I have a wood stocked Tikka .338 Fed with generous clearances in the recoil lug slot and, also, the receiver slot (for the recoil lug). I tightened everything with shims and improved the accuracy dramatically. I would like to use a bedding compound instead of the shims, but am unsure how to proceed since the lug is not an integral part of the receiver. I used the search funtion here but did not find anything specifically related to my query.

If I bed the lug permanently in the stock, I would still have the slop in the receiver slot. Any advice would be appreciated...

I have not tried this, but I read it and it makes sense...

Glue the recoil lug to the rifle with a single drop of super glue. Then apply release agent etc like normal. Then bed the rifle. Once it all cures, you just pop the lug off the receiver since it is only held on with one drop of glue.

Personally I'd get rid of that ridiculous luggette and have a good 'smith mill and TIG a Mauser style recoil lug to the action and then inlet the stock for that.

I've seen articles in old Rifle magazines where folks did just that to a 700.
Didn't really see the point there as the 700 lug has plenty of surface area but with the Tikka you have that ludicrous luggette and it's tiny surface area. I'd be happy to shiitcan that thing.

Yeah, that makes sense... Thanks!

So, basically, you are saying you know more than mechanical engineers employed by Sako?

Listen to NSAQAM , he know his stuff. The Sako Engineers built it the cheapest way to save money and make it shoot halve way accurate.

As my British friend Trevor says, "Hang about!" You are saying that Sako mechanical engineers would purposely design a rifle with a built in flaw? Sako? How do you explain my other Tikka rifles that shoot 1/2 MOA? My original question was how to use bedding compound to improve accuracy of a wood stocked Tikka...

I don't know of another rifle with any less recoil lug surface area than the Tikka T3. None even close. It is pitifully small and your rifle clearly shows this as you stated that the slot in the action has worn oversize.

Facts are facts and I proposed a solution which would completely solve your problem. Do with it as you will.

I'd bet that the surface area where the luggette engages the action is not more than a few square millimeters. If it's 10 I'd be surprised.

OK, I will admit that the contact surface is small... You are correct about that. However, the fact still remains that most Tikka rifles are very accurate, so the engineering principle is sound. My wood stocked .338 Fed is a victim of assembly line production methods, as are many Rem 700 and Win 70 that I have owned.

I'm not sure bedding compound (epoxy) will long handle the recoil of a 338 Federal since it too will have such a limited surface area with which to spread the load.
Bedding compound in the stock should do fine as there is much more surface area there.
Another option would be for a good welder to TIG the entire slot and then have a 'smith mill a new slot to the correct size to properly engage that luggette.

do you have a lathe

Are you asking me or IAE?

I do have a lathe.

I thought of an easier solution.
If the slot in the action is merely milled oversize and not battered or worn, and if the 90 degree angles are still true you could likely have a new luggette milled to precisely fit that slot and inlet your stock to accept this new, thicker luggette.
This would be basic machine work and would be inexpensive.
You'd still have that tiny surface area but you've indicated that you're fine with that.

Whether it makes sense or not, the Tikka lug works, and they shoot. Nsaqam, you just got a bad tikka which has left a chip on your shoulder.

No question you are correct on my Tikka and on the chip, I fully admit that.

But there is also no question that no other riflemaker has seen fit to saddle their high power centerfires with such a tiny surface area for the component which is the primary (only) part which resists the forces of recoil when a rifle is fired.
I find that telling.
A washer type lug like that on the 700 and several other rifles would provide much more surface area at very little if any additional cost. It would have the added benefit of allowing much easier stock swaps as well.
I also have reservations about the long term reliability of the Tikka luggette. Given the tiny surface area how is that slot going to look 50 years and 2000 rounds down the road?

I've given the OP three possible solutions, from most expensive to least.
I've also provided my opinion on why I don't believe bedding compound will work long term.
He will do with that as he pleases and will only have invested the time it took him to read them.

You are probably correct about the epoxy in the receiver slot. I will look into another tighter fitting recoil lug...

There is no problem with epoxy molding to the recoil slot. You would slide the lug all the way forward before gluing it on with super glue. Like on any gun, the epoxy molds to the voids in the action regardless. Technically, you don't even have to pop the lug off after bedding. It won't move, because it will be surrounded by the epoxy. I would not tape the front of the lug like on a remington. You don't want a gap there.

Using something solid like marine-tex or devcon would be the best bet.

I do not own and have never seen a Tikka out of it's stock. Might someone post a photo or two of the issue?

Yes, that makes perfect sense. As long as the lug is touching the front surface of the receiver lug slot, the bedding job in the stock slot would hold it in place. That makes me wonder why I couldn't permantly epoxy the lug into the stock slot. You think that is viable?

That is absolutely viable IF the slot isn't already battered and IF the angle at the front is still a sharp 90 degrees.
If it's battered already it may be that your action screws will be touching the back of their holes and that is not conducive to good accuracy.

I wish I could but I sent my T3 down the road long ago.

Maybe DC or IAE will post a pic.

You need to glue it to the receiver first, so the alignment is right though.

That's what I did. I'll post a pic if I can find it.

Paul

Here it is. Bedded in Devcon titanium. Probably won't do that again. As to accuracy? Can't say anything definitive. It didn't seem to hurt any. 7mm-08.

Paul, do you have any pics of the luggette or the slot it engages in the action?

I think they would be informative.

No, and I'm temporarily away from home so I can't look at it or take a pic.

I'm not sure what it meant by a slot. My recollection, which could be wrong, it that the round lug is integral with the receiver. This an M595, not the newer T-3.

Paul

That is a nice bedding job...

Yes, everything is still sharp and not battered.

Well there you go.

It is not at all like the T3 then which has no lug integral to the action, merely a small slot which engages a recoil luggette embedded in the stock.
Thank you for your response Paul.

IAE pilot: I would glue the lug to the action, then bed. I would not use tape below or in front of the lug either. After pulling it all apart, the lug will fit snugly into its newly bedded slot in the stock regardless. It does not need to be permanent.

That is very good.
Now you'll have to determine if the slot in the action is milled oversize towards the front of the action or the rear.
If it's to the rear you'll be good to go with the method proposed by DC as all the bedding compound between the luggette and the action will be behind the luggette with the luggette bearing only on the steel at the front of the slot.
If however the slot is milled oversize to the front you'll either have to bed the luggette a bit further forward in the stock recess so that it engages the front of the action slot and you have no contact between your action screws and the stock, or have a thicker lug machined to fit your oversized slot precisely.
Hope this helps a little.
Be happy to clarify any questions you may have.

Ok, thanks... This makes perfect sense. It is exactly what I will do.

Good luck Sir.