I think the angled recoil lug is the reason Rugers will usually shoot OK WITHOUT any bedding tricks. My opinion is , the lug is less stiff than the action itself and you can tighten hell out of it , seat the action firmly into the stock , even though the bedding may not be "right" and likely not put much of a bind on the rest of the action .

It's not been copied because Ruger put a patent on it when the M-77 was introduced .

I don't think th eassertation is its so great but not nearly as bad as some have made it out to be. Bill Ruger was a business man 1st and a gun developer 2nd (Look at his casting business - most all ti golf clubs are done by Ruger) I don't think Bill woulda went with that system if it really was costing him money.

.02

Greg Tannel Great guy over the phone answered all my questions. I guess the proof is in the pudding but so far he has treated me very well.

I know Charlie Sisk uses almost the same setup to build his rifles and he builds some reall tack drivers. (another hell of a gunsmith - works on Rugers too but sadly only the full rifle not general work - WAYYYYY too busy) -- Never the less worth a call - he is a super guy to talk too-bounce off ideas with.

Bobby:

If you think about it, pulling that back screw back is going to torque the action, unless the rear action screw is left totally loose.

If that Ruger system was so great, other manufacturers would have copied it by now.

Idared:
I sometimes find full length bedding works the best. Not very often, but sometimes. I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Patents run out after 20 years; anyone is free to copy them after that, as many have done with bipods (copying Harris).

I'm not so sure that the angled screw was actually Bill Ruger's idea to begin with. Let's remember there was another well known custom gunsmith, and a top notch one to boot, who had a lot to do with the design of that rifle. I have heard that one of his little tricks was to hide screws whenever he could. This could be part of the reason that the screw is like it is also. I'm not saying it was his idea for sure, but there is a lot of other things that you can see that were copies after his likes in a rifle, particularly the stock and most of all the grip cap. The bolt handle resembles his aftermarket one a lot also.

Whoever's idea it was I also don't think it was anything revolutionary. It may be all right, but I would rather it was like most other actions myself. I have seen some very nice custom rifles done on a Ruger 77s, including some large big bores, and almost all changed the guard screw arrangement and added a different triggerguard and floorplate. Several changed the recoil lug also. That alone makes me wonder.

I once had an 03-A3 that had been rechambered to .308 Norma Magnum, and the entire barreled action was glass bedded in the original GI stock from the front band all the way to the tang. The handguard had been removed. This rifle shot extremely well as it was. I later sent it to Paul Jaeger and had the barrel turned to a sporter weight and restocked with French walnut. It turned out to be a beautiful rifle, but it was a lot more finicky about what loads it would shoot well than it had been before the barrel was turned down. The Jaeger stock was closely inletted with the typical upward pressure spot in the forend. I don't know if it was the turning down of the barrel to a sporter countour, the change in bedding of the barrel, or both, that made it shoot less well than it had before it was modified. I did manage to develop one MOA load for it after it was redone, but that was with a 220-grain Sierra at a modest velocity. I eventually traded it off, because as Townie Whelen used to say, "Only accurate rifles are interesting".

I'm not sure I follow you. If you pull the front action screw tight. It pulls the action down and back into the recoil abutment in the stock. If that's higher than the rear tang, (and everything in between) then bed around the rear tang (assuming you had space there, whether from the factory or routed out), then it would be stress free. I suspect your theory is why some Rugers don't shoot well, is improper wood to metal fit, which can be said of a lot, if not most factory rifles. But, the proof is in the pudding, and Rugers, properly bedded, assuming all other things being equal, shoot very, very well indeed.
So the other poster was correct. I'm not touting the angled screw, I'm just saying it's not the culprit that most would believe. We are quick to assume when something's different, (as in the angled screw) and something goes awry, then that has to be the cause. I don't follow that logic. I believe it's no better or worse than any other poorly bedded rifle design.