In another thread, a member asked the following question: (I hope he doesn't mind my repeating it here.)

Rojelio
one of us
Posted 30 July 2005 18:50
I can't figure out why a Remington is supposed to be easier to glassbed than anything else. Doesn't the stuff form itself into what ever shape you shove down into it whether it be round, square, or rectangle. Somebody enlighten me here.

Rojelio
-------------

Rojelio is certainly right that the epoxy will flow to mirror whatever the action shape is.

My simple answer to his question, which is obviously just my opinion, is...though it is just about equally easy to physically encase each action in epoxy, it is not as easy to know which parts of the action "should" be bedded (touching the epoxy) for best accuracy.

Remingtons are a bit easier to deal with than some (most?) others because they are more concentric by design and have less complex shapes.

Generally, the less "steps","cuts", and severe changes in diameter, taper, etc., the less complicated the harmonics of an assembly are...at least in theory. (Maybe not always true in a specific application.)

So, in setting up the bedding of a Mauser, Lee-Enfield, Model 70, Springfield, or some other action that is not essentially a simple round piece of bar stock, it is often necessary to learn exactly where bedding does the best job of supporting the piece when fired, and best damps (NOT "dampens") the complex vibratory patterns of firing. It is also important to learn where the action should not touch the bedding.

At least that's the way I see it at the moment.

Any one out there have any other answers to his question they'd
care to share?

I've bedded a lot of Model 700s, as well as Model 70s and Ruger 77s, and I can't say that Remingtons are significantly easier to bed than the others. But then what do I know? I'm just a layman.

If I hire a riflesmith to build a rifle, I don't care which action is easier for him to work with. I just want him to do his best job on the action of my choosing............

AD

Just so as to piss off all the people that don’t like Remington’s!

Of course, a friend of mine claims that it is because Remington had to make up in someway for the bolt handles falling off, so they made them easier to bed in exchange.

I like that one, Rick. [Big G here]

I really like the Remmie actions for some uses, BUT, I know where he is coming from. I had one of the very first M700 actions built, and within three shots of new I found myself standing there with a Remington rifle in one hand and a Remington bolt handle...from the same rifle...in the other hand.

I was only kidding, since yours makes only the second time I have heard someone tell that story based on first hand experience...and the first time that didn’t involve beating on the bolt handle with some large object to free a stuck case.

Seriously though, I believe (could be wrong and I’m sure someone will tell me if I am! ) that any round bottomed receiver (not just 700’s) is going to have a slight advantage when it comes to ease and effectiveness of bedding due to the larger surface area inherent in the shape.

Alberta Canuck,

Thanks for the explanation (not that I necessarily agree with it). You may be right.

Every time someone has made that statement, they have left out the reasoning behind it.

Now I know. Thanks, Rojelio

Rick, I knew somebody was going to say they didn't like Rems They arent my fav either, but I got a couple, but don't tell anybody.

I don't think a Rem is easier to bed than a win, but a Rem might be easier than CZ 550

quote:

Originally posted by Gringo Cazador:
Rick, I knew somebody was going to say they didn't like Rems They arent my fav either, but I got a couple, but don't tell anybody.

I don't think a Rem is easier to bed than a win, but a Rem might be easier than CZ 550

Billy,

Easy, better, best, are all very subjective terms that really have no practical meaning in most endeavors in life.

I love Remington’s, but not because I think they are any “better†than any of the other fine firearms out there. I’ve never been a big follower of the “my way or the highway†crowd, and I personally believe that most true and practical differences between modern bolt action rifles are little more than personal aesthetic preferences, or are based on what someone is used to using. And then there’s always the crowd that prefers a certain type because that’s what the “Rifle Gods†use, and if I use the same thing then I must be a God too!

I’m actually pretty boring when it comes to my personally owned firearms. Other than my 22’s...all my handguns are .45’s...all my shotguns are 12 ga...and all my centerfire rifles are .30 caliber. I don’t shoot anything but factory ammo, and it took me reading a bunch of posts on here before I finally figured out that “DG†meant dangerous game and not damn good!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rojelio:
Alberta Canuck,

Thanks for the explanation (not that I necessarily agree with it). You may be right.


Every time someone has made that statement, they have left out the reasoning behind it.
--------------------------------------

You are welcome. I am not sure I agree with it either...was just explaining the "conventional wisdom" behind the statement.

So far, I accept it for a few reasons.

1. I know that the best way to bed a Lee-Enfield seems to be demonstrably NOT to just solidily it encase it in epoxy. There are certain spots in the buttstock and in the forend that need to be bedded, and others that need to be free of bedding. It took the Brit military quite a bit of excperimenting to establish exactly which points those are, and it is not as easy as doing an action that works satisfactorily just by surrounding it with "glass".

2. I do know a little bit about harmonics, and I can't disprove the logic of simpler harmonics being easier to "damp".

3. I have had several rifles which were "professionally" glass bedded, but did not shoot particularly well. On being re-bedded by a local "guru of bedding", who claims he knows
which parts of various rifles and or barrels to bed for getting good accuracy, they have shot considerably better.

Frankly, I don't think it makes a damned bit of practical difference with most actions used for or on hunting rifles. It doesn't take miracle bedding to make most rifles shoot 1.5 MOA groups, which are entirely suitable for most larger game hunting applications.

Still, if someone can present the logic of why and how the conventional wisdom is flawed, I'd sure be interested in learning more on the subject.

I don't claim to be an expert or a guru, but I have bedded more than a few rifles. They all have shot better, never worse.


I remove enough stock material so I can bed from the front of the magazine mortise to at least 2 inches in front of the chamber area of the barrel. I also "skim bed" the tang. I don't worry about the feed rail areas of the action, I let them free float so to speak. I don't tape the front, sides or bottom of the recoil lug. I also make sure that the barrel clearance between the stock and forend is at least a business card thick before bedding. I drop the action into the bedding compound and gradually tighten the action srcews paying close attention to the relationshionship of the action to the stock line. I make sure that the card spacer in the forend does not bind. Let it cure for 6-8 hrs and pop it apart, clean up the release agent and whatever.


I then reasemble and check the forearm to barrel clearance, making sure that the barrel does in fact, float. I've never had to bed the forend tip when using this method.


I've used this method on all centerfire rifles that I've ever played with 'ceptin Rugers, which I tend to shy away from unless somebady wants to give me one. As far as which action is easier to bed, near as I can tell it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.


Hope this helps.

Just ask BIll CLinton. Everyone knows that a round fat body is easier to bed than a more svelte body with curves, angles, and hidden detents.

quote:

Originally posted by Jameister:
... Just ask BIll CLinton. Everyone knows that a round fat body is easier to bed than a more svelte body with curves, angles, and hidden detents...

By golly, I believe you have explained it about as clear as can be.

Hot Core,

Pardner...I take it from your posts that you were in the Corps, so if it ain’t a big deal howabout extending a fellow Marine the courtesy of not involving him in your battles unless he volunteers to jump in?

Hey Rick, No problem, it is gone. Semper Fi

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey Rick, No problem, it is gone. Semper Fi

Right back at ya, brother...you’re the best!

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
...you’re the best!

Yeah..., that's what everybody says!!!