To Pillar Bed Or Not To Pillar Bed

[Pappy42]

I see that "glued and screwed" has been mentioned. Does that show better results on target than one technique or the other?

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I see that "glued and screwed" has been mentioned. Does that show better results on target than one technique or the other?

In my opinion, yes. I have seen it improve a very good rifle, one that I would not think could have been improved. Its been said that a perfect bedding job can equal a glue job, but I dont think so. A glue in ensures 100% stock to action contact day in day out every time. A bedding job can pull away, squeeze, warp, exc thus changing how it touches the action, even how you hold the gun can effect this.
I was out early one morning testing some stuff on a 1k rifle. Cool morning and with an adjustable rudder the rifle was tracking perfectly. As the sun came up I noticed the cross hair started to track off to the right as I slide the gun back. The slight heat from the sun on the side of the rifle grew that side of the stock enough for me to see it in the tracking. How do you think that effected the bedding?

 

[BoydAllen]

There may not be too many Savages on the firing lines at 1,000 yard competitions. Years ago when I fitted mine, a single shot varmint model with a laminated stock, with one of Fred Moreo's triggers, I had to open up the trigger guard slot. Lacking a mill, I did it with a stone on a Dremel tool. Boy, was that piece of stainless tough, but finally I got it to the point where I thought that I was finished, it fit together with some clearance, but when I tightened the rear action screw the guard came into contact with the trigger, and I had to remove more metal. Unlike other actions, Savages' sears come close to the rear action screw which dictates removing stock material right were the stock meet s the action, so that the stock only makes contact to over half the hole. This and the adjoining trigger mortise produce a situation where the stock material is much more likely to be compressed when the rear action screw is tightened. That is the reason that I believe that for that particular application that a pillar has an advantage. Years ago a fellow that I know asked me what he could do to make his rifles shoot more consistently. They would do well on one trip to the range and less so on another, with no apparent reason. I made a copy of an article in Precision shooting that had pictures and directions about how to do a cast in place pillar job on a Remington. Being a fearless sort, he jumped right in and did one of his rifles, that had been conventionally bedded. He was so pleased with the result that he did all of his other rifles and a couple for friends. One of his was a Savage that I had sold him some time back. Because of the cut at the back screw ( which prevented him from doing a cast in place pillar) he made metal pillar out of a piece of copper scrap from his business (Electrical contractor). He did a good job and the rifle shot better than before. That was back when there was much less awareness of pillar bedding among the general shooting public, back when you learned things from other shooters and Precision Shooting magazine. Some of the pillars that I have done have been cast. Because of the greater shrinkage where the bedding was the full depth of the pillar, I followed the lead of those that I was copying and did a second, skim bedding after the initial bedding. Because George Kelbly had shared with me that when pillars were first done that they found that they got better accuracy when metal pillars were not in direct contact with the action, when I got around to using aluminum pillars, I installed them in the stock with spacers between them and the action and then did what amounted to a conventional bedding job over the top. The pillars were probably an eighth of an inch below the action. That seemed to work pretty well, but looking back, I probably missed a couple of details that I would not today, like checking bedding with a dial indicator, like Mike Bryant wrote about later. For me, results define the correctness of a bedding procedure, and I respect the experiences of others, and am always delighted to learn from them.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I built a Br rifle on a Shehane stock probably 5 years ago. Originally with no pillars to test this. The rifle performed excellent. In its prime I installed pillars and re-bedded it. There was no change that I could see at all. The function of pillars in my opinion is to prevent stock damage from over torquing. In a laminate or fiberglass stock I dont think they are needed at all. Actually I think you may actually get better bedding contact with out them. Epoxy shrinks as it cures, pillars dont. As the bedding is curing and pulling away from the action the pillars are not. You can see this when you take the action out, look around the pillars and you will see its the only place the action really touches. I keep my pillars short of the action to help prevent that.

I have not tested Savage actions with or without pillars and i know they have a lot of flex so perhaps pillars would help a Savage.

But with other stronger more robust actions, I have not seen any difference with pillars vs. without either. If not fully bedding the action, I could see where pillars may give an advantage, but with full action bedding, their effect is negligible. I also have not seen any advantage with stocks using aluminum bedding blocks, vs stocks without that have been fully bedded. In fact I seem to get better accuracy using stocks without bedding blocks. Just my experience.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Boyd, I do agree with the Savage thing. I guess my point is more of a general statement. The rear half pillar in a Savage is a major design flaw IMO. If you can tune groups with action screw torque your have a problem. The other issue with a Boyds stock is they have a reputation for the laminate slitting, I have experienced it first hand. I like to remove as little wood as possible, so i would use 3/8" od pillars in a boyd's. No doubt others like Kelbly's know all about keeping pillars away from the action. I think I remember them writing about it quite some time ago.

 

[hoz53]

There may not be too many Savages on the firing lines at 1,000 yard competitions. Years ago when I fitted mine, a single shot varmint model with a laminated stock, with one of Fred Moreo's triggers, I had to open up the trigger guard slot. Lacking a mill, I did it with a stone on a Dremel tool. Boy, was that piece of stainless tough, but finally I got it to the point where I thought that I was finished, it fit together with some clearance, but when I tightened the rear action screw the guard came into contact with the trigger, and I had to remove more metal. Unlike other actions, Savages' sears come close to the rear action screw which dictates removing stock material right were the stock meet s the action, so that the stock only makes contact to over half the hole. This and the adjoining trigger mortise produce a situation where the stock material is much more likely to be compressed when the rear action screw is tightened. That is the reason that I believe that for that particular application that a pillar has an advantage. Years ago a fellow that I know asked me what he could do to make his rifles shoot more consistently. They would do well on one trip to the range and less so on another, with no apparent reason. I made a copy of an article in Precision shooting that had pictures and directions about how to do a cast in place pillar job on a Remington. Being a fearless sort, he jumped right in and did one of his rifles, that had been conventionally bedded. He was so pleased with the result that he did all of his other rifles and a couple for friends. One of his was a Savage that I had sold him some time back. Because of the cut at the back screw ( which prevented him from doing a cast in place pillar) he made metal pillar out of a piece of copper scrap from his business (Electrical contractor). He did a good job and the rifle shot better than before. That was back when there was much less awareness of pillar bedding among the general shooting public, back when you learned things from other shooters and Precision Shooting magazine. Some of the pillars that I have done have been cast. Because of the greater shrinkage where the bedding was the full depth of the pillar, I followed the lead of those that I was copying and did a second, skim bedding after the initial bedding. Because George Kelbly had shared with me that when pillars were first done that they found that they got better accuracy when metal pillars were not in direct contact with the action, when I got around to using aluminum pillars, I installed them in the stock with spacers between them and the action and then did what amounted to a conventional bedding job over the top. The pillars were probably an eighth of an inch below the action. That seemed to work pretty well, but looking back, I probably missed a couple of details that I would not today, like checking bedding with a dial indicator, like Mike Bryant wrote about later. For me, results define the correctness of a bedding procedure, and I respect the experiences of others, and am always delighted to learn from them.

Holy Cow Boyd How many savages have you had? when i got my First savage and bedded it i hated how i had to end the bedding in the middle of that rear guard screw. that was one of the things that turned me away from the savages

 

[BoydAllen]

Funny Savage story: A few years back, a friend who is a retired engineer told me that he had discovered that if he tightened the rear action screw of one of his two screw Savages before starting the first, that it would lever the front of the action and barrel out of the bedding. He went on and on about this being a defect. I agreed that it was not optimal but had trouble getting through to him with what seemed like an obvious point. By doing that he was very likely to distort the bedding at the rear screw, permanently damaging it. The stock was one of the laminated low profile models. I told him that by simply snugging up the front screw first that the whole problem would be avoided, and pointed out to him that the rifle's accuracy, had been very good, indicating that there had been no functional problem, but more of an esthetic one. He breezed right on by that and continued to carry on about something that I would have been obvious to anyone who had had one apart.

The Savages that I have owned, and the one that I still have would hold their own with any factory rifle. I do not recommend using any of them as the basis for an expensive rifle because of trigger availability and bolt lift issues, neither of which are problems for many uses, including some kinds of target competition. If you ask around about how they do in factory class score benchrest, or inquire as to their performance in F TR, compared to other factory rifles, I think that you will find that they have excellent reputations. My experiences shooting varmints with mine have been excellent. The thing to keep in mind is to make apples to apples comparisons.

 

[hoz53]

Funny Savage story: A few years back, a friend who is a retired engineer told me that he had discovered that if he tightened the rear action screw of one of his two screw Savages before starting the first, that it would lever the front of the action and barrel out of the bedding. He went on and on about this being a defect. I agreed that it was not optimal but had trouble getting through to him with what seemed like an obvious point. By doing that he was very likely to distort the bedding at the rear screw, permanently damaging it. The stock was one of the laminated low profile models. I told him that by simply snugging up the front screw first that the whole problem would be avoided, and pointed out to him that the rifle's accuracy, had been very good, indicating that there had been no functional problem, but more of an esthetic one. He breezed right on by that and continued to carry on about something that I would have been obvious to anyone who had had one apart.

The Savages that I have owned, and the one that I still have would hold their own with any factory rifle. I do not recommend using any of them as the basis for an expensive rifle because of trigger availability and bolt lift issues, neither of which are problems for many uses, including some kinds of target competition. If you ask around about how they do in factory class score benchrest, or inquire as to their performance in F TR, compared to other factory rifles, I think that you will find that they have excellent reputations. My experiences shooting varmints with mine have been excellent. The thing to keep in mind is to make apples to apples comparisons.

the savage i had was very accurate. I had no complaints about that and i do know savages do well in many areas. Many people are happy with them and i think thats fine. there are just some things about them i dont care for so i dont personally want one but im sure not bashing anybody who likes them. Thanks

 

[Fast14riot]

Now how do you experts (meant sincerely) feel about pillars in a non laminated wood stock? I'm going to be bedding my 700 into it's 40xb walnut stock, but am wondering if just pillars would be sufficient?

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Now how do you experts (meant sincerely) feel about pillars in a non laminated wood stock? I'm going to be bedding my 700 into it's 40xb walnut stock, but am wondering if just pillars would be sufficient?

I do think pillars are needed in wood. If you dont want to bed the action at least put a dab of epoxy around the lug.

 

[savagedasher]

I have pillars I put in a stock and never bedded it it shoot the best of any gun I have .larry