Glueing or Screwing History

T

Tony C

Guest
I've recently encounted articles from two different sources in which torqueing the action screws was done to find the sweet spot for a given rifle and being able to return to that setting.

Most of today's BR rifles are glued or epoxied in. I feel like I should know when or why this became the accepted method. Can someone fill me in on the history of this subject?

If a given rifle is shooting great, then the glued action is no problem. But on the other hand...

Several months ago I accidently dropped a $3000 rifle, and the action popped out. Oh sh^$%! I believe it was Jerry Sharrett who explained what I needed to do in order to fix it. I carefully followed his instructions. All was well again, and the rifle seemed to shoot better! (Maybe it was the Farley, or a different powder, or the new bullets - who knows)
 
It is a good thing that I decided to go back to the article that was source of the incorrect memory that I almost responded with. I found it in my copy of "The Benchrest Shooting Primer" on page 131, the last paragraph of an article titled "History of Fiberglass Stocks" by Chet Brown, who along with Lee Six was a pioneer in fiberglass stock development. The article was reprinted from the December 1985 issue of Precision Shooting Magazine. In the last paragraph, Chet wrote, "In 1972 Selby Wright an Jjim Steko were gluing in barrels and Lee and I were gluing in actions. There were several advantages to gluing in. One, you solved the bedding problem. Two, you could use a hollow or at least lighter stock. It wasn't too long until most glueins swung around to the action being glued. I still don't think that a gluein bedding job is any better than conventional; but but it sure is easier to do."

Some years after Chet wrote the article, I was at a benchrest match at the range near Visalia, Ca. and posed the glue in vs. pillar bedded question to a group of shooters that included Gary Ocock and Lee Six. Lee's answer was unexpected. Instead of favoring one or the other, his answer was "both", going on to explain that by that he meant doing a conventional pillar bedding job and then gluing it in as a last step. I asked him if he torqued the action screws after the glue in, just like conventional pillar bedding, and he said that he did. Lee was a skilled benchrest shooter, rifle, and stock builder, and always great to visit with at matches. I feel lucky to have known him.
 
Boyd Allen said:
It is a good thing that I decided to go back to the article that was source of the incorrect memory that I almost responded with. I found it in my copy of "The Benchrest Shooting Primer" on page 131, the last paragraph of an article titled "History of Fiberglass Stocks" by Chet Brown, who along with Lee Six was a pioneer in fiberglass stock development. The article was reprinted from the December 1985 issue of Precision Shooting Magazine. In the last paragraph, Chet wrote, "In 1972 Selby Wright an Jjim Steko were gluing in barrels and Lee and I were gluing in actions. There were several advantages to gluing in. One, you solved the bedding problem. Two, you could use a hollow or at least lighter stock. It wasn't too long until most glueins swung around to the action being glued. I still don't think that a gluein bedding job is any better than conventional; but but it sure is easier to do."

Some years after Chet wrote the article, I was at a benchrest match at the range near Visalia, Ca. and posed the glue in vs. pillar bedded question to a group of shooters that included Gary Ocock and Lee Six. Lee's answer was unexpected. Instead of favoring one or the other, his answer was "both", going on to explain that by that he meant doing a conventional pillar bedding job and then gluing it in as a last step. I asked him if he torqued the action screws after the glue in, just like conventional pillar bedding, and he said that he did. Lee was a skilled benchrest shooter, rifle, and stock builder, and always great to visit with at matches. I feel lucky to have known him.
Click to expand...

A week ago I would have said Screw'd in, hands down. A friend has been having some accuracy issues with one of his rifles. He has had several new barrels on it but it still had performed below his expectations. He phoned me the other day and reported that he finally noticed a gap between the bedding and action of his rifle. Said he could easily get a .002 feeler guage between them. This is a Screw'd in job.

I have seen three or four glued in rifles come loose over the years I have been shooting Benchrest, one of them mine. I came to the conclusion, some time back, that the bedding shrinks over time so a Screw-in was the answer; well, not necessarily ------------. I am convinced now that there is no best answer but one must be vigilant regardless of whichever they have.
 
Pete, a bad bedding job is just that....doesn't matter if it's a bolt in or a glue-in.

People think that glue-ins solve all bedding woes, but that's not so. Quite the opposite, as a poorly done glue-in can mask the real issue. There's been a lot of barrels, scopes, etc. changed to 'fix' a gun when a poorly done glue-in job was the real culprit. Or the glue-in was correctly done, but has deteriorated to the point where accuracy is suffering.

Proper bedding is very basic, but very misunderstood.

Good shooting. -Al
 
Bob Pease was an advocate of pillar bedding. He wrote that if the screw tension made any difference at all the bedding was not right.

I called Bob one Monday to order some bullets for the upcoming weekend. I asked him to send them 2nd day and he refused - said it would cost me too much and that I needed to plan more carefully for the future. Didn't matter at all that I needed the bullets Friday or miss the match. Funny guy Bob Pease.
 
Last edited:
Wilbur said:
Bob Pease was an advocate of pillar bedding. He wrote that if the screw tension made any difference at all the bedding was not right.

I called Bob one Monday to order some bullets for the upcoming weekend. I asked him to send them 2nd day and he refused - said it would cost me too much and that I needed to plan more carefully for the future. Didn't matter at all that I needed the bullets Friday or miss the match. Funny guy Bob Pease.
Click to expand...

I agree with the bold highlighted Bob Pease concept.

And, also the last statement . . . still, Bob was a KEEPER. :)

When I assumed the dictatorship of the American Conference (TcL), Bob, co-founder of the ORIGINAL TcL (later, the National Conference) expected me to "take" reject teams (perennial losers) into the American Conf., as he moved the better AC teams up to the "big leagues" (my wording here) . . . when I advised Bob that if a team wasn't good enough for consideration for the National Conference, it wasn't good enough for the scrub league either, "we intend to ADVANCE, and eventually demand a National Postal League (TcL) shoot-off" . . . initially, Mr. Pease thought me loony . . . but, later, he agreed, and NBRSA Hunter Rifle competition advanced, until about 2001, and since then, has been in continual decline. :( Bob Pease, and Tony Hidalgo (Sp?) were powerful forces - the brains - in the beginnings of NBRSA registered Hunter Rifle competition: the TcL was the heart and soul. Keep "em ON the X! RG
 
Wilbur said:
Bob Pease was an advocate of pillar bedding. He wrote that if the screw tension made any difference at all the bedding was not right.

I called Bob one Monday to order some bullets for the upcoming weekend. I asked him to send them 2nd day and he refused - said it would cost me too much and that I needed to plan more carefully for the future. Didn't matter at all that I needed the bullets Friday or miss the match. Funny guy Bob Pease.
Click to expand...

I have most of Bob Pease's booklets around somewhere. One of the things that he said in one of them to check the bedding was that on a good bedding job was that you could shoot a shot with the screws tight. Loosen off the rear screw, shoot a shot. Tighten it back and loosen off the front screw. All shots should be in the group with a properly bedded rifle. He was an advocate of using poured Devcon aluminum pillars using the Devcon putty for the first coat and Devcon liquid for the second coat. I was buying Bob Cauterucio (GTB- Group Tightner Bullets) and I believe Watson bullets from him before I even had clue who Ed Watson was.
 
Dennis Tasto was the guy Pease was using for his stock work and bedding. I had three rifles pillar bedded by Dennis and they were all perfect. They all had the Devcon pillars and shot great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top