This is a multi question post on rifle bedding?
I have never had a rifle bedded, the other day I removed the stock from my Browning A Bolt and when I reassembled I noticed the action move in different directions depending on which screw I tightned first (front or rear). Now it would seem to me there should be no movement by the torquing of either but I am no gunsmith.

Also, what is the generally accepted tightening pattern and how much torque should be applied to the mounting screws...should one be tightened more than the other or the same???

A rifle that only has pillars installed is a rifle that is only half bedded.

It should be pillar and glass bedded.

Celt

I my view, tight is a bad concept when it comes to joining stock and action. The only purpose of the stock it to give the shooter a grip on the action and the only purpose of the screws is to hold the stock to the action. I don't have any proof, but I believe that overtightened screws are second only to dirty bores when it comes to losing accuracy. A long time ago I asked a gunsmith what he found wrong with rifles his customers brought in complaining about a loss of accuracy. He said dirt bores about 70% of the time. A good cleaning took care of that. I didn't ask what was second. I should have. I bet it had to do with bedding.

HS precision reccomends 65 inch pounds for thier stocks.

When I pillar bed a rifle, I use 65 inch ounds and it works very well.

Celt

Does a Winchester action need to be pillar-bedded? Specifically, does the Montana M1999 action need to be pillar-bedded? From what I can gather, pillar-bedding is the installation of small brass studs in the stock against which the action is tightened and as such relieves the crushing of the wood when the screws are tightened. A Winchester/Montana action captures the stock between the action and bottom apparatus, and assumably there is no "crush" of the wood, correct? If not, then Winchesters wouldn't need pilar-bedding. Am I correct or have I found the wrong tree up which to bark?

I would think that a M 70 would "need" pillar bedding as much as any gun.

I have found that glass bedding works alone very well but it's not hard to make "pillars" and put them in too.

The last 70 that I did was glassed just around the recoil lug and I made a pillar for the rear screw. This gun is all set. It's one of the best that I have ever owned. These are wood stocks that I am talking about. On synthetic stocks I defer to those with more experiance with them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the point of the pillars not to prevent the stock/bedding to compress under load from the action screws?? In that case, it would seem to be matter of the stock requiring pillar bedding (or not) as opposed to the action.

John Barnsness (sp?) had a piece on bedding a while back. If I'm not mistaken, he was not so hot on pillar bedding - at least not with well made synthetic stocks - stating that the stocks could be bedded without pillars for equally good results, and that if (shit happens) the pillar broke loose, accuracy would go out the window. I remember Bansner's stocks were among the stocks mentioned as not needing pillars.

- mike