Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer post on bedding

I might add that action screws that protrude from the recoil lug on the actions mentioned, should bottom out on the bedding. This is to help prevent the action from deflecting when torqued, as John mentioned. It’s a good idea to bed an inch of barrel beyond this type of action.

Actions with actions screws behind the recoil lug should have clearance under the recoil lug. Failure to have clearance can cause the recoil lug to hang up on the bedding and deflect the action when torqued excessively. This can happen just as easily as the latter.

A dial indicator is a good tool to diagnose bedding problems on free floated barrels. Indicate on the fore stock while referencing from the barrel. Tighten and loosen action screws and observe. I am not satisfied with the bedding if more than 2 mil of deflection is observed on the dial indicator.

All excellent advice--but another reason for having some clearance under recoil lug is just in case some little particle down in the lug recess interferes with the front of the action "seating" all the way. This may seem nit-picky, but when traveling on hunts I've been taking the stocks off and using a take-down case for many years, which is a hell of lot handier than the typical full-length case, especially in Super Cubs and the smaller vehicles often used in Europe. It's easier to put the stock back on correctly with recoil-lug clearance.

Have actually run into quite a few custom rifles where the recoil lug bottomed out on the bedding.

I can't disagree with any of this. GD

How much clearance is appropriate "under the lug?" Can there be too much of a good thing?

Especially interested in the Ruger MKII.

Just found this thread after I plopped a Howa Mini into some Devcon on a B&C sporter stock. I have always bedded Howa and Sako with enough goop to capture the lug and a skim coat for where the action rests in the stock Can’t say that I’ve ever done any actual testing to see if there’s a difference.

I haven’t fired this action yet. I did my usual bed job with NO barrel pad today. I’ll let it harden up and shoot it this weekend and we will see what happens with adding a pad at the shank. . More for my own personal edification than anything.

My other Mini sits in an Unbedded McMillan and shoots well enough I really don’t want to touch it.....but the Kung Flu has me spending lots of time looking for something to do. The shrooms are just barely coming up here, same for the ramps.

One of the other factors that can make some difference is whether the action/barrel threads on factory rifles fit very well. If they do, then great. If they don't (which isn't unknown) then various barrel-bedding methods can help--including forend tip-pressure. But barrels correctly and firmly fitted will be far more tolerant.

I have bedded several wood stocks, not really hard to figure out how. Synthetic stocks, not so sure. No real area to bed? Hollow and just a few pressure points. Only put bedding compound where there is contact? Or slop it in and fill. Guessing that would add some weight.

Bedding synthetic stocks depends a LOT on the particular synthetic. Some of the cheaper factory stocks are just about impossible. Some of the better after-market synthetics will result in better accuracy when the barreled action's just "dropped in."

Looked at bedding a Winchester featherweight synthetic stock, can't really see how. A Tikka T3X is a bit more easy to see.

What is the specific problem?

Nothing but a few ribs, and hollow sections. There is an area for the recoil lug but very small. This a problem child rifle, wife's first deer rifle. A Model 70 XTR from the mid 70's originally in 243 win. Never shot worth a bleep. Got a Teslong bore scope and now can see why. Bought a take off Winchester 308 barrel and had it put on. Now shoots about MOA for 3 shots. Featherlite in cursive, 22" light barrel. Stock is a cheap one from CDNN, guessing a very late stock from the original factory. I can live with it, but guessing it could do better. It's also a long action.. Other than a dollop here or there I can't see anyway to actually bed it, without just sloping compound in.

One of the radical "solutions" I've found sometimes works is a wood stock. Often they're stiffer, and far easier to bed, than many of today's factory injection-molded stocks.

Not to derail the thread but while we are on the topic of bedding, is Melvin one of the only ones who recommends/employs full length bedding on his rifles? Is there anything else magic that he does or is it just that his proprietary stocks are so stiff as constructed? I've tried it on a McMillan stock for my 264 Westerner and a ?McMillan?Brown on a 600 .308. The jury is still out on both. Just curious... thanks!

I do have the original wood stock, gloss finish, white line spacers and all. That one I can bed.. Might give it a try. Wife has a new rifle, (actually several years old) so this one is my "project rifle"

I’ve been wondering about bedding the of Mausers with their, for want of a better word “pillar” built into the front of the bottom metal, there is a certain amount of clamping before the pillar seems to bottom out on the lug, although I’ve seen some older Mausers that when fully tightened didn’t grip the stock tightly, when glass bedding, one of the goals is to make it as stress free as possible, ie no bending or torsion of the action, what’s the best way to achieve this but still have enough clamping force before the pillar and lug come in contact? I was thinking of maybe using shim washers or even just tape on the bottom of the lug, also what would be an appropriate amount of clearance between pillar and lug before tightening? it seems to me you might get a better result by removing the pillar part of the bottom metal and installing an actual pillar in the stock,, thoughts?

I not overly enthused by epoxying pillars in a wood stock and then glass bedding. At least not what is deemed the acceptable standard these days.( bolting pillars to the action and placing the assembly in the epoxy, results in hard contact with the pillars)

Because of the coefficient of expansion differences between epoxy and whatever pillar material (stainless ,aluminum )you are going to use, it seems counterintuitive to have them both come into play for action bedding. ( supporting this theory, McMillan recommends pillars should be recessed below the action line ) . This makes sense because why would you go through all the trouble of making a skin tight bed for your action only to let 2 pillars do all of the supporting?

That being said John, my opinion is that you should glass bed in a fashion that there is clearance between the bottom metal pillar and the recoil lug, when torqued up.

The original reason to pillar bed was to prevent cracking a wooden stock from high recoil. If you're bedding a wood stock for accuracy with something like a .243 or even a .270 Win. just bed the damn thing like MD and some others suggest. It will work. It will make your Box Store wood stock rifle shoot as accurately as physically possible.

As for that pressure point out near the end of the forend, some thin barrel sporters require a little upward pressure at the end of the forend. But not an inch long area. Just cut a piece of old credit card about a quarter inch or eigth inch wide. You need pin point pressure.. The reason for the credit card (or Debit, LOL) is so you can move it back and forth until you find that sweet spot. Then mark the stock where the card is giving the most accuracy, or tightest groups and put some epoxy right there. When it cures torque your barreled action in right there.

I had a Remington 788 in .223 Remington that was a solid 1/2 MOA rifle right out of the box. I loved it. Then I got around a few amateur bench rest so called gu rus that convenced me that if it was half minute as was, I should bed it. So I had a friend glass bed it for me. When he finished I was so proud of it. I just knew it was a one hole grouper. Then I took it to the range and shot it with my sweet load. Damn I was sick to my stomach. It opened the groups up to nearly 2". From 1/2" to 2"? Damn! I was pissed. Then I got to reading some bench rest papers by Warren Page. He stated that many thin barreled rifles require a small pressure point out near the end of the forend. He discribed the procedure and I commenced to finding an old card and doing as discribed here. i had to move it about 1/16" back and fourth until I found the sweet spot but when I finished I had it back better than it wa:s before he bedded it. This is NOT rocket surgery. But you gotta pay attention to the results of everything you do.

This all reminds me of another old saying: You know what you do with a half minute rifle? Don't F with it!

While the pressure under the forearm seemed to fix the issue, the sudden change of your most accurate load opening up to 5" implies something changed to cause it if I'm reading your post correctly. Perhaps an action screw loosened, or maybe something was binding in the stock in either the barrel channel or action area that was alleviated by your adding that pressure strip. I'd be inclined to remove that front strip and check the action screws or other potential issues and see if that fixes the problem.

Ihave one of the old stevens savage in 2506 it is piller bedded and it shoots so good in scared to bed it . I think the old plastic stocks where a little stiffer back then