Index Home About Blog
From: (Bart Bobbit)
Subject: Re: Rem 700 or Win 70?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site

Jeff Boone ( wrote about my comments regarding M700s
shooting loose from their epoxy bedding:

: Is this something that can be fixed by re-tightening the bedding screws,
: or does it require that the action be re-bedded?

No, it's not.  Folks tried that over 30 years ago; didn't work.

What happens is that the epoxy that's about a tenth of an inch thick
actually moves the stock material beneath it along with it.  When that
happens, perfect contact between all of the bedding epoxy and the
receiver is lost; accuracy suffers.  Which leave one with two choices:

  * Do something to prevent the receiver from twisting.

  * Rebed the receiver.

A good way to prevent round receivers from shooting loose from their
epoxy bedding is to have something square at their back and front end
to oppose the torquing motion the bullet causes.  Some folks have welded
on square lugs at the front and back of M700 (and other round) receivers
and they've performed very well.  Or, they'll epoxy a square-bottomed
aluminum sleeve on the round receiver; this also works most excellent.


From: (Bart Bobbitt)
Subject: Re: Rem 700 or Win 70?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site

Jeff Boone ( wrote:

: Is this something that can be fixed by re-tightening the bedding screws,
: or does it require that the action be re-bedded?

I should have mentioned that even when folks loosen their stock screws
(ie, bedding screws) after each shooting session, then torque 'em up
to exactly 60 inch-pounds the next day before shooting, those round
receivers still tend to shoot out of their bedding.


From: (Bart Bobbitt)
Subject: Re: Rem700V Bedding ?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site

S.J. Orth (/S=Orth/G=Steven/ wrote:

: I'm assuming (dangerous activity) from the data given, that the action
: rotates around a line that is perpendicular to the boreline located at the
: back of the recoil lug.  Therefore, we must have a downward force at the
: tang of the action into the bedding.

Good conclusion.  Better reasoning.  Here's why.

Remington M700 tangs are not as stiff as the Winchester M70 tang.  A
common problem with Remingtons is their tang gets bent from torquing up
the rear stock screw too tight.  This pulls the tang down and compresses
the bedding (stock plus epoxy if used).  When this happens, the bedding
is a bit more elastic than the steel and it comes back up somewhat.  But
the tang is now bent down more than before and doesn't come back.  This
results in the tang now putting the back end of the M700 receiver at a
higher point relative to the bedding.  As such, there's less contact
between the back half of the M700 receiver and its bedding.  Which ends
up causing accuracy to get worse.  Rebedding the receiver will solve
this problem; original accuracy returns.  With bullets heavier than 160
or so grains shot with powder charges greater than about 45 grains,
there's enough vertical flexing of the receiver as it pivots on the
recoil lug to cause the M700's tang to eventually bend up.  After this
exercise continues for about 300 shots, the tang is no longer well
bedded; time to rebed again.  As the M700's round receiver doesn't
resist twisting very well, that torquing aggrevates the bedding too,
but probably not as much as vertical flexing from recoil.

: Now, if this is the case, then the
: M70 should not be as stable as the M700 because the area available to bed
: the tang on a M70 is *much* smaller than the area on the M700.  But, we
: have been told that the M70 is more stable.  I suspect there is something
: else going on here.

If you consider the tang that part of the receiver that's behind the
back-most edge of the cutout for the bolt handle's root, you'll note that
the M70 tang has a much greater cross sectional area than the M700.  Even
though the M70 tang may be longer, it is stiffer than the M700s tang.

: One thing does come forth from this; it would appear that this is a very
: good case for *properly* pillar bedding your actions at the front and the
: back (as describe by Toby in this chain, I believe).

Except that pillar bedding has not proved itself capable of better
accuracy with the Win. M70.  Conventional and pillar bedding has been
used by the top highpower competitors; neither performs better than the
other.  But pillar bedding costs half again as much.


From: (John Bercovitz)
Subject: Re: Rem700V Bedding ?
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California

In article </S=Orth/G=Steven/I=J/OU=MSMAIL/O=DEN.MMAG/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/-071293161959@> /S=Orth/G=Steven/I=J/OU=MSMAIL/O=DEN.MMAG/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/ (S.J. Orth) writes:

#My question is whether the rifle would shoot better if I bedded the sides
#of recoil lug in the mortice, with the bottom free.  Right now all torque
#is reacted against the action screws, which should be bad, and friction
#between the action and the bedding (some engineers dont consider friction
#to be a legitimate source for a reacting force).  I never thoght of this
#until now.  Any comments would be appreciated.  Enjoy!!

Sometimes friction can be a "legitimate" or sufficient force.  A properly-
tightened screw won't work loose in a high-vibration environment.  I would
consider a rifle to be similar to a high-vibration environment.  Usually
stability in this sort of environment depends on the "stored energy" of
the fastener (screw).  A screw which is long is stretched a lot when the
proper torque is applied so it has a lot of "stored energy".  This helps
it to maintain a sufficient force in a high-vibration environment.  The
stored energy doesn't necessarily have to be in the screw; it could be in
another part of the assembly, a part which is compressed by the screw.

I think the Remington has two bedding problems.  Both were mentioned by
B^2, I believe, but I would state them in a slightly different way.  One is
the potential for slippage between the round receiver and the stock.  The
cure for this is to bond the receiver to the stock (make it a "glue-in").
Don't forget to cross drill the stock so you can get at the trigger assembly's
retaining pins.

The other problem is that effectively the Remington action has insufficient
bedding area.  If you look at the distribution of the forces around the
round-bottomed receiver which resist the pull of the stock screws, you see
that it is uneven and that the compressive force is very high near the
screws.  It is high enough to take the stock material past yield unless it
is reinforced with good bedding.  That's if you really gronk the screws to
keep the action from slipping around.  I personally use 45 in-lbs front and
30 in-lbs rear to keep yielding from happening.  Bart recommended a higher
figure but also recommended loosening them between shooting sessions.  My
approach works well on lighter calibers but I sure wouldn't try it on
a 300 win mag or similar.

As to bedding the sides of the recoil lug, I've never done it because the
recoil lug is just clamped between the barrel and receiver face.  (Friction
again.)  I would be afraid it could potentially slip with a heavy caliber.
I guess one of us ought to calculate how much torque could be applied to
the lug without it slipping.  I relieve everything but the material
immediately behind the lug.

What was the name of the guy who took Mike Walker's place at the Remington
custom shop?  Was it something like Dave Steckl?  Anyway, he glued the
breech end of the barrel into the stock and floated the action.  Worked
well for him but he wasn't using any heavy calibers.

I think your best bet is a glued-in action plus a medium torque level
like 45/30.

As long as I'm droning on and on, I noticed someone talking about changing
the amount of fore end force to improve accuracy.  Some barrels shoot
better that way.  I had a 700ADL come though maybe ten years ago that
wouldn't shoot well without for end force.  So to put some force back in
(I had floated the barrel), I put a gob of epoxy between the barrel and
and the fore end and before the epoxy set up, I turned the rifle upside
down and clamped the fore end in a vise and hung a ten pound weight from
the barrel at a point near the fore end.  This worked really well for
getting a known upward force on the barrel.  Heck if I know if it was a
better way or not, but it worked good.  8-)  What I was after was to
keep the force reasonably high but not so high as to warp the stock.
I felt it was easier to control the force directly rather than try to
guess what size shim would give an adequate force.

Well, there's your minimum daily allowance of blither.  8-)

John B

From: (John Bercovitz)
Subject: Re: Rem700V Bedding ?
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California

In article <2e5k43$>
(Toby Bradshaw) writes:

#In article <>, John Bercovitz <> wrote:

##The other problem is that effectively the Remington action has insufficient
##bedding area.  If you look at the distribution of the forces around the
##round-bottomed receiver which resist the pull of the stock screws, you see
##that it is uneven and that the compressive force is very high near the
##screws.  It is high enough to take the stock material past yield unless it
##is reinforced with good bedding.  That's if you really gronk the screws to
##keep the action from slipping around.  I personally use 45 in-lbs front and
##30 in-lbs rear to keep yielding from happening.  Bart recommended a higher
##figure but also recommended loosening them between shooting sessions.  My
##approach works well on lighter calibers but I sure wouldn't try it on
##a 300 win mag or similar.

#I'm not too sure about this, John.  It seems to me that both the
#Rem 700 and Win 70 have about the same bedding surface near the
#front action screw -- it's just that the plane of the surface is
#curved in the Rem.  The contact betweent the receiver and the bedding
#can be perfect or imperfect in either case, so I don't see how the
#point loads would be any different unless one surface is harder
#to bed than the other (and with epoxy, I don't think this is the

I'm not too sure about it either.  Here's the direction I was thinking along,
though. Any time you have a curved surface in a saddle, and this could be
a journal of your crankshaft sitting in its bearing, the surface pressure
is highest on that part of the surface which is perpendicular to the force
vector which is causing the pressure.  So not all parts of the bedding are
loaded equally.  As an extreme case of this argument, you wouldn't want to
say that the surface along the "sides" of a Remington action support any of
the load.  You also wouldn't want to say that the portion of the surface
which is just under the action but is near the "sides" does its share of
the work.  So what I'm saying is that I don't think it's OK to just say
the load is distributed evenly across the rounded surface.  That is, you
can't just project the curved surface into an equivalent flat surface.
At least that's how I see it.  Been wrong before.  Actually, I think it's
a bit more complicated than what I'm saying here when you enter the
compliance of the sides of the stock.  You could say that the sides of
the stock, the parts of the stock that are at an angle other than 90
degrees to the guard screw force, aren't really trapped between the
screw head and receiver bottom as neatly as that which is directly below
the receiver bottom.  In contrast, if you look at a model 70, the stress in
the wood builds up like sort of an inverted pyramid going from the screw head
(or more properly the screw head's seat) to the bottom of the receiver.
I think this is why unbedded Remington's should do better than unbedded
Winchesters.  If there are bedding errors, the Remington will just squash
the wood into shape starting at the inside (where stress is high) and
working outward from there until the load is taken up.  Also, of course,
the obvious thing is that the Remington action is self-centering.

##As to bedding the sides of the recoil lug, I've never done it because the
##recoil lug is just clamped between the barrel and receiver face.  (Friction
##again.)  I would be afraid it could potentially slip with a heavy caliber.
##I guess one of us ought to calculate how much torque could be applied to
##the lug without it slipping.  I relieve everything but the material
##immediately behind the lug.

#Factory barrels are screwed on at with about 200ft-lbs of torque.  If
#you're shooting a RH twist rifle with anything like that much reaction
#torque, and you're right-handed, I think you could go a few rounds with
#Mike Tyson :)

200 ft-lbs?  I had no idea it was that high.  Maybe that's what I've been
doing wrong.  8-)  I don't know how to relate how much torque the recoil
lug can take to this figure, but I'm sure it has to be something in the
same ball park.  Well, I know how to do it but I'm too lazy.  So the next
question is, what is the reaction torque.  I don't know, but I'd think it
would be well under that level.  Maybe Steve Faber could tell us the peak
acceleration of a bullet and then we could go from there.

##Anyway, he glued the
##breech end of the barrel into the stock and floated the action.  Worked
##well for him but he wasn't using any heavy calibers.

#Up to .308 this worked fine.  Everyone quit doing this because
#it's a pain to put the scope on the barrel (where it has to
#be in a barrel-bedded arm) and modern BR actions can easily
#support a heavy barrel.  Action bedding makes it possible to have
#a switch-barrel rig, which is popular.  Even the Stolle Panda has
#a bedding surface of 8.5 x 1.5 inches (except for the trigger
#cutout), which is plenty.  In fact, standard Rem actions are
#glued in quite successfully and glue-ins have just about
#eliminated sleeving.  A good glue-in has neither a recoil lug
#nor actions screws, and will easily hold a .308.

That's real interesting about it working up to .308; hadn't heard that.

##I think your best bet is a glued-in action plus a medium torque level
##like 45/30.

#I don't like a glue-in on a hunting arm.  The thought of a .338
#coming "unglued" while hunting at 20 below or 100 above zero,
#with no recoil lug or stock screws to slow its rearward voyage to
#my unsuspecting face, gives me the willies.  Much better to pillar
#bed the thing, and leave the glue-ins to competition rifles with
#no magazines and with good trigger brackets.  Good bolt-in bedding
#is as good as most glue-ins, it's just harder to do right and
#has more potential problems than a glue-in (from a competition

Yeah, that would bother me a lot too if a receiver came unglued.
That's why I was recommending leaving in the guard screws and the
recoil lug.  Sort of a belt and suspenders approach.  Also, I think
the guard screws would create an isostatic pressure condition in
the bedding which would favor its resistance to rotation.  Just a
gut feeling; been wrong before.  8-)  I agree it wouldn't be as
neat as leaving off the recoil lug and the guard screws.  I also
agree that glue ins aren't too nice on a hunting arm.  In fact,
I'm not fond of glue ins at all because I'm still a kid who can't
stand things he can't take apart.  It could solve the fellow's
problem, though.

John B

From: (John Bercovitz)
Subject: Re: Rem700V Bedding ?
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California

A couple of comments:

On the way home Friday (driving offers such good opportunities to
think), it occurred to me we don't need to ask Steve Faber what the
peak acceleration of a bullet is because it's obvious.  The peak
acceleration occurs when the pressure peaks.  So now, given a little
time, I can calculate the peak torque on a rifle barrel due to twist.

I said earlier that the torque I use on Remington 700 action screws is
45 in-lb front and 30 in-lb rear.  For ready reference, I keep the figures
written on a blaze-orange sticker on my torque wrench.  When I looked at
my torque wrench this weekend, I discovered I had erased those numbers
and put in 35/25 instead.  I don't remember when or why I made the
change.  Also this weekend, I checked the torque on the screws of a new
Remington PSS and found 34 front and 24 rear.  It's a very good torque
wrench so I trust its figures to an in-lb.

John B

From: (John Bercovitz)
Subject: Re: Rem700V Bedding ?
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California


This thread has probably gone cold so I'll review it:

Steve Orth asked if it would improve things if he bedded the sides
of the recoil lugs of his Rem 700 in 300 Wby.

Toby Bradshaw said he beds the left and right sides of the
Remington recoil lug so as to prevent rotation of the round
Remington receiver in its bedding.

I suggested that since the Remington recoil lug is only held by
friction, the lug might be loosened if you did this.

Toby thought not since his understanding is that Remington barrels
are torqued at 200 ft-lbs.  [ This implies that a torque within an
order of magnitude of this figure would be required to cause the
recoil lug to slip.  8-)  ]

I allowed as how I didn't think the torque reaction of the
receiver to the rotation imparted to the bullet would be anywhere
near that level, but I would calculate it.

And the answer is.........   Toby's absolutely right, the torque
the receiver sees is way too low (about 2 ft-lbs) to have any
chance of loosening the recoil lug.  I think an unmodified rifle's
receiver can rotate in its bedding in spite of this very low level
of torque because at the time this torque is being applied, the
linear recoil of the receiver is probably moving the receiver ever
so slightly relative to its bedding and so the receiver is "broke
loose" and easy to rotate.  If true, one cure would be to really
gronk the receiver screws for the duration of the shooting session
as Bart suggested.  [I should probably calculate whether or not
the receiver is breaking loose before I go too far down this road.]


The calculation of the torque reaction of the receiver to the spin
the barrel imparts to the bullet is really simple but I'll pretend
you all haven't taken physics in a while and I'll lead you through it.

Background:  We all remember that f = m*a where f is the force
required to give an acceleration, a, to a mass, m.  There is a
rotational analogue of this equation which is T = J*A where T is
the torque required to impart an rotational acceleration, A, to
a mass with polar moment of inertia, J.  [ A is usually called
"alpha" but this character seems to be missing from my keyboard.
8-) ]  Our problem is to find the torque on the bullet (which is
equal and opposite to the torque on the receiver) given the linear
acceleration of the bullet.  To do that, it is useful to be able
to equate the linear and rotational worlds.  This is not so
difficult if you remember that when the bullet advances twelve
inches in the instance of a 308 or ten inches in the instance of a
30 magnum, you get a full revolution or 2*pi radians of bullet
rotation.  If you carry that piece of information to its logical
conclusion, you find that m and J are related by the square of
2*pi/L where L is the lead which is equal to the twist of ten or
twelve inches.

The mass that the powder gasses are pushing against is really
the mass of the bullet plus the linear equivalent of the
polar moment of inertia of the bullet.  The linear equivalent
of the polar monment of inertia of the bullet is usually
quite small compared the the normal mass of the bullet but I'll
calculate it and add it in for the sake of completeness.

First we need the polar moment of inertia, J, of the bullet.  If
the bullet were a right homogenous cylinder, that would be easy.
Then the polar moment of inertia would be: J = 1/2 m r^2.  A cone
has J = .3 m r^2.  So the materials in the nose and boattail of
the bullet don't count for as much.  Let's say a 180 gn bullet is
rotationally equivalent to a 160 gn right homogenous cylinder.
m = 160 gn = 5.92*10^-5 lb-sec^2/in
J = 1/2 m r^2 = 6.84*10^-7 lb-sec^2-in.
Using the equivalence relationship, this J is equivalent to a
mass of:
m equiv = J (2 pi/L)^2 = 2.70*10-7 lb-sec/in when L = 10"
The linear mass of the bullet is 180 gn or 6.66*10-5 lb-sec^2/in
The summation of the two kinds of mass is
m = 6.66*10-5 + 2.70*10-7 = 6.69*10^-5 lb-sec^2/in

The peak force on that mass is the peak chamber pressure times the
base area less the bullet/barrel friction.  If bullet/barrel
friction is around 150# and peak pressure is around 50,000 psi,
then the peak force on the base of the bullet is around 3500

So now we have mass and peak force from which we can get the peak
acceleration of the bullet:
a = f/m = 3500 lb / 6.69*10-5 lb-sec^2/in = 5.23*10^+7 in/sec^2

Now all we have left is to convert the linear acceleration to
rotational acceleration and find the torque.  Very simple:

A = a ( 2 pi / L ) = 3.29*10^7 rad/sec^2

T = J A = (6.84*10^-7 lb-sec^2-in) (3.29*10^7 rad/sec^2)
        = 22.5 in-lb = 1.9 ft-lb

John Bercovitz     (

From: (John Bercovitz)
Subject: [SMITHING] Rem. action screw problem
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California

I've noticed several times over the years that the front
action screw (aka guard screw) on Remington 700 style bolt
guns is often very very short.  Whereas the screw would
have to go in about four turns to interfere with the
rotation of the lower bolt lug, a couple of times I've
seen thread engagement of as little as one thread.  This
bothers me a lot.  Anyone know why Remington does this?
Can their tolerance buildup really be this large?  At
28 threads per inch, we're talking a tolerance problem on
the order of 1/10 inch here.  Seems enormous to me.

In the past I've bought beautifully-made long socket head
action screws from Half Moon Rifle Shop in Columbia Falls,
Montana, but the last time I talked with them (five years
ago?) they were not making them but were considering
resuming their production.  Anyone know if they offer this
product now?

For this latest occurence of the problem, I bought a 3/8
diameter 90 degree countersink (actual diameter about .385)
and used it to deepen the screw seat in the front of the
trigger guard.  This seems to be the countersink Remington
is using for the job.  The screw head has an included angle
of 88 degrees so the contact is at the inner radius which
cuts down on torque.  Note that standard countersinks are
of the 82 degree variety.

On a related note, as I've mentioned before, I torque the front
screw to 35 in-lb and the rear screw to 25 in-lb.  I didn't
mention that I lube the threads and the underside of the
screw head with moly grease (very small amount, just a smear)
before I set a screw.  This is to achieve a consistent screw
tension.  Dry screws are notoriously variable.

John Bercovitz     (

From: (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Accurizing a Remmington 700?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <35lafd$>, Robert Fickling <> wrote:
#In article <35k0oj$>,

#The Remington rifle action makes a more accurate rifle that others such as the
#popular Winchester. Ask *ANY* benchrest shooter/gunsmith.

Well, I'm a competitive benchrest shooter and I shoot with a bunch
of benchrest gunsmiths, and there's no consensus at all that the
Rem action makes a more accurate rifle.  What the Rem has going for
it in benchrest is two things -- it's light, and so was easier to
make LV in the days before glass stocks and internally-adjusted
scopes, and it's round, which makes sleeving easy.  The Rem action
is not as stiff as the Winchester, and changing barrels is a pain
in the ass unless the recoil lug is pinned to the receiver face.
Of course, Rem actions are getting scarcer in the winner's circle
(outside hunter class) because by the time everything is trued and
possibly sleeved, you've got as much money in it as a good custom.
The same-side bolt/port on the Rem makes it slow to shoot, the
flat bolt nose makes feeding lousy, the excessive bolt nose-to-
boltface distance makes shooting balloon-headed PPC cases dicey,
the extractor sucks, and trigger pins have to be used in a glue-in.
And I'm somebody who *likes* Rem actions!

#If you must shoot heavy bullets, simply have a "glue-in" or sleeved gun built
#on the fine Remington action.

If you want a BR-type rifle that shoots well and holds its value well,
start with a custom action.  It's cheaper in the long run and is easier
to shoot well from day one.  I was chatting with Dan Lilja and Ted
Larson at the Washington State Championships earlier this month
(they finished 1-2 in the 3-gun, both had smithed their own rifles)
and Ted took a barrel from Dan's Stolle and screwed in onto his own
Stolle.  Ted could shoot Dan's brass, return the barrel to Dan, and
Dan's brass *still* fit.  Benchrest gunsmiths will chamber barrels
for Stolles (at least) without even having the action returned to
them -- they're made that close.  Don't try that with a Rem.  The
threads are *made* straight, are in line with the bolt axis *without*
recutting, the receiver face starts out square, the bolt is stiffer
and cone-faced, etc.  Why pay as much for the inferior Rem
brought to BR standards?

#Don't waste your time on a factory barrel. Start with the best barrel you
#can afford. Good shooting...

No point in screwing a good barrel into a mediocre action.  Rems
are a fine factory action, though not the best for many purposes.
They are in the deep shade of custom actions for benchrest.  A
glance at the winner's equipment list from any big BR shoot
will confirm that.

-Toby Bradshaw

From: (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Building a long range rifle
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1qn3m6INNg4s@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> (Bob Paasch) writes:
#In article <> (Bart Bobbitt) writes:
##I don't recommend the M700 action for a long range rifle using a magnum
##cartridge.  They have a history of shooting loose from their bedding due
##to the round receiver; this takes about 200 to 300 rounds.  And the M700
##recoil lug has been known to bend with magnum cartridges.
#Wouldn't an aluminum bedding block (like Remington uses on the 700VS and
#700PSS solve the above bedding problem?  This feature is available in
#a number of custom stocks.
#If you are rebarreling anyway, there are replacement recoil lugs
#available that are beefier.

Remington actions became the standard in benchrest for one main
reason -- they are round and therefore easy to sleeve.  This also
makes them cheap to manufacture, which is of course a chief design
criterion.  Back when it was hard to make the 10.5 pound sporter
and light varmint weight limits, aluminum-sleeved Rems were preferred
over actions like the Winchester, which are hard to sleeve and too
heavy for short benchrest cartridges.  This does not mean that the
Winchester is inferior; in most design aspects it is superior to
the Remington _as is_.  The problem of round actions being sensitive
to torquing is solved easily in benchrest.  The cartridges are
typically low powered, so there is less of a problem to begin with.
Sleeved actions (or some customs like the Stolle) are often flat-bottomed,
and even round actions (some sleeved actions, Hall, Wichita) can be
glued in for a solid bedding job.  For highpower, these actions
are probably inadequate because they lack a recoil lug and most
have no magazine cut.

The Rem action has a good locktime and a good factory trigger; neither
has much bearing on modern bechrest.  Sleeved Rems will shoot with
a custom, but cost just as much as a custom, have lower resale value,
and are slower to load than a right bolt/left port custom.

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the prosperity of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall
not be infringed." Should we stop teaching children to read, since what
they might read could be harmful to them?

From: Gale McMillan <>
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Long range Accuracy - Ruger No 1 vs Rem 700
Date: 31 Jan 1996 13:09:35 -0500

Bob: We are on opposite sides of a debate again. The only reason that 
the mod.70 ever got anywhere in competition was the smoothness of the 
action. Since it gets half the closing cam from the bolt lug and half 
from the receiver and because it has a weak firing spring it is very 
smooth and easy to operate making it easier to shoot rapid fire.
For a long period during the 80s I built all the Marine Corp match 
rifles. The first four thousand yard rifles I built them (on Rem 
actions) set and reset the National Record 17 times the first year.
I had the opportunity to see the difference between the Win. and Rem. 
when I built 6 Rems. and 6 solid bottom Wins at the same time. The 
barrels came off the buttoning machine one after the other and all 12 
guns were built exactly the same. When we put them on the return to 
battery cradle at Quantico all the Rems. shot under 1/2 M.O.A. and  
mod.70s shot 3/4 M.O.A. The 2nd string team shot the Wins. I know you 
remember that the Marines dominated the long range shooting during that
period. The only thing that the Army had a chance in was the service 
rifle. If you would look at the winners of the Leach Cup and the 
Wimbledon during the 80s it will prove my point.  The major things 
against the mod.70 is the weak firing pin spring gives ignition 
problems. The lock time is so slow you can almost pull the trigger and
then make a sight correction before it goes off. Only the Mauser is more 
limber. You will never see a Win. used in bench rest competion. They 
just can't get the accuracy out of them. Rem actions or custom actions 
of the Rem. type are the only thing used. This may be a bitter pill for 
Win fans to swallow but the record speaks for itself.  Did you ever stop 
to think why all the sniper rifles used by all branchs of the service 
are built on Rem 700 actions? It is because they shoot straighter!!!!
When you think of bedding you must understand the series of events that 
take place during firing. As the barrel and action recoil the force is 
to the rear and upward. This lifts the action up stretching the screws 
in the process. After the impulse the action settles back onto the 
bedding. On a square action, if it is bedded tight on the sides it has a 
tendency to stick and not settle back the same every time. If you clear 
the sides to prevent this then you get what is called chucking. That is 
the action slides back and forth side ways. The Rem. is round and has 
much less vertical surface to drag on and acts like a  vee block 
allowing it to settle back the same way after every shot.

Gale McMillan

From: Gale McMillan <>
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Actions: Win 70 vs. Rem 700?
Date: 14 Jul 1996 22:30:20 -0400

Frank Kleinburg wrote:
# In article <>, says...
# # Most people use the Win 70 because it costs less not because it is
# # better.  I prefer the 700 series Remingtons to all rifles that I can
# # afford.
# #
# I would tend to agree with the Doug Owen on this one.. An expert
# that used to spread his wisdom in this group (Bart Bobbit) felt that for
# sub 30 cal rifles, the Remington action was as good as any (actually
# better than most), but for 30 cal and above, the flat bottom action
# of the Winchester was hard to beat.. Please to take this as meaning
# that a 30 caliber (and greater) Remington is no good, just the Winchester
# action is better..
# So why does the USMC use the Remington action for their sniper
# rifle? Well the answer was written up in a previous issue of
# Survival Magazine.. Briefly, because their is more goodies for
# the Remington than the Winchester, and there are more Gun
# Smiths that work on the Remington. Also you can buy a Remington
# action.. You cannot buy a Winchester action (unless you get it on
# a rifle)..
# And I do practice what I preach.. I do have Remingtons in sub
# 30 cal, and they are very fine shooters.. A 223 Remington VS will
# easily shoot 3/8" MOA all day long.. But when I bought a 308 and a
# 300 Win Mag, nothing else but Winchesters would do..
# P.S. The jury is still out on how well the 300 Win Mag Laredo will
# do.. It is still to new.. flk kk

If you think that the selection of the M40 or the M24 and Navy M86 was 
based on what you say is goodies shows just how much you know about the 
subject. All branches of the service conducted literally millions of 
dollars making the selection. I was deeply involved with all three 
branches in making that selection. The first, the USMC had an easier 
time since they already had the actions in inventory. I designed the M40,
trained the armors, and manufactured the stocks for it. After a long 
search for a sniper rifle the Army conducted numerous field tests on 
sniper rifles provided by all the manufacturers including foreign. In the 
end there were two left in the race, Remington and myself. When the 
final requests were submitted there were a couple of requirements like 
having a long range test facility and a few others that involved money 
that had to be spent before the winner was selected. I did not think I
could build our rifle as cheaply as a company  that makes inexpensive
rifles and would loose out in the end due to cost so I withdrew. I
continued to make the sniper rifles for the Navy Seals on our action
which is a refined version of the Rem.700.
As for buying an action just try to buy one from Rem. and just how many 
mod 70s would you like to have? This debate has been going on for years
and will probably continue with those who refuse to open their eyes and 
see the facts. If you have a real interest in finding out the answer 
just look at the record books in the Metallic Silhoutte Nationals, the 
NBRSA and IBS Nationals, the 1000 Benchrest and the 1000 matches at 
Perry. If that doesn't covince you maybe we can arrange a little shoot 
off for say $50,000 winner take all. As for the round action not taking 
high recoil cart. don't tell the 50 cal shooters, all their world 
records were shot with round actions. I will give the mod 70 one 
thing. It is the smoothest fast operating of the two because it gets half 
its cocking off the bolt and half off the cams in the receiver that 
coupled with a weak firing pin spring makes it the choice for cross the 
course matches where accuracy isn't as important as speed and ease.

Gale McMillan

From: kelly mcmillan <>
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: glass bedding a Remington 700 30-06
Date: 8 Dec 1997 23:09:28 -0500

blc wrote:

# I am interested in free floating the barrel and glass bedding the action on
# my Remington 700 BDL 30-06. Improved accuracy is the goal.
# What advice can you give me for doing the task myself? Thanks!

 As a general rule we recommend that you let a qualified gunsmith do the
bedding, but if you are set on doing it yourself I'll give some pointers.
Anyone else with some experience may want to tag on to this thread.

First, free float the barrel.  Make sure you allow enough clearance all the way
around the barrel from the receiver forward.  Remove the action from the stock
and remove the trigger from the action.  Using modeling clay fill all of the
openings in the bottom half of the receiver.  Make sure not to leave any
undercuts that may leave your action "glued in".  Also, clay in the guard screw
holes, making sure not to fill the holes to tightly. Using electrical tape,
tape the bottom sides and front of the recoil lug with 1 layer of tape.  This
will provide for only the rear service of the lug to be a bearing surface. Once
you have clayed in and taped the action then wax it well with the mold release
provided with the bedding material or use Johnson's Paste Wax as we have for 25
years.  The action is ready.

To prepare the stock you want to remove about .050" from the stock where the
recoil lug is to be bedded. Removing material in any other place is
unnecessary. Using a coarse sand paper scuff the rest of the inside of the
receiver area of the stock. Using electrical tape again, tape about two inches
of the stock immediately in front of the recoil lug slot.  This will allow you
to more easily remove the excess material that will flow up along the barrel. (
In order to accomplish this just grind the edge closest to the recoil lug down
until you reach stock material at which point you can wedge something under it
and pop it out.)

Place the barreled action in the vice, grabbing the barrel a few inches ahead
of where the end of the stock comes to.  To start place the bottom of the
receiver up.  This will allow you to spread the bedding material over the
entire bottom half of the action.  With a popsicle stick, smooth the material
so that you have not left any voids or air pockets.  Once this is accomplished
you can turn the b/a over in the vice so that it is right side up.

Now using the same popsicle stick coat the entire surface of the inside of the
stock with bedding material using the same care not to form any air bubbles or
voids.  Once the stock is completely coated you are ready to mate the two.
Place the floorplate in the stock with the guard screws in it.  Do not use the
follower spring/feed ramp or the mag box while bedding. Using  1/2" masking
tape, tape the screws into the floorplate and the floorplate into the stock.
This can be accomplished with two 3" strips, one over each of the screws and
onto the stock.  This will prevent both from falling out when you turn the
stock over.

Remembering that the barreled action should be right side up, carefully guide
the stock up to the receiver making sure the screws line up with the holes.  If
using conventional screws you should be able to easily cut right through the
masking tape so that you can start the front screw.  It will push the clay up
and out into the inside of the receiver as you tighten the screw.  Turn the
screw only 2 full turns and then start the rear screw.  Once you have both
started let the stock hang on the screws so that it will be drawn up when
tightening the screws.  Tighten each screw 2 turns alternating between front
and rear.

Absolutely CRITICAL.  Stop and clean off all of the bedding material that is
being squeezed out while tightening .  Do this about every other series of
turns.  Also remember to clean inside the stock as well.  You need to drop the
floorplate so that you can get up inside the mag box, trigger slot and to clean
out the clay and bedding material from the guard screw holes.  Using a popsicle
stick flattened and sharpened on one end works well. For most of the cleaning,
a long swab dipped in kerosene works for final clean up.

Continue to tighten the the screws until snug.  Do not over tighten.  If needed
you may use a wedge to make sure the barrel lays in the middle of the barrel
channel.  Business card folded, small shims or popsicle sticks, which ever you
feel comfortable with.  If this is necessary you need to do it as you tighten
the screws and not after they are tight. We occasionally wrap the barrel right
at the end of the stock with the same amount of tape as there is free float so
that it lays in the center.  This method works well but can place stresses on
the forend if not done properly.

Once the bedding material has cured, you can remove the barreled action from
the stock.  Remove the guard screws.  Place a folded towel on the edge of the
bench.  Holding the rifle with your right hand around the receiver and the
stock, and your left hand on the forend of the stock, gently rap the barrel on
the towel with provides a cushion so as to not mar the barrel finish.  It may
take two or three solid whacks to loosen the barreled action.  Don't get
impatient and whack it too hard, you wouldn't be the first to have the forend
of the stock come off in their hand.  If you are not comfortable with this
method you can use a rubber mallet but I have always found it hard to hang on
to the rifle after I have hit it.

Once you have removed the barreled action, remove all of the clay and tape from
the receiver and clean thoroughly.  If done properly you should have a smooth
consistent bedding job.  Use a 5/16th drill and drill out the guard screw holes
which will leave plenty of clearance for the screws.  Carefully file any sharp
edges that may be left by the bedding material.  You should now be ready to put
your newly bedded rifle back together.

If requested I will cover installing aluminum pillars while bedding at a later

Kelly McMillan

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks Inc. "Molding the Way America Shoots"
21421 N. 14th Ave Suite B  Phoenix, Arizona 85027


Index Home About Blog