This is concerning bedding M98 actions in wood stocks only.

I have pillar bedded M700s & it is quite easy to pillar bed the rear action screw on a M98 Mauser. I simply glass bed a tube of the appropriate length W/a bigger ID than the rear action screw OD in the rear action screw location.

It is the front action screw W/the riser tube attached to the trigger guard that seems to pose a problem as far as forming a solid foundation to pull/clamp the recoil lug/trigger guard into. Glass bedding the recoil lug/front receiver ring provides that solid foundation @ the top, but what about the surface that the trigger guard bears on?

Has anyone fabricated a pillar system for the front action screw?

W/the M700, I made aluminum tubes 9/16" OD & 5/16" ID W/a radiused top to fit the action. These could be covered by the trigger guard after glass bedding them into the wood & trimming the length to allow the trigger guard to sit flush. The 9/16" OD would still be concealed under the trigger guard.

Making a tube that would fit over the M98 trigger guard riser doesn't seem practical as it would have to be well over 1/2' ID & would be impossible to conceal under the trigger guard.

Would it be practical to remove that trigger guard riser, mill the trigger guard surface flat & glass bed the correct length pillar (counterbored @ the top to clear the thread boss )into the wood? That way there would be a solid foundation for the clamping force between the recoil lug/front receiver ring & triggher guard.

When I glass bed the recoil lug, I use several thicknesses of tape under the recoil lug as well as a few layers on the front & sides of the recoil lug to assure clearance for pulling the front receiver ring down tight into the bedding. Forming a solid pillar under the trigger guard should make for more consistant base for the screw to clamp down on.

Can't prove it, but I think Mauser designed the front guard screw pillar to act just as that!

These days, the pillar is not quite tall enough to act as such. AT SMP we are going to re-design the pillar a bit too tall so it can be filed down to provide the optimal gap between the top of the magazine and bottom of the action.

Sure would like to hear other opinions on that!

i think you'll find that most who pillar the front of a mauser will machine the riser off of the bottom metal and counterbore the pillar for the boss on the recoil lug.
if i'm not mistaken,all if not most of the better aftermarket bottom metals don't have any sort built in pillar for this purpose and they supply a seperate pillar to use there.
there is also a practice of not doing any sort of pillaring the front screw because the mauser design is actually a pillar by itself.
one thing to make sure of if you utilize the mauser desing is to make sure you use a bedding compound that has next to no shrinkage, or fabricate an.002 or .003 shim ring that fits in the socket on the bottom metal so that you some small amount of clamp-up when the front screw is torqued. any amount of shrinkage can/might leave the front end minutely loose, exactly opposite of what pillar bedding is about.
most of the bedding compound directions say to only slightly snug the front screw when you bed so that it leaves a bit on material in there to clamp up on when you torque it after the bedding is fully cured.
there's lots of info on the search engine and a few test results that discuss what brand of bedding compound has the least shrinkage....you might find the results of those tests surprising (brand-wise)....

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Can't prove it, but I think Mauser designed the front guard screw pillar to act just as that!

These days, the pillar is not quite tall enough to act as such. AT SMP we are going to re-design the pillar a bit too tall so it can be filed down to provide the optimal gap between the top of the magazine and bottom of the action.

Sure would like to hear other opinions on that!

The difference is that a pillar is bedded into the stock W/the trigger guard/front receiver ring clamping down on a somewhat non-compressable metal pillar while the M98 system is relying on compressable wood in the stock.

The alterantives as I see them are

1: To bed a rather large diameter aluminum pillar into the stock from above to be clamped between the the recoil lug bedding (remember, we do not allow the bottom of the recoil lug to contact the bedding) & the trigger guard front tang.

2: Eliminate the riser & bed a smaller diameter pillar in the stock. The pillar would contact neither the recoil lug or front action screww boss.It would contact the front trigger guard tang only. The bedding for the pillar would be integrated into the bedding of the recoil lug to for a relatively non-compessable foundation. That would allow a clamping effect between the front receiver ring & the trigger guard front tang.

Since I have already completed a very successful glass bedding job on the receiver/recoil lug, option 2 looks more desirable.

I have some old trashed out militar triger guards on hand & a counterbore that is used to trim the M700 pillars that I could use to trim the similar diameter steel riser from a M98 trigger guard. I would bed it into the wood/recoil lug bedding so that it would have some gap @ the top & not make contact W/the front action screw boss or recoil lug. If I relieve the bore a bit as I have done on the rear pillar, I would have a pillar bedded M98 action W/O any recoil bearing on the action screws & a solid clamping force on the somwhat non-compressable glass bedding, not the compressable stock wood.

quote:

Originally posted by merlinron:

one thing to make sure of if you utilize the mauser desing is to make sure you use a bedding compound that has next to no shrinkage, or fabricate an.002 or .003 shim ring that fits in the socket on the bottom metal so that you some small amount of clamp-up when the front screw is torqued. any amount of shrinkage can/might leave the front end minutely loose, exactly opposite of what pillar bedding is about.
most of the bedding compound directions say to only slightly snug the front screw when you bed so that it leaves a bit on material in there to clamp up on when you torque it after the bedding is fully cured.
there's lots of info on the search engine and a few test results that discuss what brand of bedding compound has the least shrinkage....you might find the results of those tests surprising (brand-wise)....

Yes, I planned to make sure there was some clearance for a solid clamp-up. I planned to use some shim for clearance @ the TOP, between the action screw boss & pillar. The bottom metal will bear directly on the pillar. I bed the pillar in the stock a little long & then trim the pillar W/a counterbore like tool to get the bottom metal flush W/the wood.


How does Acra-Glas bear up in the shrinkage tests? I use a LOT of fiberglas floc in my mix. I bought an 8 oz package of it several years ago & I add glass filler to get a thin paste-like consistancy in my compound.

quote:

Originally posted by merlinron:

if i'm not mistaken,all if not most of the better aftermarket bottom metals don't have any sort built in pillar for this purpose and they supply a seperate pillar to use there.

Which ones are you talking about? BB, PME, PMS and SH all have the original style built in pillar as far as I know.

First of all, the original 1898 design is pillar-bedded from the factory, front and rear. The rear pillar is the thin-wall steel tube imbedded in the stock while the front pillar is the steel rectangular recoil crossbar clamped into the stock. No wood compression is possible with this original setup.

I've been pillar-bedding all my Mausers and indeed all my bolt rifles since about 1970. I first saw this technique applied by the late Seely Masker, a noted Northeast smith of the accuracy persuasion.

I cut off the front riser and use 9/16"OD x 1/4"ID aluminum pillars of appropriate lengths at both front and rear, glass-bedded permanently into the stock. After the glass has cured I drill out the guard screw holes to 9/32" for screw shaft clearance.

This method has, for me, resulted in both improved accuracy and also the ability to register all my screw slots north-&-south without worrying about their tension changing as the wood shrinks and expands over the years. A win-win situation all around!
Regards, Joe

maybe i'm mistaken as said, but IIRC. i saw a BB on a mauser with no integral pillar and took it for granted that they were all this way. it makes sence to me, to leave it off, considering the method of pillar bedding that is considered normal practice by most builders, ie..... 5/8"+/- aluminum piller epoxied in the stock. i would rather have the screw pull both action and bottom metal up against a solid base that is integral with the stock than rely on one or the other be the solid base and trust that there's no change in actual bedding to parent material relationship to create the clamp-up distance. wood moves, swells, shrinks all the time. everytime it does, the bedding surface changes. the whole idea is to eliminate exactly that change. with a seperate pillar the entire action and bottom metal can float in the mortice and make it's connection to the stock solidly at two small spots with only enough bedding contact to dampen flex and vibration. that's how i learned pillar bedding should work. anything else is just stopping the stock material from being crushed from screw pressure over time. a small simple tube of the right length can do that.
i don't mean to be argumentive, but if what i'm saying isn't factual, then over the years gunsmiths and the media have hyped up what piller bedding is/should be all about for thier own profit and there's no need for pillars of 9/16 or 5/8" diameter. that amont of surface does allot to eliminate flex by building a four sided structure within the stock when it's all torqed up tight. and if it does do that, the rest of the action can float with only enough contact to dampen flex and vibration as i mentioned earlier.
to be more "mechanicly correct", when using 9/16 or 5/8 dia. pillars they could be back cut (counterbored)so that contact with action only happens at the outside diameter of the pillars. the angle of bottom metal to bore center or bottom of action becomes critical then, especially with a mauser (i know it is any way you do it) and the radius of action like remingtons as well, at the front and back. the recessed pillar then forms a contact circle at each pillar to better stiffen the structure when the screws are tightened.

quote:

i saw a BB on a mauser with no integral pillar and took it for granted that they were all this way

I believe it was milled off. Mauser guys don't seem to like many "improvements", which is why most after market parts are similar to the original parts(integral mag box, etc.).

You guys don't glass bed the bottom metal???
I do And have on every rifle I've bedded.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
You guys don't glass bed the bottom metal???
I do And have on every rifle I've bedded.

I glass bed the bottom metal. It's just that W/the integral "pillar" on the bottom metal, it is difficult to get a good solid base under the front tang.

This is the reason I want to eliminate the integral "pillar" & bed one permanantly into the stock.

I will still glass bed the front tang of the bottom metal but the pillar will assure a solid base to clamp down on & there will be no wood between the bottom metal & front recoil lug/receiver ring.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Can't prove it, but I think Mauser designed the front guard screw pillar to act just as that!

These days, the pillar is not quite tall enough to act as such. AT SMP we are going to re-design the pillar a bit too tall so it can be filed down to provide the optimal gap between the top of the magazine and bottom of the action.

Sure would like to hear other opinions on that!

I am in complete agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
First of all, the original 1898 design is pillar-bedded from the factory, front and rear. The rear pillar is the thin-wall steel tube imbedded in the stock while the front pillar is the steel rectangular recoil crossbar clamped into the stock. No wood compression is possible with this original setup.

My concern here is that once the wood shrinks or otherwise changes, so does the tension on the front action screw.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:I cut off the front riser and use 9/16"OD x 1/4"ID aluminum pillars of appropriate lengths at both front and rear, glass-bedded permanently into the stock. After the glass has cured I drill out the guard screw holes to 9/32" for screw shaft clearance.

This method has, for me, resulted in both improved accuracy and also the ability to register all my screw slots north-&-south without worrying about their tension changing as the wood shrinks and expands over the years. A win-win situation all around!
Regards, Joe

For the rear action screw I cut a piece of 3/8" OD stainless tube to precise length & glass bed it into the stock. The ID is sufficient for ample clearance for the screw shank.

The purpose of this thread was to explore the options for the front action screw.

As usual Joe, your posts are both informative & helpful.

It just so happens that I have tooling set up to precicely trim 9/16 pillars to length after they are bedded into the stock. This allows me to adjust the length prcisely to get the bottom metal flush & orient the action screws "north & south".

Thanks.

i do the same thing except i use alum. tube. not have an actual milling machine, i do have a very old and very heavily built drill press from a patternmakers shop that will mill softer metals accurately. so what i do is to epoxy the pillars in just .020" or so long and when i "machine" the botttom of the action mortice and top of the floorplate mortice, i cut the pillars to length and c'bore the front for the recoil lug. that way you are cutting them parallel to the surfaces they will contact right away.
controversial point here.....when the action is not floating in the mortice, if the wood swells or shrinks as it will no matter how well sealed it is, the tension on the screws will change regaurdless of how it's bedded..... it is in full contact with the stock. if the stock swells, it will push harder on the torqued screw, if it shrinks, it will push less on the torqued screw, either one will change poi., maybe a small amount, but it has to change the overall interaction between stock and action/barrel. thus, the reason for having the only contact be at the pillars and letting them carry the action. i'm not saying there should be a gaping hole in the stock with the action sitting in it, just a very good close fit with a bit of clearance (the kind you have to look hard to see) all over and of course full contact at the back of the recoil lug. the pillars themselves are les likey to move around because the core of the stock (where the pillars are epoxied) will not move. it is the surfaces of the mortices that move as the wood absorbs and releases moisture. if keep the action compleatley away from these surfaces just a few thousanths, you give the the surfaces the room they need to move without affecting the relationship between stock and action.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Can't prove it, but I think Mauser designed the front guard screw pillar to act just as that!

These days, the pillar is not quite tall enough to act as such. AT SMP we are going to re-design the pillar a bit too tall so it can be filed down to provide the optimal gap between the top of the magazine and bottom of the action.

Sure would like to hear other opinions on that!

Duane, the 5MX that you modified internal length for me mates to my 1951 FN M98 action perfectly…the action pillar seats fully within the floorplate pillar receptor and provides a full positive metal to metal contact with the appropriate gap between the magazine and bottom of action even before I torque the front action screw. Cutting the rear pillar to the optimal length will be easy as the front is already optimal.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
First of all, the original 1898 design is pillar-bedded from the factory, front and rear. The rear pillar is the thin-wall steel tube imbedded in the stock while the front pillar is the steel rectangular recoil crossbar clamped into the stock. No wood compression is possible with this original setup.

Regards, Joe

Joe has correctly described Paul Mauser’s factory design for the M98. The DWM and FN military actions that I possess fully seat between the front action pillar and the floorplate pillar receptacle and for the few that still possess their factory thin wall rear action tube, it is factory cut to the proper length to maintain the correct gap between the action and the magazine while providing a full metal to metal compression contact when the rear action screw is properly torqued.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
Mauser guys don't seem to like many "improvements", which is why most after market parts are similar to the original parts(integral mag box, etc.).


Jason

I agree with Duane’s statement regarding that Paul Mauser’s intent with the M98 design.

So as Paul Mauser’s factory design, as correctly described by Joe, maintains a full metal to metal positive compression between the action and the bottom metal when the front and rear action screws are torqued properly. How would this deliver any less of positive metal to metal compression than machining off the factory floorplate pillar receptor and then glass bedding front and rear pillars within the stock and then properly torquing the action screws?

Both deliver a full metal to metal compression…Paul Mauser just took care of it back in 1898 rather than waiting for it to become the latest accuracy fad. Perhaps that’s why Mauser guys see little need for the many “improvements” that pillar bedding the stock will provide.

However, if the rifle owner has an issue with losing things when his rifle is disassembled then by all means glass bed that rear pillar into the stock so that is won’t be lost.

Anyway, that’s my 2-cents.

capoward

I am one of the Mauser guys who like things the way Mauser designed them. Hence I referred to the changes as "improvements".

When it comes down to it, most "improvements" on the Mauser design are done with an eye towards cutting costs.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
I am one of the Mauser guys who like things the way Mauser designed them. Hence I referred to the changes as "improvements".

My appologies; I misunderstood.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
When it comes down to it, most "improvements" on the Mauser design are done with an eye towards cutting costs.

+1

If the original Mauser design (with the integral front 'pillar' still remaining on the front of the trigger guard) is retained, WITHOUT using the original Mauser rectangular steel crossbar inside the stock, then the smith has defeated the Mauser design and the contact is no longer on a real pillar and so is not satisfactory.

IOW if you retain the integral steel barrel on the front of the TG tongue then you MUST retain the rectangular steel crossbar. You know, the piece that's hidden underneath the ugly round steel thingies that SO disfigure the sides of the military stock behind the front recoil lug?

The piece that almost NO ONE uses on a sporter....?

When examining a custom Mauser or 1903 Springfield, this is one spot on the rifle that I examine very closely. It's easy to separate the not-knows from the knowledgeable fellows, right there.
Regards, Joe

I have always milled the floor plate smooth and piller bed it like I would a Winchester. Seems to work, I've built some very accurate Mausers......Tom

A pillar is essentially a part of the stock. A "spacer" is not. The tube at the rear of a mauser is a spacer. The boss on the front tang is likewise. Glue these into the stock and they become pillars.
The idea of making the boss a little long so it can be fitted is ok as long as the stock never changes. Ultimately, it is stock dimension which establishes the space between the box and receiver. That same spacing has to exist at the boss as well. In reality, you don't want the boss to contact either or it may act as a "distance piece" and prevent the screw from actually tightening the action into the stock.
Duane,
What do you consider to e the ideal spacing between box and receiver? Regards, Bill.

"a pillar is part of the stock",.....couldn't agree more, bill.......
it's function is to locate and solidify the assosiation between stock and action. that's why i say if you pillar bed correctly, it makes no sence to maintain full contact with the action throughout the mortice. doing so simply turns the pillars into spacers to prevent crush. with pillars and a full contact bedding, the actions of the wood reacting to atmosphere will be the same as if the pillars weren't there. the purpose of the pillars is to eliminate, as much as posible, the effect of the stocks movement on the barrelled action. by the term,"full contact bedding", i refer to what is normally considered a good bedding job with all the clearance spots where they need to be.
synthetic stocks have been around for a long enough time now that i sometimes wonder if the "accepted method" of bedding them has run over to wood. you can't pillar a wood stock and then full contact bed it like a synthetic stock, the two processes the work eliminate each other's benifits.
as i see it, what is more less the universily accepted practace for bedding all and any stock now-a-days, is what can and snould be done on a synthetic stock that doesn't squirm around .... that doesn't work with a chunk of real stuff.