT's are currently bedded, but only because I haven't gotten round to it. Have never seen it hurt, and have often seen it help, including with MT's.

Jim Carmichel knows a thing or two about rifle accuracy, proven (among other things) by setting a world record in benchrest shooting a few years ago, after doing very plenty of other competitions over the years.

Jim wrote in one of his books that dinking with the bedding of a rifle without first test-shooting it is kinda dumb, because it might shoot great the way it is. And even if it shoots great after "bedding," how do you know it wouldn't have shot better before?

I've tended to follow his advice since reading that, and never regretted it.

Yes my Kimber Montana in 300WM proved this very point. While I see the point of bedding, why not at least test it before you break out the "release agent".

So has anyone bedded a rifle only to have the accuracy get worse? If a rifle is a consistent 1/2 moa performer without bedding is there any point in bedding it? Intuitively, a good bedding job shouldn't adversely affect a good shooting rifle but I'm curious if anyone has had a bad experience with bedding.

Personally,I would never mess with a 1/2 MOA rifle in any way. Yes,it can get worse. I've had one get worse,temporarily.

Has Jim ever seen a properly bedded rifle go from shooting lights out to shooting for shiet?

I remember one range session with the recently passed on Dennis Neill. He showing off his newly rebarreled 77RSI in 338 Federal. I asked if he bedded it, he replied in a manner similar to your post.

Wasn't long after that he was looking for a new stock, because that one split under recoil. Told him he should have bedded it.

That wasn't the first time I've seen that happen.

I would, but I ain't scared of rifles nor do I think accuracy is magic and pixie dust.

With all due respect to Mr. Barsness, I'll side with Steelhead. Why would I not want a perfect fit between the contact surfaces of my action and stock? The caveat to that is to make sure your recoil lug is not crooked. If you bed the lug tight and it is crooked, you could end up with the action mechanically locked to the stock.

On wood stocks, I go one farther and pillar bed them. My objective is not only improved precision (smaller groups) but improved accuracy (retaining my zero) in differing climate conditions.

Bedding highly accurate rifles is a waste of time IMO. I've owned 4 Tikkas, one of which I've had 20 years, and haven't bedded one yet. I rank it right up there with cleaning brass and primer pockets.

The amount of improvement you'll see with bedding depends on how badly bedded the rifle was in the first place. Most factory rifles run from terrible to decent. Once in a great while you'll find one that's bedded so well there's no point in fiddling with it.

I have a J.C. Higgins Model 50 in 30-06. It shot extremely well when I got it, but I was considering bedding it nevertheless. When I took the action out of the stock I could see a clear impression on the wood where the recoil lug met the stock with 100% even contact. The contact with the action was also so good I decided there was no way I was going to improve on it, so I left it alone.

Bedding will change the vibration characteristics of the rifle, so it's within the realm of possibility that you could take a rifle that vibrates just right for a given load and change it so it shoots that load worse than before. It's not likely, but it is possible.

I've only owned three rifles over the years that I haven't bedded. First was a tang safty M 77 years ago. Didn't know what to do with that slanted recoil lug. Then 8 or ten years ago I got a M70 feather weight and haven't bedded it either, never done a M70 and just as soon not learn on one I can't afford to replace. It shoot right at 1-1 1/4 out of the box. The third I just got. Mossberg Patriot and out of the box with first handloads it's running right at 1". I took it apart and couldn't believe what I saw in there. You'd have to see one, I can't describe it. But I believe it will be a shoter, even after I get a new wood stock for it. I din't care for plastic stocks!

Scott,

I don't know if Jim has seen a "properly bedded rifle go from shooting lights out to shooting for sheit," but doubt it. That wasn't his point.

However, I have seen a number of supposedly properly bedded rifles that didn't shoot worth sheit, because the bedder didn't know how to bed rifles. And that includes at least two supposed professionals, though the list of improperly "bedded" rifles would be far longer. I've encountered so many of those I've lost count, and each one was rebedded by somebody convinced they could improve on the rifle's accuracy, whether they'd shot it or not.

Have also seen more than one wood-stocked rifle where the stock split because the owner didn't check the tightness of the action screws before a range session. And at least two of those were after the owner got it back from a gunsmith who did some work on the rifle. One of those was a rifle rebarreled to a larger, harder-kicking cartridge than the original walnut stock had been designed for.

But I do know that when Jim Carmichel wrote that book he'd already fooled around with more rifles (including doing some professional stockmaking) than anybody on the Campfire except our several professional gunsmiths.

If it ain't broke....

I agree with Scott on this one. I have seen stocks crack, especially on heavy kickers. Because of this, I glass bed every rifle I own. I'm not a "professional" gunsmith or gun writer, but do know a PROPERLY glass bedded rifle does nothing but help accuracy. After doing preliminary tests on different rifles, I found that after glass bedding rifles such as Ruger m77's (that have no bedding from the factory), groups shrink almost by half. Turning a 2" shooter into a 1" shooter. I've also seen model 70's that were so poorly glass bedded from the factory that they needed to be re-done. Here's a picture of one such rifle that needed to be re-done. This was a 5 digit classic with the "hot glue" type bedding:


This one was a new manufacture BACO extreme weather. The great guy I bought it from here told me up front that the rifle didn't shoot as well as he thought it should. He also said that the barreled action seemed to rock around in the stock. We both thought it needed new bedding. Here's the factory job:


After I glass bed the rifle, it looked like this:


It went from shooting around 2" groups to right around 1 moa. consistently:

the general rule i've used is to try them first, and see just what the rig does. if they shoot to expectations, leave well enough alone. if not, try shimming first--then bedding as a next resort.

i read Carmichael's comment about bedding rigs several decades back. as i remember it, some cat bed his rig, when Carmichael asked him how it shot prior to bedding, the guy told him he had no idea, as he not tried it. Carmichael asked him something like this, "how to you know if you're improving it, when you don't know what you're improving upon".

i've got some rigs that i've had for many years, and they were good from the get-go, and still are...others had to be glassed...

back in the late 1990's, a guy brought a rig by--an old Sako L579 243 Win. with Bofors heavy barrel. it was near mint. he had a set of targets, and mentioned that it didn't shoot very well. looking at the targets, i asked him if i could take the barreled action out of the stock. i relieved the wood in one spot, added a shim, and reassembled it. when he tested it, the rig fired a 5 shot group of 5/8 inch, using the same load.

he brought it by to show me the new targets, then asked if i would bed it for him. i declined, saying that i thought that it was good enough as is, and to leave well enough alone.

nevertheless, he took it to a gunsmith in an adjacent state, and had it bedded. a few weeks later, he came by to tell me that after it was bedded, it didn't shoot for sour apples. i've seen quite a few rigs that have been wrecked by guys that don't know what they're doing--even some professionals, so be careful who does your work.

when a rig doesn't perform to expectations, and is then glassed bedded properly, it gives great peace of mind, and is a good thing...some need it, some don't. heavy kicking rigs can benefit--in ways more than just in accuracy, as glass adds strength, especially when the recoil shoulder is hacked back at least a 1/4 inch, and filled in with the tough glass.