Wifowler is contemplating using a factory Remington CDL mag stock for a 416Ruger build, I am confident that this stock will split in the thin webbing at some point with recoil levels of a 375H&H on up without having reinforcement in that area. I'll stand by that opinion as I'm on solid ground.
As to your circles, I had thought you were returning with much to add about engineering reinforcement of this thin webbing area to help alleviate the outward pressures from recoil. You parted with mentioning a third person's idea of using a few strands of a gel-spun aramid fiber fishing line in lieu of any metal bedded into place as a crossbolt. You then returned with repeating the same "idea" without anything substantive to support such idea.
Not sure how this would prove out in reality without testing. I do know that these fibers are stronger than steel when compared pound for pound, but that does not apply when speaking in terms of using a few strands within bedding epoxy. I do know that the kevlar line is about six times stronger and has low stretch when compared to monofilament fishing line, but such strands do indeed have elasticity and do indeed have a thin diameter with a high level of lubricity when compared to traditional metal reinfocement. Having individual strands with elasticity and high lubricity may not even allow good adhesion within the bedding epoxy itself making for no more than filler material.
I just do not see it unless you have something definitive to add such as examples of this engineering for peer review. All that aside, any bedding you do will only be as strong as the weakest link. No matter how much bedding epoxy you use, if you do not isolate the wood, especially when you've thinned it down to a weakened section, if that weakened section is part of the chain, the chain will be weak.
Best:)
Circular? I believe I added the fact, supported by your own admission, that epoxy is stronger than wood and adheres better than wood coheres. Your statement:
"The epoxy itself is indeed stronger than the wood substrate you removed, but the failure will then be the points of adhesion between the wood sides and the epoxy itself."
I disagree with that because wood is indeed stronger than recoil in most applications with good stock wood. And I stated so for the first time in this thread just a post or so ago. You obviously disagree:
"The best alternative is to make a mechanical lock between both sides which completely removes the wood substrate from the equation."
You believe something needs engineering to make something work that has been working for over a hundred years without epoxy and for a long time with epoxy.
How could they ever have made a stock function for all those years if your statement were factual? I have spent a bunch of time building stocks of much lighter and weaker woods than walnut both for beauty and ultra-light applications. Epoxy bedding seems to work just fine when applied in apropriate places, even in nearly inappropriate woods. I guarantee my 6# 30-06 transfers significant recoil forces to the stock and it uses microballoon fluffed epoxy to resist many of those forces neatly.
So in this latest batch of posts, since you were expecting so much more, I stated wood is strong enough and will not break at the adhesion points. Those are hardly circular as I believe I did not say that before and it is hardly restating the proposition in any way. I could add recoil forces are cross-grain tension at the web, which is almost the easiest way to break wood.
I suppose I could have added that a couple knots would likely keep the fishing line from slipping in the epoxy. Or you may have recognized the loops at the end of each pass would do much the same.
But as long as lubricity is being challenged, you do recognize the fact I pointed out the disinclination for epoxy to adhere to smooth brass pins?
Hanging your argument on an arimid fiber may be better than sisal, but you are still dangling by a thread...
As to the OP's stock splitting in the web area... so what? Remington 700 tangs are not below the surface of the stock. The Mauser, 70, Ruger, and many other tangs are designed to have a small bit of clearance aft. The recoil forces are transferred to the stock at the recoil lug and transferred aft by the stock. Resistance to motion on the part of the shooter's shoulder is absorbed in a small way by the sides of the stock through the magazine well flexing outward. The web sees only that tension force in any substantive way.
The stock resists splitting at the tang by distributing those forces across a generously wide and rounded inlet. Ever drill a hole at the end of a crack to resist propagation? It is the same concept. All of this is also the forces absorbed by the shoulder in recoil... It has to be fairly modest.
I could add the way wood dries and slowly relaxes stresses built during the process and that rushing the process and building stocks with improperly aged wood is likely the main cause of splits. But then the application of epoxy at that rounded distribution point would likely fail to adhere, right?
So, I continue to disagree with your argument at most levels... The pins in 700 stocks are there mostly to keep the pieces from falling out after they split because it is no big deal; the epoxy is stronger than wood in cohesion and adhesion and the wood is mostly strong enough; crossbolts add nothing and will indeed weaken stocks when installed improperly; crossbolts bedded against the recoil lug and glassed in place are not stronger than epoxy doing the same thing; and lastly, crossbolts require either extreme care or skill to install while epoxy remains hidden in the inletting.
art
