I just put together a SAKO L579 (Forester Action) and a SS Remington 308 Heavy Barrel (take off from a Rem 40XB). I ordered a stock from Richards Micro Fit, because I wanted a wood stock and I had a hard time finding a synthetic. I am about finish the inletting job and then have this stock pillar bedded. It this the best way to go? Will pillar bedding this completely stop any shifting caused by moisture absorbtion and temperature?

Alaskan Al---

"Pillar Bedding" is one of those terms that's taken on mythical proportions.

PB does nothing whatever for stability or moisture absorption. All PB does is locate the receiver in relation to the stock and the bottom metal. This used to be done by carefull inletting and good workmanship, but somebody somewhere has convinced people you *have* to have a spacer in order to know where the parts fit.

In reality, PB makes the job of glass bedding easier in poorly made stocks, but that's all it is. It has nothing to do with accuracy, toughness, or weatherproofing.

Mr. Belk,
Well put. I coudn't have said it better myself. It's great for the gunwriters and rookie gunbuilders looking to dazzle their clients, but in the real world, a waste of time and money.

Al,

If you are working with a stock who's material is easily compressed when you tighten the guard screws, then this is probably a good candidate for adding pillars. There are two main objectives when bedding an action. The first objective is as Belk stated, to "locate the receiver in relation to the stock and the bottom metal." To those unfamiliar with stock talk, this deals with keeping the action level and without bind. The second objective of bedding is to prevent the action from shifting under recoil. Accuracy depends on an action that is level, and not shifting about under recoil, among other things...

Malm

I'm throwing out the B.S. flag! I guess all you professional gunsmiths on here consider Darrell Holland, Truman Wilson, Rock McMillan, Gordy Gritters and a boatload of other proponents of pillar bedding to be a bunch of "rookie gunsmiths!" Perhaps you never learned or were taught what pillar bedding really does for a rifle. Mr Belk , don't even bother to ask. Its waaaaay too simple! MtnHtr

Ok MtnHtr, I'll listen.

What does Pillar bedding "Really" do for a rifle?

Alaskan Al,
Properly pillar bedded rifles always shoot better. This is why the benchrest and target shooting crowd always opt for pillar bedding. Properly done, pillar bedding eliminates the compression of the stock between the action and the bottom metal. When a rifle is fired, there is a lot of movement and vibration going on and the stock compresses slightly with these vibrations, allowing more action and barrel movement to occur, which hurts accuracy. When pillars are installed, they are much more solid than the stock itself, which effectively minimizes action movement and vibrations in the stock. The action screws will tighten up more tightly and more solid, which will help minimize screw stretch, which is another source of action movement. On actions which utilize a third or middle action screw, a third pillar can sometimes be installed to eliminate "springing" the action when this third screw is tightened. All the great accuracy-minded riflesmiths are proponents of pillar bedding especially when utilizing a wood stock. I recommend you have your rifle pillar bedded by a competent riflesmith, she sounds like a winner. MtnHtr

I think pillar bedding originated in the 60s on some of the BR rifles built at the time. In practice the stock was bored out and epoxy pillars cast in. The action was bedded on these pillars so that they supported the action rather than relying upon the compressible and changeable wood. It was, and is, a good system. The introduction of aluminum inserts into the operation became common a bit later and may or may not be superior depending on the technique employed when installing these.
In either case the advantage is that the material that actually supports the action is relatively inert and so constant in dimension.
The pillars are quite effective in preventing compression of the stock material but cannot, of course, prevent warping of the stock. So the system is not perfect.
I hesitate to say it but spacers are not pillars. Pillars are an integral part of the stock or they aren't doing their job.
To further prevent warpage and shifting it is important that the wood be well finished and sealed. An ideal treatment actually fills the cells of the wood thereby excluding moisture.
Gunsmiths face a bit of a quandary in this regard. Ideally the more wood is replaced with glass the better as far as stability is concerned. It is necessary however to be sure this is what is paramount in the customers mind. Otherwise the smith maybe accused of being an unskilled hack!
If a wood stock is to be glass bedded, I see no reason not to cast pillars. Laminated stocks don't usually warp too much but they do swell so pillars can help them too. Regards, Bill.

I like to cast pillars in place as Bill Leeper explained. I then bed the action using Marine-Tex. The result is one hell for stout bedding job, it works great on the big boomers as well. Here is what I cast my pillars in when pillar bedding, this epoxy is tough stuff. Recommended by Darrel Holland himself:



MtnHtr

[ 11-30-2002, 22:14: Message edited by: MtnHtr ]

Did MH's picture show up for everyone else? It didn't here, I had to rt click on it, goto properties then copy the URL and paste to the address bar to see it. When I came back it showed up then, what's up with that?

That's the Marine Tex? Who carries it?

Thanks

The ones I have done have all been Rem 700s with wood stock or those cream and grey laminated stocks. All have been fitted with number 5 match barrels in calibers from 6mm/06 to 375 H&H.

However, the reason I do it is to stop the front of the floor plate burying itself in the stock. This becomes a problem when someone has had the rifle apart and then re assembled with the magazine bound and then the floorplate bends and cuts into the wood. I must be the only the person in the world who likes the 2 piece M70 floor plate

But I do not take the pillar all the way through the stock. In fact I use a shell holder for a pillar as the bottom end of the shell holder is a perfect match for the Rem 700 floor plate. I drill down through the top of stock so as to get the large part of the shell holder in. Once that baby is epoxied in it does not move.

At this stage of the game I remain unconvinced that bedding is superior when a very hard material like aluminium is in contact with the action or where there isa only thin line of bedding between the aluminium and the action.

I still think the best bedding bedding jobs are where a wood stock is already a very good fit and the epoxy just takes up the slack. I also find that those "rubber" stocks that are factory fitted to Stainless Rem 700s provide a better platform afor a barreled action than any other stock material. I imagine the M70s are the same but I have not has as much experience with them where the barreled action has had match barrel and Jewell trigger fitted.

Several years ago I tried an experiment with a bench gun in 270 on a Rem 700 action fitted to one of the alloy stocks we have in Australia. The rifle was done as a "glue in" to Devcon Steel.

The rifle shot better when I used the softer curing epoxy glue as opposed to a rock hard setting glue like epoxy. I tried the experiment twice each way so as to try eliminate a not so good "glue in" from the equation.

Mike

[ 11-30-2002, 16:16: Message edited by: Mike375 ]

How do you be sure the pillars are not too tall or too short? Not sure how it works, but if they're too short some compression will still be present, true? If they're too tall, no compression will leave it loose, true? It would seem that some compression is necessary to keep the action tight to the stock. Do you make them a certain amount too tall and bed the action with a shim on the pillers and tighten or what?

Really, I always wondered about this, we all know that plastic and wood compress somewhat and things stay sandwiched pretty easy. Aluminum or steel pillers are different, they don't compress, so?
Thanks

Pillars come longer than needed in most cases and you measure the length you need and cut them to size. I like aluminum. Good Luck

For what it's worth, my gunsmith (with 50 years experience) says pillar bedding is simply a sign of lazy/poor/amatuer workmanship. Say's it's used by gunsmiths in a hurry who don't want to take the time to properly inlet and bed a stock. When asked why quite a few top gunsmiths do it, he replied, "time is money when you've got a lot of work".

The man has shot benchrest for many years with the likes of Warren Page and Bob Hart and has built hundreds of first class bench guns.

Man, after hearing some of these methods makes me glad I do my own, Mike375 shellholders? I am proud to say that in about 92 or 93 I was having my 4th rifle built by a gunsmith who is in the benchrest hall of fame, I made mention that I was pillar bedding my own barreled actions after he did the metalwork and was wondering how you know when you have it right. You can`t tell by looking, he said there was a tool called a back plunger dial indicator, that is clamped to the barrel and the plunger was set to the forearm of the stock, with floorplate swung open as not to have pressure on barreled action, you slowly unscrew the front action screw to check for movement. Well I had to hve this tool so I purchased one, he had mentioned that the best job would be no movement at the forearm, but since I was building sporters I could be happy with no more than .002" But his tolerance was .001" or less. The first rifle I checked was moving .004", this made me sad, I called him and explaned every step that I went through and he was nice enough to corrected my methods in 2 areas, I now regularly bed Remington 700`s with .000" to .001". I feel that the pillars are kind of like a very heavy duty bedding, so as not to loose the platform as quickly after several assembly disassemly cycles. Tim.

Times, they are a changing. Better products, better materials, better methods evolve from change. Those who refuse to change, get left behind...

RickMD, I don't know if I would be comfortable consulting someone as opposed to change as "your" gunsmith appears to be. I would want someone who is living in the present, who's eyes and mind is wide open to new ideas and not sitting in idle, stuck somewheres in the past.

I do this for a living, Pillar bedding is part of the business and customers demand it, so when people like Matt Williams makes the above statement like "It's great for the gunwriters and rookie gunbuilders looking to dazzle their clients, but in the real world, a waste of time and money." or RickMD's gunsmith saying it is a sign of lazy/poor/amatuer workmanship, I have to wonder what the shooting sport and gun building trade would be like today had folks like these led the way. Put down that cell phone and look around, we are a product of change.

Malm

Brent,
The pic is up, sorry about that. That is not marine -tex. This is a laminating epoxy made by the Cieba Specialty Chemicals Corp which I use to cast alum pillars in. Marine-tex is used later for the final bedding. Its too detailed and lengthy to explain on here but you'll have to take my word its a far superior method than just measuring and gluing in two pillars. On the pillars length, I do leave my pillars slightly long, after the final bedding is completed the stock is turned over and the pillars are then milled flush with the inletting(bottom metal). Makes for a clean and professional job.

RickMD,
There are many methods of pillar bedding, some are pretty primitive. I suspect your 'smith has never seen the method Darrel Holland and myself use. It actually takes longer to pillar bed using this method but the results and benefits are more than worth it.
MtnHtr

[ 11-30-2002, 23:17: Message edited by: MtnHtr ]

So--- is this an accurate summation of the "to pillar bed or not", thread??

If your stock is of a flimsy material, or is inletted poorly, or is made by one unwilling to spend the time to do it right, OR the customer is unwilling to pay for the extra time it takes to do it right.....pillar bedding is a good way to go. Cheap, easy, and hard to screw up.

I have a bench gun made in 1971 that's never been glass bedded, and a very light weight 35 Whelen that's never seen glass, either. I have eleven varmint rifles that've been glassed in factory stocks, and a couple dozen assorted other rifles that don't need it.......

If you need epoxy or aluminum to reinforce a stock, in my opinion, what's *really* needed is a better stock.

BTW--- I don't allow plastic, rubber, fiberglass, or kevlar stocks in the shop. Maybe they need epoxy to make them useable...it sure doesn't help the looks...... and that precludes me using one.

You are right on trigger guard 1, straight skinny and square on the head.
There is no better test of the finished bedding operation then the removal of the action and then the reassemble of the same with the p.o.i. not moving.

[ 12-01-2002, 02:51: Message edited by: Buffalo Bob ]

Matt,

Pillar bedding isn't a new trend that just happened on the scene. It has been around for about 40 years. It has taken this long for the benefits to appeal to hunters and while it is rapidly gaining in popularity, I don't believe it has yet, in the year 2002, reached "trend" status.

Your first paragraph couldn't have made a stronger case for NOT using wood as a stock material. Your paragraph reinforces the need for new, improved materials that are not affected by environmental conditions for which to make today's gunstocks. Wood, while warm, beautiful and traditional, is a thing of the past.

In a field dominated by synthetic materials, wood is slowly losing the race and will someday be an object of fond memories. Wood simply cannot compete with todays synthetics, in the extreme environments in which they are used. During the Vietnam war, the military seen the need to equip their weapons with these first generations of non traditional stocks. What they lack in looks, they more than make up for it in performance.

I generally look to our military for taking the leadership role in setting trends in weapons developments. Our military with it's insatiable appetite to improve and develop new products for use in war is the ultimate trend setter. Our tax money funds some of the toughest testing, modern weapons can undergo. The results of these tests spin off into the private sector and we shooters benefit greatly from the advancements brought about by this change. Our military uses composite stocks and they pillar beds their snipers weapons. As a result, these weapons are stable in all climates. I doubt this is done as a result of following a trend.

I'm sure given the choice, Lewis and Clark would themselves favor the stable qualities of today's weapons over those of their generation. Like it or not, the change is here to stay...

Malm

Matt,
Depending on the stock's material and type of triggerguard I will sometimes bed the bottom metal as you inquired. You simply inlet your bottom metal's inletting an 1/8" deeper than normal. By leaving your pillars slightly long, you simply mill the pillars to establish your bottom metal's depth, then bed the bottom metal with marine -tex or acraglass. I like to bed the Win 70's two piece floorplate and others similiar especially if a wood stock is being used.

Jack,
You really don't want to bash synthetic stocks on this forum do you?. The wood vs synthetic debate has been hashed out before on this forum with the traditionalists walking away with what little of a shirtail left. If you do want to debate this topic I suggest you start a new thread. Good luck.!

G.Malmborg,
Good post.

MtnHtr

[ 12-01-2002, 05:24: Message edited by: MtnHtr ]

Guys,
You gotta have perfect inletting and bedding throughout AND pillars, real pillars, not just spacers!

MtnHtr:

[QUOTE] "...Which will minimize SCREW STRETCH???" My God, now I've heard it all!

There's no fundamentally good reason NOT to precisely pillar bed a bolt action rifle with machined-aluminum pillars in conjunction with a bedding material such as Devcon. Top-grade fiberglass/Kelvar stocks benefit from this method of bedding, as do stocks made of wood. The proceedure is wasted on flimsey injection-molded stocks.

The pillars eliminate stock compression, increase strength, and increase precision. As far as I'm concerned, if a gunmaker isn't astute enough to pillar bed, he won't be getting my business.

The pillars aren't traditional, that's true, but the concept of "tradition" doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to rifles I'm really going to use for hunting.

AD

Damnit ALLEN, I agree with you. Maybe someday we can be friends.

Jack has a bench gun that was hand bedded in 1971. What he doesn't tell us is it hasn't won anything since 1972! Just kidding Jack.
Pillar bedding is not a shortcut or a means of salvaging poor work. It is a different method of achieving consistent accuracy.
The guys shooting hunter class BR achieve higher levels of accuracy than any others using conventionally bedded (not glued in) rifles. Most are pillar bedded in some way.
I am not a real fan of the aluminum pillar except in circumstances where bedding surface is limited by action design or stock design. I prefer to use pillars of Acraglas in most cases but do use metal on occasion. I think it is better to have some bedding compound between the metal pillars and the action. The test of the effectiveness of any bedding method or technique is in the ability of the rifle to hold consistent point of impact from day to day. My best BR rifles probably put all shots fired during the life of the barrel within 3/8 inch of the established point of impact so I considered them to be successful. Regards, Bill.

Bill---

BINGO!!!! Results is what I'm after, not trendy buzz words. I don't mind taking the time to inlet correctly and I DON'T mess with inferior material.

I quit shooting paper about 1988 with a LV 6x47 with a VERY tired barrel and two hunter class 6mm wildcats. None of those guns had a speck of epoxy anywhere in them, would hold four tenths with a 6x scope and never had to be re-zeroed.....EVER.

My main, 27 year old, hunting rifle has spent weeks on backpack hunts in all the weather the Rockies and Florida can dish out. It's wood stocked, completely sealed, tightly bedded everywhere but .005 clearance on the ebony tip and the only time it's ever been re-zeroed is when I switched scopes and made the switch to Barnes X bullets.

I feel VERY sad for those that haven't had the opportunity to shoot a well made rifle out of good materials.

To say it's no longer possible to make a rifle the old way and have it shoot as well as the synthetics is just like saying it's no longer possible to hunt elk without a four-wheeler. It's bull shit. Sure it takes more work, but that's my choice.

BTW--- Twenty minutes ago I took a 6mm Cheapshot CZ-527 out of it's first glass bedding.

THAT stock showed a tendancy to wander left with cold temperatures. The stock is not as straight as I like, but with re-inforcement and a complete seal and re-finish will be as stable and accurate as any synthetic stock on the market....and still look like a rifle instead of a Japanese plastic-handled, cheap silverware set.

RESULTS dictate methods and processes. Don't judge all guns by the cheap, un-dried, un-sealed, un-finished, poorly inletted, pieces of shit you buy off the rack these days. There is nothing done at the factory to assure a good shooting rifle......only to make them cheap enough to sell.

Lets see----tight groups, versatility with a WIDE variety of loads and bullet weights, stable zero, and good looks. That's MY view of a nice rifle. You don't need pillars, glue, plastic or voodoo to attain it. What's needed is GOOD material and GOOD workmanship.

If one of my ancestors should show up tomorrow and want to go hunting I'd rather he say "Nice rifle". Not, "What the Hell is that!?"

Mt. Hunter,
Just for the record, and I don't want him to think I'm getting soft, but Jack Belk was president of the Custom Gun Guild two years ago and also did the Custom 22 L.R. Spingfield Guild Rifle for one year that fetched about $200,000.00. He was an instructor at the Colorado School of Trades, well known for its gunsmith section, so when you start tossing names around and passing them off as the last of a few, better realise who your talking to just to clear the air and give credit where credit is due....

Jack is recognized by most of the leading gunsmiths in the world as one of the finest metal smiths of the century....He was D'Arcy Echols instructor in Gunsmith school and gave D"arcy his first job as I recall, another one of the finest who posts here from time to time...Jack is well qualified to make any statement he sees fit on this board, he is qualified to do so....

Not trying to start an arguement with you, just settng the record straight based on your post wherein you think the posters on this forum may not be qualified. There are a number of posters on this forum that are well qualified to discuss such issues with you or your gunsmiths, self included....Nope, we don't always agree with each other, but what the hell difference does that make...

My Custom Rifles have no glass in them, if they did they wouldn't be acceptable to my clients who place proper enletting first and foremost in a custom rifle, no short cuts at my prices..Thats just the way they want them. I don't care how nice a custom rifle is glass bedding and pillars will devalue that gun with most lovers of custom rifles..but I probably don't really qualify as I have never made but a couple of rifles a year...mostly for clients, but at top dollar. Hunting is my business, gun building sorta a hobby...but guys like Chic Worthington who posts here is very well recognized gun builder, as is John Ricks, Robingunbuilder and several more that don't come to mind, but are equally skilled....

Just thought you should be made aware and no malice intended.

Ray,
Your post is well taken. I'm well aware of Jacks qualifications and don't doubt for a minute he can't build a fine custom rifle built on old world craftsmanship and traditional materials(wood/CM). I have never questioned the other 'smith's you mentioned either. You seem to be implying that I am doubting or questioning their talents. Nothing could be further than the truth. I just fail to see where some of you get off bashing synthetic stocks,stainless steel and pillar bedding. Keep in mind there are other materials, methods being used with excellent results. MtnHtr

Just fot the record, I place Aluminum pillars in all the Classic french walnut bolt rifles I build today. An example of why arrived in my shop a month ago . It was a Mod-70 I built in 1981, engraved # 11, no doubt a relic from my past. The stock blank I used was a very hard, dense stick of Black walnut. This rifle was bedded without glass, pillars, silly puddy or grey tape. It has been well used (ie-hundreds of deer) but very well taken care of.Each year before the owner checks his zero he tightens all the gaurd screws ring screws etc. After twenty years of screw tightening the wood has compressed under the trigger guard and floor plate to the exstent that you could barely get the floor plate to latch and damn near could not get it opened once closed. the whole assembly has recessed into the inlleting +.025. Needless to say the wood is just a bit proud around this assembly. This is only one example of many rifles I have made in the past that are also well used and show up now and then with the same situation. So for the past 5 years I take the time to carefully install a set of pillars to prevent the above from happening twenty years from now. If done well they look just fine surrounded by all that french walnut. Those that have seen this in my shop have never said anything to the contrary as to the installation in fact they all found it to be a great idea. It wouldn't matter anyway as it's going to happen on every one of them I build from now on. Which brings me to another question that I have, are cross bolts considered lateral pillars????

I can vouch for the fact that, if the inletting is done properly, a walnut-stocked rifle that is pillar bedded looks the same from the outside as a fine rifle with a walnut stock that was not pillar-bedded. I've examined high-grade rifles built by D'Arcy as well as Dave Miller with inletting so tight that it was impossible to tell what sort of bedding arrangement was implemented. Now I know these guys aren't in "The Guild", but as a consumer, that doesn't mean jack-$hit to me one way or the other. But on the other hand, performance does, and the fact remains that pillar-bedded rifles are superior from every standpoint of consideration from those that aren't.

Evidently the contemporary target shooting, military, and law enforcement communities are in agreement, as just about all of the rifles these folks use feature pillar-bedded stocks.

AD

D'Arcy,
Are crossbolts lateral pillars? A good question indeed. Given my contention that a pillar must be bonded to the stock to be a true pillar then the crossbolt is only a lateral pillar if bonded to the stock. I don't think the orientation is of any consequence. I say this having read a passage in a book wherein the author described a ruin he saw. In his description he said "one pillar had toppled and was lying upon the ground".
So, you can see that although the pillar was now horizontal it was still a pillar! This was written by an Englishman so must be correct! Regards, Bill.

My reference to cross bolts I think is valid to some extent.Their purpose being to prevent the stocks side walls around the magazine box from exspanding so much as to allow the barreled action a running start at the tang and grip area regardless of how perfect the contact at the stocks recoil shoulder. Is it's purpose not to arrest wood movement???????

The worst case of wood compression is with mauser rear tangs due to the length, width and monkey at the end of the screw driver. Some seem to spring out of the inletting like an olympic high diving board once the screw tension is backed off. Anybody ever see this besides me?

We retrofit old buildings with the latest technology not to piss off the architectural gods of the past, but to protect and preserve these buildings for the enjoyment of future generations and from future damage. Based on what we have learned from the past and are now seeing, years later, it has been decided by those who's job it is to decide such things, that all new buldings be outfitted from scratch with the latest technology we have to offer. The focus of this change is towards longevity. Old materials become unstable and deteriorate to a certain degree over time. So it goes with firearms.

New technologies, new materials and new ideas does not a "hack" make. The times dictate change and change occurs on it's own schedule whether we are ready or not. As professionals, if we are not ready for change or we discourage progress, then we become isolated and locked in the past. Those who look to us for solutions become discouraged and their ideas die.

The joining of old world craftsmanship with todays techniques and materials is a win, win for all involved if allowed to progress.

Today we have collectors, shooters and everyone in between. We have those who appreciate the contemporary beauty of the old world craftsmen, and we have those who find beauty in todays weapons. There is room for everyone. There is no need to bad mouth one group or the other. Both have their place and both have an equal following.

I believe this forum was designed to allow persons of all backgrounds to share ideas, experiences and to learn from each other. I don't care who you are, there is no "right way" of doing things. If there were, then there would never be progress. Ridiculing one group over another because you disagree with their ideas, is an unfortunate sign of the times. Lets not discourage progress based on our own prejudices, lets encourage it and see where it takes us?

Malm

D'arcy,
The mauser is one where I think the use of a pillar is almost mandatory. Mauser uses a spacer to prevent wood compression but this is not really a pillar.
I don't really think the crossbolts are pillars either because pillars are under compression rather than stretching. Regards, Bill.

D'arcy and anyone else who cares, I have seen the proverbial spring out of the action stocked Mauser and is usually a result of poor bedding or extreme compression of the rear guard screw. I often wondered why Mauser would put the spacer in place without anchoring it to something other than the action and bottom metal. If the action and bottom metal are tight against the spacer, what about the spacer being too long and allowing the action to float at the rear guard screw? I always turn the spacer into a pillar by epoxying it the stock, thereby makeing it integral to the stock, Comments?

Jim

Malm, I agree with you completely that the best rifles combine the best old-school technology (Mauser 98 type actions, let's say) with the best modern improvements (cryogenically-treated barrels, pillar bedding, etc.) which enhance performance and durability. Change for the sake of change is pointless without constructive purpose.

Here's what I don't get: So many times, individuals will embrace old-time riflebuilding procedures and reject any innovation that was introduced after WWII. Yet all of the old stuff that gets applauded was once cutting edge - the latest thing. How do these lines get so decisively drawn, anyway? Wasn't the Mauser 98 action itself considered a pretty radical departure once upon a time?

AD

Bill,

If we consider that a glued in pillar is basically to increase the area of wood which the floorplate tries to compress, then cross bolts on older Sakos and I think M98s are similar in that they provide more area of wood contact than does the recoil lug alone.

Putting a metal strap around the recoil lug and gluing the strap into the forend is again similar.

Mike