FL Bedding

RustyRick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
271
Reaction score
68
City & State/Province
North Western Alberta
In my older days, (late 60's) I understood that the reason we were glass bedding action and barrel to the end of the forearm was to fool the rifle "into thinking it was a bull barrel". Of course we started free floating barrels a long time ago. But many of the hunting barrels today are very skinny. A lot oof shooters, including myself glass bedded the steel to the wood. And they shot very well. Opinions please.
 
No wood here, but full length bedding in a McMillan stock. The barrel: Douglas #3 Sporter (I think). My 'smith told me that it was the lightest contour available from Douglas in .375 in the year 1989!


It shoots about as good as I could hope for…..with me being the shooter! 😉 memtb
 
Last edited:
saw a lot of over 50 year old rifles on the bench and I saw plenty of pressure points/pads at the end of wood forends but I can't recall if I even saw three fully bedded channels

sounds like a recipe for problems unless you're settling for 60's accuracy expectations over modern ones, I love walnut but I can accept the problems that come with them, and bedding the barrel to the forend seems like it would bring on more issues than it would solve.
 
My experience is this.
Wood stocks require absolute rock solid bedding through the use of pillars that make full contact with the action, then the glass bedding SUPPORTS the pillars and action so that there is zero rock fore and aft.
Recoil lugs need full bedding behind and the sides and bottom need slight gaps or if using a tapered side lug, than only the bottom requires small clearance.
Personally, I have never bedded a barrel fully into a wood stock, I also have done less than a handful of placing pressure points under the barrel.
Factories did this because it was a simple fix (bandaid fix) and easily done when making wood stocks.
The only rifles that I fully bed the recoil lug with pillars incorporated into the stock without clearance are Ruger with the 60° front bolt angle, this is absolutely necessary so that all contact of the recoil lug is against the milled section to sit in correctly. These are generally the only action that I bed forward of the recoil lug, about an inch or two under the barrel, the rest free floating.
I've built target rifles with the barrel fully bedded, but, that is a totally different subject for very different reasons.

Cheers.
 
Every Weatherby I've owned had pressure points. Everyone had synthetic stocks even going back to ones I bought in the early 80's. At 70 years old I can't recall all wood stocked rifles I owned back in the day having pressure points. Can't remember back that far lol. I think my 300 WBY still has pressure points, others I bedded and floated.

I dabbled with a couple of my Wby's changing pressure points etc. I finally gave up and floated or swapped cheap synthitic for something else. I've had better luck with floated barrels, even skinny barrels vs pressure point.

I've full length bedded quite a few rifles over the years but floated barrels. Mainly to stiffen up forearms on cheap synthetic stocks. Come to think of it I've full length bedded most of my big bores, 416 Rigby, H&H's and 458 Lott etc.

I haven't bought many rifles off the shelf in the last 20-30 years. Mainly built custom stuff. I'd bet current Weatherby's still have pressure points, don't have a clue about other manufacturers.
 
I full length bedded a Remington 721 years ago and it shoots between half MOA to MOA. It still has the factory barrel with a nice walnut stock.
I had a 700 ADL in 7 RM that I bedded to the end of the stock and it shot better that way than just the action. I don't bed my own rifles anymore but the guy that does most of mine insists on nothing touching the barrel, and his rifle shoot great.
 
I had a 700 ADL in 7 RM that I bedded to the end of the stock and it shot better that way than just the action. I don't bed my own rifles anymore but the guy that does most of mine insists on nothing touching the barrel, and his rifle shoot great.
I bedded my action first and it shot better. Then I decided to try full length bedding and it shoots great. I have floated every barrel since that one.
 
I used to FL bed all my Remington M700 rifles and a few Rem 721 & 722's, back in the day. Funny, I never did a Win, Mauser, or Sako that I had in wood. The Rem M700 varmint rifles really seemed to like FL bedding jobs. One of my M722 in .300 Savage, shot like a match rifle, it would keep up with my Rem 40X in .308 Win out to hunting distances. I always thought the M722 & 721 were great actions to build on with their cool clip slot cut out in the action. I actually like them over the M700 for the most part. Just my 0.02 Cheers 🫡
 
Last edited:
On number 1-4 barrels I bed the first 2-3 inches of the barrel. On heavy barrels I only bed to the recoil lug.

In the early 2000's I bought a few Hogue synthetic/rubber stocks when they first came out. Didn't take long to figure out they needed the forearm stiffened up. Same for what few Remington I bought with those cheap plastic stocks. I bedded them full length with a piece of aluminum or carbon arrow. The Hogue's with the aluminum bedding block aren't half bad, way better then the once's without. I have to admit it was kind fun figuring out how to stiffen those Hogue stocks. With a piece of English Walnut, Laminated etc, ya inlet it, bed if necessary. These new higher end synthetics fit good. I bed most of them anyways but I've had a couple of Greyboe's that where drop in scew it down and go.
 
In my older days, (late 60's) I understood that the reason we were glass bedding action and barrel to the end of the forearm was to fool the rifle "into thinking it was a bull barrel". Of course we started free floating barrels a long time ago. But many of the hunting barrels today are very skinny. A lot oof shooters, including myself glass bedded the steel to the wood. And they shot very well. Opinions please.
Well if they shot very well, continue.
 
Well kids, old guy showing his age again . . . when old Leonard invented Acraglas, his first instructions "recommended" full barrel bedding - the first guys doing 'free-floating' were the competition paper-punchers. While I can not say that not every full-length bedding job I did back in the early days (before most of you were born) cured or improved the accuracy of a particular rifle, I can honestly say that I never saw it make a rifle shoot worse or less accurately. Free floating became popular overnight as manufacturers would much rather produce stocks with over-sized barrel channels as that shrinks critical fit areas by about 2/3rds and reduces production costs; additionally, having a generous, 'sloppy' fit reduces the number of close tolerance QC rejects as well customer service costs dealing with consumer complaints. I remember laughing at a NSGA show when a well-known mfg claimed credit during a presentation of the next year's model for free floating barrels at no additional cost to the buyer. My point is nobody really does full-length bedding anymore not because it's inherently less accurate - it's because it would cost so much more.

OK, where's my handler . . . one of you smirking young bastards come get me and roll me up to the bar
 
In my older days, (late 60's) I understood that the reason we were glass bedding action and barrel to the end of the forearm was to fool the rifle "into thinking it was a bull barrel". Of course we started free floating barrels a long time ago. But many of the hunting barrels today are very skinny. A lot oof shooters, including myself glass bedded the steel to the wood. And they shot very well. Opinions please.

When I had my rifle built in '89/90 ….the 'smith asked if I wanted "floated" or "full length" bedding, I went "full length" and never regretted it!

It shoots as good as I could've hoped for! memtb
 
Back
Top