Do the pins Remington puts in their stock really serve the purpose to decrease splitting? Got a 416 Ruger build in the works and am contemplating using a factory CDL mag stock.

No, crosspins in general are there just to keep the chunks of wood from falling out after they split. The pins have almost no mechanical strength in their attachment to the wood as far as stopping movement.

And if they did they would simply split the wood themselves...

Properly installed crossbolts do spread the recoil force around, but they do nothing more than a little glass bedding.

things are probably different now, but I cut up a 1980's era BDL stock (after restocking it in laminate) and there was nothing under those black plastic plugs. no pin, no nothing.

if you want crossbolts, get actual crossbolts and bed them in.



brownells

And that particular crossbolt is less than useless...

If you are going to install a crossbolt it should have a square shoulder that engages the recoil lug...

Metal will move enough, and differently enough, from wood to make mechanical adhesion difficult. As soon as epoxy is introduced to adhere the metal properly the question instantly becomes "Why bother with the metal?"

Given all of the above, I think I just stick with a thicker recoil lug and a good bedding job.

A wise choice..

When a big bore recoils the magazine box gaps open and in time or immediately it can split the recoil lug or the rear portion behind the magazine box..The Cross Bolts can and do prevent this and they have been effective for many years with big bore English rifles and modern custom rifles..

Today with the advent of glass bedding and cross bolts combined it is easy to build a custom big bore that will probably never split.

Any stockmaker that uses the old addage that if a gun is properly bedded it won't need pins it full of bull and salesmanship or just hasn't used his rifles much..In time any wood stock that is shot often can and will pound out a gap in the recoil lug area and eventually split the stock or the wood may shrink or swell and cause the same problem and this is because of poor drying and laying out of the wood.

I have seen some high dollar guns made by well known gunsmiths split out on safari, and I have seen some very nice stocks shear off at the pistol grip. They were pretty but not layed out properly..I personally believe marble cake can be overdone in a big bore and prefer to keep the grain running in a single direction from the tow to the forend with a bit of upward travel. Lots of streaking color is fine.

This isn't a advertisement for composite or laminated wood as I have seen them fail about as often for various reasons, after all anything made by man can fail.

Bottom line is I would not own a big bore beginning with the 458 Win without crossbolts and I also would prefer some glass in certain areas or fully bedded is fine as long as it doesn't show.

+1

With the stock inletted for the mag box and trigger, you only have a small amount of webbing remaining that runs between the mag box and trigger inlets. Other than this thin webbing of wood, you have nothing to connect the sides of the stock between the recoil mortise and rear tang. It does not matter how solid you bed the recoil lug at the lug mortise, the area between this point to the rear tang is the cause of weakness. With the rifle planted into your shoulder, each time you fire a round, the forces of recoil push rearward at the lug mortise while your shoulder is attempting to stop this rearward motion. As a result, recoil forces attempt to push the sides of the stock outward between the action screws. Without adding any reinforcement such as cross bolts (screws), the thin webbing between the mag box and trigger inlets will split followed by additional damage if you continue shooting rounds.

Anything above the recoil level of a 30-06 would be wise to include reinforcement. When you get up into 375H&H level, it will most definitely split at some point without added reinforcement. If it is a safe queen, it doesn't matter, but if you intend to shoot the rifle for years to come, it will eventually split without. If you use a led sled, it will split sooner than later.

Best:)

Ray
As per usual, you are clueless...

Crossbolts were better when they were only compared to wood. Today they are not as good as quality, fibered epoxy, period.
art

I agree with this part of your statement... But glass trumps metal pins for keeping the sides together. The brass pins Remington throws through the web area is to keep the parts from falling out, because it certainly does nothing to prevent spreading...

Since I started this . . .

What about using adding a second recoil lug to the barrel or perhaps using a stock with an aluminum bedding block? Would either negate the need for cross-bolts?

Not intending to highjack, and I hope this fits... I have a wooden stock that appears to have already split the recoil lug front to rear (300 WW). I intended to use something like the pictured Brownell's crossbolt to repair it...or as I have used in the past, small SS bolts with small washers and nuts, set into an "I" shaped mortise cut across the recoil lug. I glassed it in place when I bedded the action (338 WW)and it appears to have held so far. Are we saying these may not hold? If fibered epoxy alone is the answer, how would you recommend prepping the stock, and where would it be applied? Hoping to learn best approach. Thanks.

I do not believe it wise to simply remove the thin strip of wood webbing between the sides and then just simply replace this internal wood with bedding epoxy. 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. The best alternative is to make a mechanical lock between both sides which completely removes the wood substrate from the equation. If you suggest to only use the epoxy, then it must run completely through to the outer sidewalls to eliminate the weak link. This is the reason and purpose behind the mechanics of a crossbolt to mechanically lock the sides together completely taking the wood substrate out of the equation. This is why an epoxied pin that is mechanically threaded through a section of wood makes for a repair that is not only stronger than the wood itself, but is also stronger than the pin alone. The larger traditional crossbolt with threaded caps is even stronger making for a complete mechanical lock of the sides.

Best:)

I disagree and have much to add, but not enough time... More later.

As a start, a poster here came up with what I consider a truly clever idea... He uses a few lengths of Kevlar fishing line bedded in epoxy for a crossbolt inside the stock. Stockmaker would be the guy with the idea.
art

Dunlaf spoke of adding a piece of steel across the recoil lug
inlet and tied into the stock.
Good luck!

I've used 2/32" to 3/32" brass pins to fix split stocks on two Mauser rifles, a 98 Turk and a 93 Spanish. Hundreds of rounds later through each rifle, they're still fixed.

The key #1: first fix what caused the split. In both of my cases, it was the action's recoil lug not contacting the stock's recoil shelf. When either rifle went "BANG" the stocks stayed still, and the barreled actions went backwards--and split the stocks.

The key #2: make the hole through the stock slightly larger than the pin. Let epoxy fill the gap. If the pin is tight, you've added stress to the stock.

With careful measuring you can drill the hole in the stock not quite all the way through. That leaves only one hole to hide.

In the case of a split right behind the recoil lug not near the sides, I'll Dremel a trench for a reinforcement and embed in epoxy. No change in external appearance. Carbon arrow shaft is the latest fad in hidden reinforcement for me.

Usually it happens to old stocks (no bedding compound) so I've put it down to poor contact between the stock and the recoil lug due to changes in the wood.

I have no idea why you would have a problem removing the wood chips between the action sides and replacing them with something stronger, tougher, more stable, and less likely to come off the wood at each end??? The failure points will NOT be the adhesion of glass to wood, but in the wood... And good stock wood is plenty strong enuogh for the job. Going all the way to the outside does not improve looks especially and is not needed for strength.

A little reinforced glass packed in there with Stocker's kevlar fishing line thoroughly wetted totally trumps any crosspin.

Adding a metal cross bolt like the one pictured will not be as effective. As the wood changes dimensions at a different rate than the metal it will eventually work a small hollow behind the cross bolt heads... unless of course you glassbed them! So let's use some more of the stuff you are afraid of to proactively cure potential problems!

As I believe I said earlier in this thread, crossbolts must have a square shoulder that exactly mates with the recoil lug if one is going to improve things. And that improvement will only be seen on stocks which have not been glass bedded.
art

Oh and I have seen many 375 and over rifle stocks without crossbolts which never split...

Okay, you're completely talking in circles at this point. I had thought you were being serious.

Later:)

???
Your statement quoted above "When you get up into 375H&H level, it will most definitely split at some point without added reinforcement."

And I am the one being less than serious?

Surely you jest!

Please tell me where I strayed from engineering fact. I would love to see what you could come up with.
art

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

I didn't mean to incite an 'Urinary Olympiad'. FWIW, I've moved on from considering the CDL stock for my application and will be looking at McMs, B&B Medalis w/alum block and/or an Accurate Innovations. I do thank everyone for the feedback.