which would be more accurate and more repeatable in all conditions

The H S Precision of course.....but at times that's not the requirement of the customer.

However the most reliable stock is always a hi quality synthetic over wood.

CC, I'd say if the wood stock was properly bedded and the barrel was freefloated, it should as repeatable as the HS stock. Course, as you know, wood won't be able to withstand rain, snow, etc like the synthetic stock can. Jay

quote:

CC, I'd say if the wood stock was properly bedded and the barrel was freefloated, it should as repeatable as the HS stock. Course, as you know, wood won't be able to withstand rain, snow, etc like the synthetic stock can. Jay

That would make the synthetic stock more repeatable than wood under actual hunting conditions.

quote:

That would make the synthetic stock more repeatable than wood under actual hunting conditions.

That would be just about exactly what I was thinking.

Chuck

Bedding helps the problems inherant with wood stocks. HS Stocks solves them...............DJ

Well, just to add another view I will say that the properly bedded and finished wood stock will be more accurate and repeatable than the aluminum blocked HS stock.

I have stated this on other threads and will state it again now. It is mechanically impossible to create the precision fit between receiver and stock, necessary for ultimate accuracy, by using a mass produced aluminum bedding block that has to be designed with enough plus and minus tolerance to be a one-size-fits-all device. No two of these blocks, and no two receivers will have the “exact†same dimensions. If you doubt this, get out your handy-dandy caliper and measure a bunch of them and see for yourself.

As for being more repeatable under “all†weather conditions the synthetic will normally have an edge...but with the newer coatings and sealers out there this might not always be the case.

Of course, a totally sealed wood stock is going to weigh allot more than a synthetic stock...but you didn’t mention weight as a criteria.

Well, comparing the H-S to all factory wood isn't fair. There is a wide margin of performance from maker to maker and from wood to wood, including laminate. Lastly, not all laminates are created equal.

So, if you consider the H-S among the top synthetics then I think it's fair to say the top laminates are just as repeatable and reliable under all circumstances.

I have had to glass bed several Remington and Weatherby rifles that came from the factory with HS stocks. They would not group worth spit before being bedded and grouped well after bedding. While the aluminum bedding block concept may have it's merits, perfect fit is not one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:

quote:

CC, I'd say if the wood stock was properly bedded and the barrel was freefloated, it should as repeatable as the HS stock. Course, as you know, wood won't be able to withstand rain, snow, etc like the synthetic stock can. Jay

That would make the synthetic stock more repeatable than wood under actual hunting conditions.

Must you always TRY to correct me?
I was talking about the finish on the wood stock taking a beating whereas the synthetic stock takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. That being said, my understanding of bedding is that it's normally stronger than the wood it's mated to, and as long as the bedding don't warp, the rifle should be about as repeatable as the synthetic. But if the wood starts to warp and takes the bedding with it, than no, H-S, hands down. Do you see where I'm coming from, now? Jay

[QUOTE) While the aluminum bedding block concept may have it's merits, perfect fit is not one of them.[/QUOTE]
Mark, Do you blame this on the bedding block, or the receiver? If I call Dave @ H-S, again and ask him if all his bedding blocks are within .0001 of one another, than it must be the receiver thats not perfect. Jay

Jay, if there are differences in the actions then their accuracy is near worthless. Most do better with skin bedding.

BTW, a properly sealed inside and out stock withstands snow and rain just fine.

Jay,

I am certainly not faulting HS for having plus and minus tolerances in their machining, since I am not aware of any machining process that doesn’t have those, and I am also aware of the inherent difficulty in trying to build a “one size fit all†rifle stock...or anything else. Companies that make aluminum pillars for round bottomed receivers have the exact same problem. The radius they cut into the tops of their pillars seldom, if ever, perfectly match the radius of the individual receiver, and to get a good fit they have to be slightly modified. Scope bases also suffer from this problem.

The point is not whether its HS’s “fault†or the Receivers “faultâ€...the point is that it is impossible to create as perfect a fit with mass produced machining as you can get with a “custom†molded fit using epoxy. That’s just common sense, and should be self evident.

If you prefer HS stocks it certainly isn’t a big problem to skim bed the block if you find that you need to. If you find that you don’t need to then why worry about what others say or think? It’s your rifle and your stock and ultimately the only person that has to be satisfied with it is you.

quote:

Originally posted by Customstox:
Jay, if there are differences in the actions then their accuracy is near worthless. Most do better with skin bedding.

BTW, a properly sealed inside and out stock withstands snow and rain just fine.

Well, I know that, but the threads title is... "HS precision vs bedded factory wood stock"

FWIW, I refinished a Savage stock with Watco Marine Teakwood finish, brother-in-law liked so much he bought it from me. That stuff has got to be one of the better sealers out there. Jay

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Jay,

I am certainly not faulting HS for having plus and minus tolerances in their machining, since I am not aware of any machining process that doesn’t have those, and I am also aware of the inherent difficulty in trying to build a “one size fit all†rifle stock...or anything else. Companies that make aluminum pillars for round bottomed receivers have the exact same problem. The radius they cut into the tops of their pillars seldom, if ever, perfectly match the radius of the individual receiver, and to get a good fit they have to be slightly modified. Scope bases also suffer from this problem.

The point is not whether its HS’s “fault†or the Receivers “faultâ€...the point is that it is impossible to create as perfect a fit with mass produced machining as you can get with a “custom†molded fit using epoxy. That’s just common sense, and should be self evident.

If you prefer HS stocks it certainly isn’t a big problem to skim bed the block if you find that you need to. If you find that you don’t need to then why worry about what others say or think? It’s your rifle and your stock and ultimately the only person that has to be satisfied with it is you.

The whole thing about the v-block idea is that by tweaking the torque on the action screws you can find a sweet spot for that particular action at a particular torque value. Once that spot is found, an H-S will shoot with the best glass job. OTOH, its a lot of work and wear and tear on the aluminum bottom metal screw holes make repeatability difficult.

That's why the military went to steel bottoms on the sniper rifle. Also, the v-block lets them breakdown and reassemble various rifle components with a known accuracy without the bother of having to rework stocks each time.

And for me, pillars are just spacers to control crushing. I have never ever seen a whit of accuracy difference whether cut square or radiused as long as the glass bedding is correct.

tiggertate,

I make my own pillars and do not put a radius on them. The receiver makes contact on the flat top of the pillar and the bedding material fills in the radius exactly to the shape of each particular receiver.

I know why the Army “thought†they wanted swapability for their sniper rifle stocks...but that decision was made by logistics/purchasing people not by the armorers or the snipers.

The Marines have a far better system, IMO, because they completely build the rifles in house one at a time, while the Army buys completed rifles and then just maintains them. I don’t know this for sure, but I would bet that you will find more than a few epoxied bedded M24’s floating around.

The Marines originally went to steel bottom metal because they had several aluminum bows that got bent/broken from being slammed down on rocks, pavement, concrete window sills, etc. The added sturdiness for bedding was a welcomed secondary benefit.

It would be interesting to see what the functional accuracy was side by side with both.

My point (poorly made) is that the H-S is a system that requires a trip to the range with a quality in lb torque wrench to find the sweet spot. And if you do that right with a Remington 700 it will shoot right alongside the best glass job. I have no experience with the flatbottom receivers and won't make the same claim for them.

Great for the average guy who can't or won't glass bed or wants to resell the rifle and keep the stock for the next one. But I'll admit that glass bedding is a much more convenient way to go.

My best shooting mate has several HS Precision stocks for Rem 700. The barreled actions are all match grade barrels, Jewell triggers and NightForce scopes. Barrel contours are across the baord up to Heavy Varmint bench rest contour. Calibres range from 257 Wby, 264, 7mm Rem and 300 Ultra. Some of the barreled action are in the same calibre but different contour.

Two of the HS Precision stocks that are for the Remington varmint contour were tried without bedding the stocks. I might add that the fit was excellent, the barrel were floating and nicely centred in the forend.

One rifle shot well for a few trips to the range and then accuracy started to go off. The other rifle was not accurate from the start. Although in both cases if the measure of accuracy was just "hunting accuracy" they would have been OK.

I bedded both of those stocks as all was well.

As Rick 0311 has already mentioned, it does matter how well HS Precision makes the stocks the actions vary too much.

To me, ajusting the torque of the action screws is all bullshit. A properly bedded rifle does not require specific torque setting on the screws.

An analogy is a shit barrel. You can fool around with enough loads and get one shooting OK but you only have to look at the rifle a different way and accuracy is off.

I would bet on a barreled action bedded to a wood stock beating for accuracy the same barreled action simply put into the HS Precision stock that has not been bedded and that even includes if Jesus Christ made the HS Precision stock.

One last point, an accurate barreled action in the larger calibres, say 270 Win and up, correctly bedded to a wood stock will im my opinion give better accuracy than when bedded to the various fibre glass stocks.

The stocks I have found which gave the best accuracy are those "rubber" type stocks that came on the Rem 700 Stainless rifles.

Mike

Mike,

Torquing the action screws has allot more to do with getting them equal in tightness than it does with attaining a specific amount of torque.

I have two very accurate inch/pound torque wrenches that are regularly calibrated, and some of my “identical†700’s like 65 inch/pounds and a couple seem to favor 45 inch/pounds. All of them have the same contour bbl and all of them are in McMillan stocks. Why they react to different torques settings is beyond my understanding...but they do. One of them doesn’t seem to care what the torque readings are, and as long as they are tight enough to hold things reasonably together the thing will shoot dead center all day long.

Rick

I am aware of the idea behind them.

But on the othe side of the equation on well bedded rifle and good barrel you can back off the rear screw so it is loose and the rifle will keep grouping. In fact that is one quick test for poor bedding....back out the rear screw and if the point of impact moves and the group improves you can bet a lot of money the rifle has bedding problems.

Another fact or with bedding is that you really only have a lot of point contacts even though does not look that way and where those point contacts are occurring will affect outcomes.

"Within reason" I remain convinced, at least a the moment that accuracy changes with different torque setting are a symptom of a bedding problem.

There is probably some variation on what I am saying with Rem 700s as the round receiver does have a wedge effect.

A lot of people bed Rem 700s with about 1/2" wide masking tape lengthways on the bottom of the action so as the bottom of the action does not touch.

I do not bed sides of the action, that is, I have the action free floating between the tang and receiver ring.

Mike

Mike,

I’m certainly not qualified to comment on your theory other than to say that it is just that, a theory. What I do know is that the theory would not stand up well to mechanical engineering principals, as loose or unevenly tightened attachment points do not equate to exact repeatability (or return to zero) in a mass that is being violently accelerated from a stand still.

Rick,

It could be that I bed all the way round the recoil lug.

I also use a proper mould release which you polish off before bedding.

Where my theory or I should say experiences may be slanted is nearly all my accuracy work has been on bigger calibres, 270, 300 Win, 358 STA and 375 H&H etc and mostly with barrels that are about .7" at the muzzle. In other words the accuracy levels are not as fine as playing 22/250, 243, 223 etc.

I agree and appreciate what you are saying about not standing up well to mechanical engineering principals.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that if accuracy is dependent on specific torque settings for the screws then there is a bedding problem or perhaps both a bedding and barrel problem.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Mike378:
Within reason" I remain convinced, at least a the moment that accuracy changes with different torque setting are a symptom of a bedding problem.

Mike

Duh! Give the Aussie a bananna! The H-S system is an alternative to make that reality work for you instead of against you. Just another way to skin the same cat.

BTW, Mike378, that was whoever makes Wild Turkey's smartassed mouth, not mine

quote:

Originally posted by Mike378:
Rick,

It could be that I bed all the way round the recoil lug.

I also use a proper mould release which you polish off before bedding.

Where my theory or I should say experiences may be slanted is nearly all my accuracy work has been on bigger calibres, 270, 300 Win, 358 STA and 375 H&H etc and mostly with barrels that are about .7" at the muzzle. In other words the accuracy levels are not as fine as playing 22/250, 243, 223 etc.

I agree and appreciate what you are saying about not standing up well to mechanical engineering principals.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that if accuracy is dependent on specific torque settings for the screws then there is a bedding problem or perhaps both a bedding and barrel problem.

Mike

Mike,

I don’t think our views are all that different. I originally stated that the actual amount of torque was probably far less important than the consistency of the tightness.

I also agree that loosening a screw should not allow the barrel/receiver to move more than a few thousandths...but I wouldn’t shoot the rifle with the loose screw and expect something not to move.

Even though you bed all sides of the lug, if you loosen the rear screw and fire the weapon, the barrled action is going to try to act like a teeter-totter with the front screw and recoil lug acting as a fulcrum...especially so with the heavier kickers.

A properly bedded and assembled rifle is a properly bedded and assembled rifle, and that’s true if its a .22 or a .458...the principals are the same even though the forces are going to be much greater with the bigger calibers.

Rick

On the M70 or Rem 700 I don't quite agree with you because of the position of the front screw.

As to 22 Vs 458 the principle I was trying to get across was that doing accuracy rifles in larger calibres means you are dealing in differet levels of accuracy.

But again, if you back off the rear screw on a well bedded rifle it will continue to group.

I think what you said about us not being far apart is true. What I am trying to do is get a message over to readers that bolting a Rem 700 or M70, Wby or whatever into an HS Precision stock and the fucking about with a torque wrench is not the answer. The rifle needs to be bedded

Mike

tiggertate

Is getting a banana.....praise or criticism.

The English language changes a lot over 12000 miles

Mike

some HS stocks shoot great right off,..some with some tinkering. All will shoot well with skin bedding. I have yet to see NOT shoot well with minimal work. I'll take HS over wood all day long. My mcmillans do not show an accuracy upgrade over a skin bedded HS, so go figure. All I know is what mine do for me,..and the HS is, stock for stock, better than factory wood 6 ways till sunday.

quote:

That being said, my understanding of bedding is that it's normally stronger than the wood it's mated to, and as long as the bedding don't warp, the rifle should be about as repeatable as the synthetic. But if the wood starts to warp and takes the bedding with it,

In many bedded factory wood stocks the wood can put enough pressure on the bedding to cause consistancy problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike378:
Rick

On the M70 or Rem 700 I don't quite agree with you because of the position of the front screw.

As to 22 Vs 458 the principle I was trying to get across was that doing accuracy rifles in larger calibres means you are dealing in differet levels of accuracy.

But again, if you back off the rear screw on a well bedded rifle it will continue to group.

I think what you said about us not being far apart is true. What I am trying to do is get a message over to readers that bolting a Rem 700 or M70, Wby or whatever into an HS Precision stock and the fucking about with a torque wrench is not the answer. The rifle needs to be bedded

Mike

Mike,

When you finally get around to saying what you really mean you make perfect sense...and I agree wholeheartedly!

HS Precision, if it has been properly bedded. The V-Block method doesn't float in my world. Their have been huge advancements in wood finishes that made them almost immune to climatic conditions. But, all it takes is a ding or a scratch to break this barrier.

Now if a person install steel pillars in the wood stock that has been properly finished. And the action was bedded properly it could compete with a synthetic stock.

But, why would a person need such accuracy if they were not competing. I shoot competively and have yet to see but a handful of wood stocks in years of competition, 1000yd, High Power, etc. I think that pretty much answers the question.

Plastic stocks are a child of advertisment and piss poor press, ideas turned into propoganda..Yellow journalism at its best, to a brain washed young generation!!, hows that!

Now on the more serious side, I have hunted with wood stocks from the cold and wet of the far North, the Idaho forests, to the deserts of West Texas and Africa, for some 60 some odd years and have yet to have a wood stock warp or fail to function...granted I do not use factory wood unless it has been glass bedded and stabilized to one degree or another, but a piece of properly dryed and cured European walnut grown under harsh condition, cut and laid out properly will be as stable as a composit stock, but needs a bit more attention under the very harshest conditions...California English, Claro and Bastogne may be included in this scenario if properly cured.

That's my opinnion, its worked for me for many years and I'll stick with it until hell freezes over...

BTW, I have seen a composite stock warp from being in a hot trunk of a car, another from being place a tad to close to the wood stove, another one melted when the smith used a light bulb to enhance the glass bedding to sit up, that smith being yours truly! so composite meaterail is not the where all of the gun makers trade I assure you...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike378:
tiggertate

Is getting a banana.....praise or criticism.

The English language changes a lot over 12000 miles

Mike

For you, Banannas Foster.. Only the best!