Just curious if anyone knows of any hard data or study done which indicates whether a synthetic stock with an aluminum bedding block will expand and contract more due to temperature than a synthetic stock bedded with acraglass or Devcon or similar composite?

In other words, will one produce more torque on the receiver with expansion and contraction than the other?

I emailed Bell and Carlson about this yesterday and they responded back today stating, "I have never heard anyone mention expansion with our stocks and I've been here almost 14 years."

From their response, I would assume it is not an issue from their customer's perspective so maybe I'm just being anal but I want whatever material is as inert and unexpandable as possible to support my receiver. Any info or insight any of you have would be greatly appreciated.

You are not "bedding" the action in aluminum, the aluminum bedding block is designed to support the receiver. In this respect it is superior to acraglas.

Contact the folks at HS Precision. They are the ones who Bell and Carlson are trying to copy. They are the ones who would have researched this.

quote:

I emailed Bell and Carlson about this yesterday and they responded back today stating, "I have never heard anyone mention expansion with our stocks and I've been here almost 14 years."

Betewn the lines they said We have never researched it.

Unless you built your rifle in Alaska in January and hunted in Death valley in July i would not be to concerned.
The difference between aluminum and steel is about .000006" per degree F So a 40 degree swing would only produce a difference of .00024" in size change. I would not worry about it at all.

Westpac...I'll do just that..
D Humbarger...exactly...
kcstott...you're probably right

Thank you gentlemen

I have only worked on the HS Precision stocks. The aluminum work running through the stock in my opinion is to add strength to the stock. I have yet to find a reciever that bares 100% on the blocks. I glass bed all aluminum/glass stocks for
the reciever/stocks final fit, just like I do a factory wood stocked rifle.

Sorry, misread the post! I have not seen any data on such.

I've often wondered about the topic- FWIW, apples and oranges, I'd reckon: I do a lot of building with schedule 40 aluminum pipe and cast steel "Cheeseboro" clamp fittings. A follow-up tightening after the constructed rig has sat over night always reveals that many/most of the fittings have loosened, and it would have to be due to the two dissimilar metals employed at varying temperatures.

tin can,

I emailed HS Precision so hopefully we'll see their opinion. In this game of rifle accuracy, I would think a bedding situation which imparted no stress or torque on the receiver whatsoever would be best. It may not be possible though because the receiver itself will expand and contract so unless the bedding were pliable enough to move with the receiver, you'd think there would be additional stresses placed on it.

Conversely, I see Savage has been using the accustock which is an aluminum block system and they indicated the receiver flexes under recoil and when you stiffen it and eliminate as much flexing as possible, accuracy improves. If that is so, then my whole notion of stress relieving the receiver is bunk. Because, their accustock has to impart stresses on the receiver because aluminum cannot be milled precisely enough in a mass production scenario to fit a receiver as well as Acraglass or similar bedding compound. It wouldn't be cost effective or at least I don't think it would be.

My next rifle will have a John Whidden bedding block. It will be in my Balsa, carbon fiber laminated stock.

I machined a couple of blocks for Model 70 actions and they worked out well. The glass bedded stocks worked out well too. The aluminum with glass on top worked well too. The difference from one to the other seems insignificant if it exists at all. Regards, Bill

i did an aluminum block a couple years ago. I much prefer glass. after doing one i think the block is mostly for sales