Remington is offering a new version of the 700 rifle, the NRA American Hunter rifle. This rifle has an aluminum bedding block. In your experience has this bedding block been instrumental in retuning the rifle to zero after disassembling or it does not matter and is no better than any other bedding system. Also does it really improve accuracy and overall keeping its zero if not disassembled at all.

I know there is another thread about takedown rifle, but the aluminum bedding block is intriguing even though it’s not a new concept.

Thanks for your answer.

To get the best/most consistent accuracy from any rifle, it needs to be properly glass bedded. The aluminum bedding block in the stock is no exception to that fact.

I have always leaned toward aluminum bedding blocked stocks since acquiring my first TC Icon many years ago. The icon experience for me was that good. For me, I think a big reason for alum block or pillar bedding is to provide a consistent material to torque action screws against for repeatable reassembly stock pressure. Free floating the barrel is another, but too many folks still skim coat blocks for increased accuracy to think bedding blocks alone deliver optimum accuracy. Just my rationale, I do not claim to know thit from thynola in the grand scheme of bedding techniques.

Bedding blocks are great, as long as there machined flat and square to the action. Some are not, there fore a skim glass bed works, if done right.
But to answer your question of RTZ, IME, they do. I have several HS Precision stocks that do exactly that. I also bought a composite stock from Stockys I`ve my 7RM in. It doese the same.

That's also been my experience: If the bedding block is straight and square.

Recently dropped the barreled action of my Remington 700 .204 into a Stocky's bedding-block stock. The rifle was already very accurate in an epoxy-bedded factory stock, but shot noticeably better after simply bolting it into the new stock.

I think it's just a Bell and Carlson stock. I've had them all skim bedded

The success of aluminum bedding blocks are also dependent on the trueness of the receiver bottom where it mates to the block. V-blocks mitigated that problem to a degree. Otherwise a skim glass is your easy solution.

Any manufactured item has tolerances. The only way to make sure your action fits your stock is to bed it. Doesn't make any difference if the stock is wood, fiberglass, aluminum or steel.
Even factory glass bedded stocks are bedded to a dummy action, not your action. If there is any question that the fit may be affecting accuracy, I bed them all.

I only have (6) data points:


Bell and Carlson round block Aluminum on Remington or Savage round bottom receivers shoot poorly for me in 7mmSTW and 280AI.

Drop in Whidden V blocks worked poorly for me in 300WM and 280AI



I built a homemade flat bottom Aluminum block for a 6.5-06 Mauser, and it shoots better than me.



I built a homemade drop in 20 degree V block for a 250 Sav on Sav action, it shoots better than me.

I talked to Tom Manners not long if they came out with their mini chassis, asking him if they had seen any noticeable difference in accuracy between the mini chassis and an epoxy and pillar bedding job. He told me it was very minimal, generally less than .1 MOA using the same barreled action in each stock.

One of the best shooting rigs I’ve ever had was in an MPA aluminum chassis. It was not epoxy bedded and I shot some phenomenal (for me) groups with it. One that comes to mind was five shots in about 3” at 700 yards with a Criterion barrel chambered in 22-250 launching 75gr Amaxes at 3200. Can’t imagine that bedding would have improved on that group.

Edited to add: Some bedding blocks and chassis are better than others. I know from experience that the MPA chassis and Manners mini chassis showed more repeatable return to zero and better precision after removing and replacing barreled actions than Bell and Carlson and HS Precision stocks did for me. Long Rifles Inc used to advertise their truing procedure for aluminum bedding blocks.

John

My experience too--exclusively B&C stocks. Skim coat the top of the blocks, free float and bed chamber area and tang.

I have a Mt. Eagle rifle and it works well as a take down. It shoots so well I have not skim bedded it. Those that do do you remove any metal on the block?

I have heard of some short range target shooters using "Space Gun" all aluminum stocks say they thought it increased vibration over wood and to a less extent over fiber glass. I couldn't tell an 0.1" difference in accuracy if I had too.

Very interesting as I always figured that if the bedding is stress free and the recoil lug makes good contact that there wouldn't be any difference. Did you check the first stock for stress free bedding? Was there any other change made, such as a pressure point on the barrel?

I haven't run an aluminum bedding block enough to know much about them. Properly bedded rifles have always returned to the same point of impact for me after removing/replacing the barreled action. By properly bedded I mean stress free, regardless if they had pillars or not.

Thats not the norm. An aluminum bedding block will never be absolutely perfect. Thats why most will skim bed the action to the aluminum bedding block. You got damn lucky. Im thinking whoever glass bedded the first stock fu cked it up by inducing stress to the receiver. A properly glass bedded stock would have generally out shot a straight up aluminum bedding block stock, that was not skim bedded to that receiver.

Good post dave. Ive had the same exact experience. Its just a matter of mechanics.

Clark I have personal experience n of 3. A PSS, a VSSF (both HS Precision), and one of the grand daddies of the chassis rifles made by Zelenak in the late 80's early 90's. All three are/were mated to short action Remington's; two SA's and one 40x. Only the Zelenak shot wurf a flip. It is a V-block and is ugly as sin. If I had to devine a trend in your experience, I'd say that you should make your own blocks and not buy other people's!

Reading through the different experiences, my theory (which might have relevance for the OP) is that a factory 700 action is a crap shoot. Sometimes they work in a block and sometimes they won't. My friend at the USMC PWS took on the mission of extending time between rebeds of the M40 (A1's at the time), and played with bedding blocks. Part of his problem was that the receiver bottoms weren't always true (he thought they sometimes were warped during the heat treat). The most perfectly milled bedding block won't mate up if your receiver is not straight. Hence the positive experiences of the folk using custom Rem 700 clones (just my theory).

The rifle that leaps to mind in the Bedding block done right is the AI AW. I don't think there's much argument that Malcolm Cooper got it right with his chassis based stock 30+ years ago (same era my 2112 friend was chasing his tail). Closer to the core question, he even produced rifles with blocks mounted in a laminated wood stock for the 300M and Palma crowd in England.

Now even the USMC is going the way of a chassis rifle with the Mark 13 Mod 7 rifle and I can only guess that Remington or Crane improved the QC of those M700 receivers for that contract.

Someone asked about prepping the blocks for bedding. I didn't do mine because I thought I could get more money for them unmessed with. But friends that had success took a grinder (and drill) to the block to give the bedding compound something to bite onto.

To the OP, if RTZ is part of your purpose...make sure you buy a torque wrench.

I made 1018 Steel bedding blocks so Mauser barrelled actions could drop in and play musical chairs with bedded stocks.
The idea was 3 points of contact for rifling torque reaction; the two bottom sides of the recoil lug and the rear pillar
The idea for the rear recoil thrust was a steel face against the lower part of the recoil lug.

Mausers made over a span of 100 years keep getting worse.
The bottom of some Mauser recoil lugs look cast, and are too rough. They need to be flat. I can mill a flat spot on the bottom of the recoil lug.

Dave284, etc.

I did NOT say that any action can be dropped into any "beddding block" stock and shoot well. But my experience is that with better bedding-block stocks is they often work great with a dropped-in barreled action.

Epoxy-bedding walnut stocks can help them shoot very well, but have often seen them vary in accuracy over time, due to the wood "squirming" over time due to atmospheric conditions. Which is why many people install pillars--which in my experience also do not help walnut stocks as consistently as synthetic stocks. The .204 I mentioned had been epoxy-bedded without pillars, and passed all the usual tests for stress-free bedding.

Another factor, of course, is the quality of the bedding block. Some are smaller pieces of aluminum or stainless steel rather randomly fitted into either a wood or synthetic stock of varying quality. Others are complete bedding systems for the action. Naturally the fit will vary with the system, and to a certain extent the action.

The most interesting experience I've had with what might be termed a "bedding block" has been with Charlie Sisk's STAR (Sisk Tactical Adaptable Rifle) stocks, where the entire action area and forend is milled of aluminum. (The buttstock is a separate, widely adjustable assembly.)

The "bedding" is milled into the aluminum block, and Charlie said he'd experimented with epoxy-bedding various actions into the stock, which never made any measurable difference in accuracy. I got one of the original run of the short-action stocks, and have since bolted a number of different barreled actions into it, including several 700s, a Bergara, and one of the few actions Charlie put together when he developed the stock. ALL have shot great without ever "bedding" the stock, so my experience matches Charlie's.

In a way, the Stocky's LRC synthetic/bedding block stock is a variation on the Sisk aluminum stock. The action-length bedding block is actually molded into the very stiff synthetic inside a multi-part tool ("mold"),l that itself is inside a machine about 2/3 the size of a school bus--with the machine itself water-cooled through interior ports to reduce warping of the stock as much as possible. The block itself semi-floats within the synthetic stock.

I dropped the .204 barreled action into it because I already knew it was pretty accurate, especially for a sporter-weight stainless barrel. Its best load, using 35-grain Bergers, averaged right around 1/2" for five shots at 100 yards. The LRC stock tightened up the groups even more.

Stocky's also offers a lightweight layup stock with a SYNTHETIC version of the aluminum block, which just may work a little better, due to the synthetic being able to flex a little to fit an individual action. I am in the process of testing one of those now, but won't have sufficient results for reporting for at least a month.

A bedding block is still a foundation.
Consider it a mass produced surface to grind under pressure to your action which is a mass produced surface.

Keep smiling, John. And keep using those aluminum bedded synthetic stocks. Allow me to take the heat off. Let them chase me.

It's easier, faster and cheaper to make an aluminum bedded, synthetic stocked rifle shoot.

I know that you "did NOT say that any action can be dropped into any "beddding block" stock and shoot well." The rifle shooting " as well " as the in the bedded wood stock would not have surprised me though. It shooting better is what surprised me. I have only had two stocks with a bedding block. One is an H.S. and the other is a B&C from a Rem Mtn Rifle. Neither has had any bedding work done.

I put a very accurate .243 into the H.S. for a while and it shot as well as it had in the factory wood but it is a Varmint stock while the .243 is a sporter barrel. The action fit very good and showed no signs of stress. I did not care for how it looked though and eventually took it off of that stock.

The Mtn Rifle stock has had three different actions in it and all three have fit very well = no signs of stress. The problem with that stock is the thickness of the grip and forearm make it feel like a club to me. My .223 and .243 have both shot just as well in it as they did in other stocks.

I really should try selling the HS and either sell or take a rasp to the B&C. I am a bit scared about cutting through the shell if I should decide to cut down the B&C. I will eventually probably end up with both in a McM Mtn Rifle stock as that is my favorite for deer hunting and a walking varmint rifle.

Don’t start cutting too much on a laid up fiberglass stock. I’ve done some fitting and minor cutting on those. Gotta be careful.

DF

Here's another reason I don't think it is ALWAYS necessary to skim-bed bedding blocks. This is the very first 5-shot group I fired at 100 yards from a slightly used Ruger American Predator, purchased off the Campfire Classifieds. The only modification I made on the rifle was to take the trigger apart and snip a coil off the spring, reducing the pull to a pretty crisp 2.5 pounds. The barrel was adequately free-floated, since the stock was one of the stiffer models brought out 2-3 years after the first RARs.

Thanks to plenty of experience with the 6.5 Creedmoor, I loaded 140-grain Berger VLDs with 41.5 grains of H4350. That's a 5-shot group, not 3-shot, which measured .33 inch.

RAR's have a pair of V-blocks inserted the stock, at either end of the receiver. Dunno if the rifle would have shot better if I'd skim-bedded them, but I doubt if I could.

Have owned and fooled with several other RARs in chamberings from .223 to .308, and while none has shot quite like this, I also can't remember one that did not groups three shots into 1/2" consistently with more than one load--often with factory ammo.

I would LOVE to have an aluminum block or pillar'd (including McMillan) rifle shoot without bedding. Really. I've tried every one in the hope "this is the one!" They all needed, and shot better after, bedding.

The way that one is engineered, I don't see how skim bedding would add anything.

Looks good, shoots good...

DF

DF,

On the other hand, I would be willing to bet that quite a few of the folks who believe it's always necessary to skim-bed bedding blocks have rarely (if ever) fired a Ruger American.

Probably not. Or studied how it's bedded. It's a real neat system, doesn't need any "bubba smithing" to improve it. In fact, it doesn't need anything but some good loads and half decent trigger puller.

DF

The V block type would not benefit much if any with bedding. The more standard round or flat type can benefit from skim bedding, in my limited experience.

Yes, it can--emphasis on CAN.

But as with many aspects of rifle shooting, I prefer to shoot the rifle first to see how it groups/fouls/etc. before making modifications. This started with reading Jim Carmichael many years ago.

My job involves testing a lot of different rifles, and for the past few many new variations on the basic concept called "bedding block" have appeared, many in very accurate European hunting rifles designed to compete (at least to a certain extent) with the more affordable American-made rifles that appeared during the period. Most of these rifles with non-conventional bedding blocks/systems have shot very well right out of the box, often producing the half-inch groups that seem to be almost every hunter's desire these days.

From these results I am beginning to suspect that the traditional bedding-block back-up to the standard recoil lug at the front of the action may not be the most consistently accurate way of doing things (which if I had been paying attention more during the previous years, might have been true all along). Certainly most of the techniques involved in "accurizing" bolt-action rifles evolved due to the conventional recoil-lug system, including what many people still call "glass bedding," despite the fact that many epoxies used for bedding do not contain fiberglass anymore. In fact, much of the aftermarket stuff designed to accurize rifles, such as over-sized recoil lugs for Remington-type bolt actions, is meant to overcome flaws in the system.

Some of this was solved, of course, when benchrest gunsmiths started epoxying actions inside the stock, which may or may not be another indicator.

In 1977 I built a full-length v-block system for my 40X. This block was thick enough that it replaced most of the wood in the factory 40xb-BR stock. It worked well enough and worked the same with or without some epoxy over it. The thing was, it fit the action VERY well. I hasten to add, the rifle really started performing at top levels after I glued it into a Brown Precision stock so the block was kind of time wasted.
Twenty years later, I built another block for a Model 70 prone rifle. This block was installed in a McMillan stock and was done as a prototype for a couple I was making for customers. This block is skim bedded over it so the aluminum is really just a filler. If the block is a real good fit to the receiver, I think it will work as well as most bedding but it is unlikely to produce BR level accuracy. GD

For those unfamiliar with the RAR bedding blocks, here's a photo:

What pizzies me off is that now there are many $3-800 dollar rifles that shoot as well or even better than several $1-5,000 dollar rifles I have. Improvements in technology and production have come a long way. Better barrels and bedding are the key ingredient I think.

Yep, that's my experience.

The early experience of many "mature" shooters (and I include myself in that group) was with a pretty similar group of rifles. The bedding of a Remington 700 does't differ all that much from a Winchester Model 70, despite the shape of the actions. Both have the front action screw behind the recoil lug. Many recent bolt-actions use very different "lug" and bedding systems.

And Colonel Whelen thought a rifle that grouped into one inch was truly exceptional, although this is based on ten shot groups so still may be true.

How can my box stock tupperware $900 Kimber 280AI 84L shoot as well but weigh less than my custom handbuilt ($2K in parts before scope) Rem 700s and M70s with premium barrels, stocks, triggers, etc plus 80 hours of my shop time?

If this were a poker game, I would suspect cheating.


Look, it still has the price tag on it.

The rifles that have me rethinking receiver/stock bedding are the Tikkas...at least in a hunting rifle accuracy sense. I mean how in the hell does that round nub of the 595 constitute a recoil lug?.. or in the case of the T-3 that little piece of steel embedded in the stock and fitting up into the slot in the receiver?
How come no one’s thought to sandwich a “real” lug between the receiver and barrel shoulder?

I'd call it the Minnie Pearl rifle.

I think stiffer receivers are what really makes the difference

Why would that upset you? Technology has improved firearms production and accuracy. I want a $300 rifle that shoots bugholes! It's better barrels, better triggers, better stock material, better bedding, better scopes, better bullets, better powders, better primers, and better brass. Give that to a talented shot and you've got magic.

Even the so called "cheap rifles" will out shoot most of the rifles of yesteryear. . They are cheaper and faster to build. Some guys want the beauty of a wooden stocked rifle paired with accuracy. To get that will cost big money. In the end though, most people care more about small groups from a low cost rifle than good looks. By God, she's ugly, but the woman rifle can cook!

Man will continue to chase bugholes, but it took more work when the primary stock material was wood. As an action cradle, wood is finicky. If Townsend Whelen was around today, he would be packing a synthetically stocked, aluminum bedded rifle.

Yes, he generally shot 10-round groups--but it was also unusual to find a rifle that would put them all into an inch, or close to it, when he started writing over a century ago. Improvements have been continuous since then, including bullets, powders, actions, barrels and bedding. Oh, and scopes!

I usually use 10-shot groups when testing prairie dog rifles, but not so much to determine accuracy but see how they react as the barrel heats up--which they always do on a big dog town. It's common for many of today's factory rifles to put 10 in 3/4" inch or under, right out of the box, even with factory ammo--and sometimes even less.

Thank you all for the answers to my questions. But I have a few more.

1-The Ruger Scout rifle has aluminum pillars that bed the two (2) action screws in order to improve accuracy. Do any of you have experience taking the rifle apart and when put back together does it return to field rifle zero? By that I mean coming within an inch or so from the original point of aim.

2-The Steyr Mannlicher rifle of the early 20th century could be purchased in a takedown model. This was done by pushing a pin in the stock and then lifting the barrel with the action to shorten the overall length. The stock had a steel block at the wrist that the action mated to. Do you think this system equal or superior to taking down a rifle with either bedding pillars or an aluminum block, in terms of returning to zero?

In other words repeatability of accuracy after repeated takedown and reassembly.

Thanks again.

I think it comes down to the individual rifle as far as repeatability, many systems will work if done properly. Have not tried the Ruger or the Styr so no help there.

I’ve acquired an Icon as well. Easily the best shooting rifle I’ve ever owned or been a witness to. I’m disappointed when it shoots a 5 shot group larger than 3/8ths at 100yards. (It’s skim bedded)

I have a 7mm/08 I had in a Bell and Carlson stock with an aluminum bedding block. Accuracy improved after I skim bedded it.
I found a take off LVSF stock for it, bedded it, and moved it over to it and have hunted with it in that stock for about 6 years.
I recently picked up a Magpul bottom metal and aics magazine for it, and decided to inlet the original stock for it. When I finally had it done, cleaned up and torqued down, I took it to the range to check zero. First three rounds, in he black, at 200. After years in another stock.

So in my opinion, skim bed the aluminum bedding block.

I've never used a rifle with one of those in it. But, I can't see how a bit of bedding would hurt it. Manufacturer's can't make stock that fit every barreled action they make perfectly why would you think any better could be done with a different type bedding surface? I have a 700 that came in a plastic stock. I think the plastic was poured around the barreled action it fit so tight. Didn't shoot at all so I cut out everything till I could drop the barrel action in and remove it easily then bedded the thing Got done and it shot great. It seem's to me that each barreled action is not exactly the same but rather within tolerances which would mean to me, most are different. Think of what we do to get a fired case to fit out chamber rather than the SAMMI chamber. The difference is chamber's are cut to tolerances. I suspect aluminum bedding blocks and plastic stocksare too.

For those who missed my post on the Ruger American bedding blocks, and how a 6.5 Creedmoor shot without any "skim" bedding, here's another example--but of a Franchi Momentum, also a 6.5 Creedmoor, with Hornady factory ammo at 300 (not 100) yards. There was a slight left-hand breeze, the reason the 4-shot group is a little right of the aiming point.



And here's a look at the "bedding blocks," which have some resemblance to those of the Ruger posted earlier--except the rear "block" isn't a V, but flat support for the tang--and front V fits into slots on the underside of the receiver.The Franchi was not skim-bedded either--and both rifles use full-diameter, 3-lug bolts.



Both rifles (and some others with similar bedding blocks I've tested in recent years) are why I am beginning to suspect the typical standard recoil-lug system may not be the best for accuracy--especially with a larger bedding block, right out of the box.

The Franchi, by the way, is yet another of those inexpensive factory rifles that shoot extremely well. Have tested more than one of them as well.

The Franchi does shoot! Coincidentally, my first stab at the Creedmoor. What type of ammo John? Mine doesn’t shoot quite that well. I have no intention of loading for this one either.

Hornady 143 ELD-X Precision Hunter--which worked great on a pair of big-bodied mule deer bucks taken by me and my hunting partner in New Mexico.

As an addendum to my posts with photos of "new age" bedding blocks, I suspect the reason some (not all) bedding blocks for conventional bolt actions like the Remington 700 and Winchester 70 is the blocks have LOTS of contact with the action. And of course actions vary in dimensions slightly.

The trend I have seen with newer actions is far smaller bedding blocks, which thus have less contact with the action--which means epoxy-bedding will also have less effect. And as somebody already mentioned, the actions themselves are often far stiffer.

Offhand I can't remember how many newer rifles use this type of smaller "bedding block" (which may not even look like what many define as a bedding block), but would guess the total would be at least 10, both American and European. Have yet to be disappointed in the accuracy of any.

Of course, this often also involves better factory barrels, often hammer-forged.