Varmint Hunters Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a question about the preferred method of bedding Rem actions. This question doesn't address pillar bedding, the exact method of bedding the recoil lug or the possibility of bedding under the barrel.

I've seen where some folks bed the action for the full length of the action and some bed it only under the receiver ring and tang.

Is there any evidence that one method is better than the other ?

The single shot 40X's with solid bottom wood stocks have quite a bit more bedding surface than the 700's with magazine well but I've seen 40X's that were bedded only under the receiver ring and tang-----by Rem.

I've also seen the kevlar 40X stocks with a magazine well that were bedded the full length of the action-----also by Rem.

Just wonder if others have experiences to indicate the best method.

Thanks.

A. Weldy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,725 Posts
Less is more, methinks...

I have a question about the preferred method of bedding Rem actions. This question doesn't address pillar bedding, the exact method of bedding the recoil lug or the possibility of bedding under the barrel.

I've seen where some folks bed the action for the full length of the action and some bed it only under the receiver ring and tang.

Is there any evidence that one method is better than the other ?

The single shot 40X's with solid bottom wood stocks have quite a bit more bedding surface than the 700's with magazine well but I've seen 40X's that were bedded only under the receiver ring and tang-----by Rem.

I've also seen the kevlar 40X stocks with a magazine well that were bedded the full length of the action-----also by Rem.

Just wonder if others have experiences to indicate the best method.

Thanks.

A. Weldy

I'm not a mechanical engineer, but this question came up a few years back and one such person said (in effect), "A straight line or support for a linear device is defined by two points. When a third (center support) point is added to a mechanical device, it becomes "over stabilized", as the third point introduces the possibility of a fulcrum which potentially disrupts the alignment established by the two defining points." He based his recommendation for the two-point bedding method on that - that is bedding under the ring and at the tang.

Just recently it was demonstrated to me just how important it is NOT to have the center region of the receiver binding in ANY way. As it happened, a fulcrum (like) situation existed on my new Dasher XR100 receiver due to the stock pinching the receiver between the receiver ring and the tang. Relieving the material at the middle contact point and re-bedding (to assure only two contact points were present) cured the binding issue and accuracy was greatly improved. My point is, if there isn't any contact between the two defining end supports for the receiver, there won't be an opportunity for anything to act as a fulcrum or otherwise stress the receiver.

Winchester and several other receivers have a middle screw. But, to the extent that accuracy is achieved with these actions, it is recommended that little or no torque be put on that middle screw. (Some smiths will cut off the head of the middle screw and epoxy it to the trigger guard. This serves some esthetic value, but also prevents another screw from being installed and presumably tightened down, thus affecting accuracy.) I suppose bedding the entire length of the receiver, as some Winchester (and other) smiths do, could be argued that it supports the middle screw. But, again...Why open the door for a future problem if one can avoid it? After all, not FL bedding and not installing the middle screw will insure there won't be any stressing introduced in the middle of the receiver. So, no torque on the middle screw seems to support the two-point method as well.

But then, what about the BR practice of "glue-in" bedding? Is not a glue-in a full length bedding job?

If I recall from an article on this very topic in PS magazine(?) some years ago, it was Dr. Lewis Palmisano (co-developer of the PPC cartridge) and one other chap that struck on the idea of glue-ins. The idea "stuck", you might say, but matches continue to be won by glue-ins as well as conventional bedding jobs too.

Over-stabilization resulting from a glue-in is probably not as much of an issue due to the fact the stock is synthetic i.e., it won't react to humidity to any significant degree. And, (in theory) there is no chance of dirt, etc. getting between the receiver and the bedding - because being "glued in" there is no space between the bedding and the receiver for dirt or whatever to get in.

So, once a receiver is glued in, it should never have to be bedded again, right? WRONG! The problem is (thermal) expansion and contraction of the receiver in conjunction with shrinkage of the epoxy and the various oils and solvents tend to break down the bond and "stuff" gets between the bedding and the receiver; accuracy falls off. The point is, even a glue-in bedding has to be re-done as result of what is essentially a destabilization along the full length of the bedding contact area.

Jumping ahead a bit, I feel bedding under the receiver ring and tang an leaving the middle of the receiver floating assures the best stability and accuracy over the long term. And, with regard to assuring space around the recoil lug except the rearward contact surface goes, this is my opinion: I think once the receiver is bedded it should not be removed until there is some compelling reason to do so. But, once the action has been removed, there is a real chance that debris could enter the recoil lug well or epoxy get scraped off as the lug is forced back into the well after being removed and cause the receiver to rest on the debris under the lug and not the bedding = not good. So, if the receiver is removed from the bedding, then relieving the recoil lug makes a lot of sense.

Speaking of Remingtons, some place a bedding pad under the barrel (chamber). This is felt to be necessary to create a fulcrum away from the receiver ring. The reason is, on a Rem the threads are so short (about 1/4") that a heavy barrel especially puts a large amount of stress on the threads and front of the receiver ring. By adding a pad out in front of the receiver, the fulcrum point is moved from the front of the receiver ring out over the chamber area, and thus significantly reducing the stresses on the front of the receiver ring. From a mechanical point of view, the pad makes a lot of sense as far as relieving stress on the receiver. From an accuracy point of view, I don't know what if any effect it has, but for sure it introduces the opportunity for destabilization via 'three points on a line'. What happens as the barrel expands with heat? Would the expansion introduce a new upward force under the receiver? Probably. (The jury is still out...due to lack of evidence!)

Well, I don't know that I answered a single question with anything that resembles proven facts, and not being able to prove a negative is a piss poor proof of the existence of a positive. About all I can say is that logic of two and only two bedding contact points has me won over. And, until proven otherwise, on (target) paper, I'll stay with what makes the best mechanical sense (to me).

How bout that for a non-answer?:rolleyes:

P.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,315 Posts
Lucky Shooter, I think Paul said it better than I ever could and I'll agree with the two point bedding. On a sporter barrel I have had better success with a pad under the barrel for the first 3" of barrel channel. But I have seen some barrels shoot good without any bedding pad under them. For the most part nothing in the barrel channel, recoil lug touching only on the back and 2 points on the action. Well I said more than I was gonna say. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
I have a SA Rem that was built by a gunsmith many years ago using a HS ADL type stock where the gunsmith installed a Davidson single-shot ramp and expoxied in the bottom of the action around the ramp and over it to where the bottom of the action is just like a single-shot 40X action, it's round. He then bedded the complete action recoil lug to tang. Rifle shoots excellent.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top