I'm in the process of skim bedding my 700VS. While getting ready to tape the recoil lug, which I've always struggled with trimming the area of the barrel junction, I came across a bright idea (a semi-annual event). I took an old recoil lug I had laying around and put two layers of tape on it. Trimmed the outside oversize, and cut the hole. Took a take off barrel I had handy, slipped the recoil lug over the barrel. Traced the barrel O.D. on the tape, removed lug from barrel and trimmed tape around tracing. Slapped the tape on the lug thats getting bedded, and dang, that was too easy. Bet your all laughing, wondering why I didn't figure that one out sooner!!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

That is a good idea! I guess I'll keep that old barrel and recoil lug I have laying around...............

Why would you even tape the lug, anywhere other than the bottom?
art

.........or, the bottom and the sides?

Ted
I have a tight one every once in a while with just the bottom taped, but cannot see a need to do more... they always come out.
art

Art, thats the way I was taught. What would be the benefit of having the lug tight on all sides?

The gun shoots nice little 4 & 1 groups, 4 shots will be in the low .3's into a high .2, a fifth shot opens the group to a low .4". It's not always the last shot in a group, and I don't see the break going in the direction of the shot. I have shot a .335" group with it, I'm looking for more constant groups out of it. Want to eliminate it down to the loose nut behind the trigger. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

AJ
I doubt there is much difference, but I was taught the lug was the critical part of bedding, anything allowing movement in any direction was a bad thing. Relief at the bottom is required because it will torque the receiver if it bottoms out.

No other direction will cause stress problems. I have rebedded a number of rifles that had relief on more than the lug bottom and seen big improvements in consistency. Did the tight lug make a difference? Anybody's guess and I suspected other issues with most of them, but I always bed them tight...
art

I always kinda liked 'em tight too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />!

AJ, you're looking for 'more consistant groups' out of a rifle that shoots like that? Heck, I'd have the rifle bronzed and quit.

Thanks for the info Art. My thinking was that with the first 1 1/2" of barrel also bedded, being that it's a taper would prevent the action from moving foward. I'll shoot her and see what I get. Won't take much to whip up another batch of bedding compound.



Talus, if I can get her to stay in the high .3's I'd clean up in the money in a local benchrest match in factory class. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Interesting.............John Ricks told me to make sure the lug bears only at the rear, so that is the way I do it. I tape the bottom, sides, and front.......

Blain, any competent hunting rifle gunsmith I know beds a rifle in the manner you describe.

Chuck

AJ
Not just forward, but any movement is a bad thing in my view of things.
art

Chuck
Is your insinuation that you know incompetent smiths that bed them tight? Or are you trying to correlate a tight bed with incompetence?
art

Recoil lug bedding has always been open to some debate and methodology varies with the action type.
It was usually common practice by BR oriented gunsmiths to bed Remingtons so that they were clear at the front, sides and bottom. Later, some trued the sides of the lug and bedded the sides to prevent a shift in the bedding from torque. This applied mostly to rifles in heavier calibers fired from a tight sling position. The round receivers would twist in the bedding. As far as the front is concerned, the reason for clearance here is primarily to ease assembly and disassembly as well as to allow the receiver to remain in a stress free attitude for each shot. Froma hunting rifle standpoint it probably doesn't make a lot of difference.
For what it may be worth I usually do the following depending on the action in question;
Remington- Clear on the front, sides, and bottom.
Win M70- Likewise.
Ruger- Clear on the front.
Mauser- clear on the front.
Sako- clear on the front
Savage- Clear front, sides and bottom.
The only one where I usually bed any portion of the barrel is the Sako.
I don't think Chuck meant to intimate that gunsmiths who bedded tight were incompetent. Only that the competent ones with whom he was aquainted bedded them with clearance.GD

I guess I should have said it earlier, all the rifles John has built me are 700s. I don't know how he does it on other actions....................

I bed mine with no tape anywhere. I cannot see the logic of engineering in slop.

I also don't worry about stuff getting in there, because I don't take my rifles apart unless it is absolutley necessary.

My theory is, that especially on a round bottomed receiver, and given that the screw holes should be opened to allow the screws to float inside, there is nothing preventing the action from canting slightly. If that were to happen, the lug could theoretically contact only one side of the mortise, creating a far worse condition than if it were securely bedded all the way around. I much prefer to know that my lug is dead center, as are my screws, at all times.

I bed mine front, back, left side, right side, bottom, and anywhere else I can squeeze some goo in. I'll happily test my rifles against any other method for accuracy and repeatability after re-assembly.

Bingo.

Chuck

The recoil torque issue is interesting. I had/have had three rifles on 700s, bedded with only the aft portion of the recoil lug making contact, that recoiled in the 50-60 ft lb range: a 338 RUM, and 375 Ack, and a 416 Rem.

The 338 RUM and the 416 don't seem to have any accuracy issues, but I haven't shot them with a tight sling either.

What are the symptoms of recoil torque causing a problem? Both the above rifles will average in the .7 moa range with their best loads and hunting bullets. That may not enough accuracy enough for the torque issue to show up. The 338 RUM had something like 180 rounds through it when I traded it off. I still ahve the 416 and it has about 150. Maybe that's not enough shots fired for the recoil torque issue to show up?

Then again, the action screws are tightened to 65 in lbs........maybe the guns that had the torque issues were the ones that were very lightly torqued?

Anyone know?

Blaine, thats been my experience also. Both my .338ultra and .300 ultra have been bedded with clearance on the bottom, sides, and front of the lug. Both rifles are capable of 1/2 MOA, slightly better with the right bullet and load. The .338 has the original lug and is steel bedded without using pillars. The .300 was assembled with a holland lug, rests on stainless steel pillars, and steelbedding.

I didn't realize that bedding was one of those "less filling-taste great" issues. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Thanks everyone for the input! I'll shoot the VS tomorrow and see if I get more constant groups. Knowing it's not a "benchrest rifle", it may well be the best I'm going to get out of her.

(Dead Cat * Skinning knife) > 1



<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Scott
their way < my way <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
art

Blaine,
I don't know that the torque issue was an issue. I only know it was perceived as a problem by some fullbore rifle builders at the time. This "torqueing in the stock" theory is not one to which I necessarily subscribe and I only mentioned it as a point of interest. The flat bedding surface offered by the Model 70 was considered to be an asset by the fullbore guys and was, perhaps, one reason for the popularity of the M70 in this discipline.
I do recall instances where clearing the sides and bottom of a Remington lug eliminated problems with flyers FWIW. GD.