I had a gunsmith that has done work on one of my rifles tell me, "Don't waste your money pillar bedding a rifle! A good glass bed will do the same thing."
Now, what are your opinions?
Is "steel bedding" using pillars with any bedding material?
Is "glass bedding" any bedding compound without pillars?

Depends on the stock material. A rifle needs a solid, level footing to maintain the critical alignment that is necessary for consistent accuracy, and if the material surrounding the action cant support it, then you need to install something that will provide the support. That is what pillars are designed to do. Pillars help maintain the vertical alignment of the action and the glass keeps it from shifting all over the place horizontally. Pillars AND glass, if needed.

I suggest you consider getting a new smith. The late great Seely Masker, a NY smith, first popularized pillar bedding back in the '60s. This was long, long after glass bedding came into vogue so folks already knew about GB's 'baseline' perfomance in improving accuracy.

Well, Seely did a land-office business with his accurizing techniques and proved pretty conclusively that pillar bedding works better than glass bedding by itself.

However the pillars must be fabbed & installed PROPERLY in order to work properly. That's why I suggest a new smith, your existing one doesn't sound like he'd be the best for that particular job.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I suggest you consider getting a new smith. The late great Seely Masker, a NY smith, first popularized pillar bedding back in the '60s. This was long, long after glass bedding came into vogue so folks already knew about GB's 'baseline' perfomance in improving accuracy.

Well, Seely did a land-office business with his accurizing techniques and proved pretty conclusively that pillar bedding works better than glass bedding by itself.

However the pillars must be fabbed & installed PROPERLY in order to work properly. That's why I suggest a new smith, your existing one doesn't sound like he'd be the best for that particular job.
Regards, Joe

Actually Mauser popularized pillar bedding back in 1898. Military 98 Mausers have a steel pillar to prevent soldiers from crushing the wood when they tightened their action screws. Masker rediscovered and reapplied it...........................DJ

Please reverse your terminology. Mauser discovered it, Masker popularized it. The practice had been largely a abandoned in 1945 with the end of German military production, only a few military Mauser contracts were filled post-WW2 along with a few commercial sporters equipped with the system. Most US makers never adopted the Mauser system or anything like it, relying upon the wood alone to keep the action stable in all but a few cases.

Masker's simple accuracy improvements, when publicized in Precision Shooting magazine, sparked a strong approval of and thus a widespread shift toward pillar bedding among informed US shooters.
Regards, Joe

First time I really heard of pillar bedding was when Kleingunther promoted it in all their guns. Probably in the 70's.
I realize it has been around for a while.

My personal "rule of thumb" is that round-bottom actions benefit the most from pillar bedding, and any action in a foam-filled synthetic stock. Doesn't mean flat-bottom actions won't benefit; just isn't near as significant.

I'm not so sure the original Mauser system could be categorized as pillar bedding. The rear stock bushing is described as being there to prevent crushing the wood from over-tightening the screw. Its too thin to provide any real stability and its not glued in the stock. The front sleeve attached to the trigger guard serves the same function. Mauser bedding instructions(Olsen) state that the bottom and top metal don't touch when things are torqued up, but there should be a few thou clearance. Therefore, my presumption is there is no support provided by the bushings - hence no pillar bedding. Mausers benefit from the massive flat surface area on the receiver bottom for stability.

If anything is close to a pillar in function it is the recoil cross bolt. Tightened into the stock, it forms a firm, flat anchor for the recoil shoulder and a seat for the action flat on underside. Now I guess you could install a wider pillar in the rear(glued into the stock) but the front presents no real opportunity or benefit due to the action screw hole being in the bottom of the recoil lug. I personally steel bed the rear tang, recoil lug area, back/bottom of the recoil shoulder, and the chamber reinforce of the barrel.

Actions like the Savage and Remington are another story. There is plenty of room to glue in wide pillars fore and aft to provide solid lock-up between action and stock.

Bobster, all the Mauser rear sleeves I've removed have been VERY firmly fixed in the wood, also the front recoil bolts. I can assure you that they provide all the support needed for both front and rear screws and that they are tight in the wood if installed correctly.
Regards, Joe

One of the issues we addressed when bedding M14 National match rifles for Army shooters was to make sure the bedding was applied in such a manner as to prevent the clamping action provided by the trigger group from compressing the stock and eventually causing accuracy issues. This is similar to some of the benefits of pillar bedding and it is an important part of the accuracy equation. The Mauser system does provide the non-compression function but I would still go with a pillar for at least the rear screw as part of the process unless it is a collector item and needs to be as original as possible.

I recently worked on a rifle where stock that had been compressed so much that the bolt handle would not close all the way because contact with the stock prevented it from further movement. The condition was so bad that the safety could not be engaged. Someone had actually ground the rear screw off so it didn’t interfere with the bold and just kept tightening it down. This eventually caused a very unsafe condition. The metal bushing had been removed from this stock which allowed this condition to develop despite the bedding that had been applied to both the receiver and the bottom metal.

Something else to keep in mind that a new high quality wood stock that is correctly inletted , finished and preserved should provide a great deal more resistance to compression than what one would expect from a rifle designed for military use. I would think modern laminated stocks should excel in this area. For myself, I still prefer pillars that are firmly affixed to the stock whenever possible.

quote:

Please reverse your terminology. Mauser discovered it, Masker popularized it.

I guess it depends on how you define "popularize"...

How many Mausers were made between the late 1800s and the end of WWII when compared to the run of unpillared commercial bolt rifles made between then and the 1960s?

I agree with djpaintles that Mauser popularized it based solely on what I imagine is a vast difference in sheer numbers.

Seely Masker re-discovered, re-applied, re-popularized, and maybe even did it a bit better, but if it was truly popular then most rifles would come that way from the factory and there would not be an aftermarket for retrofitting them.

Here's to you Paul! (and here's to argueing over semantics)