Rifle Bedding, free float vs full length vs pressure point

[User00040]

Hi all,

Wanted to get feedback from those with experience of the above bedding methods.

Currently own 3 rifles, all of them are Tikka's in PSE Composite stocks which are free floated with a generous gap in the barrel channel so the barrel is definitely not touching anything.

All of them are very accurate and I am happy with them.

However, I have had my eye on a classic L641/AI and L579/AII era Sako for a long time, and I know for a fact that they came stocked with a 'pressure point' on the barrel similar in concept to a Lee Enfield where the stock exerts upward pressure on the barrel at a specific point.

I am under no illusions that mucking around with the action bedding and stock is going to turn an MOA sporter into a quarter minute capable benchrest rifle (don't need that anyway!), I'll obviously shoot them first to test accuracy and will be happy to leave 'good enough' alone.

I would like to hear from those who have tried 'full length' bedding a barrelled action (all the way down the barrel channel) as this strikes me as a beneficial idea if executed correctly, I believe that a few high end switch barrel rifles (think Westley Richards) do this. I believe this will also prevent foreign bodies such as small stones and heather being jammed into the small void between the barrel and stock. From what I have read, it affects barrel harmonics quite a bit and it may involve extra load development to find an accuracy node, but this is conjecture.

Look forward to hearing from those with experience of this.

Thanks!

 

[VSS]

The "pressure point" at the forend of a classic wooden stock will give you grief if you want to use a bipod. As you lean into the bipod to steady the rifle for a shot the forend will flex and alter the pressure on the barrel. It took me a while to figure out that this was the problem with my old Parker-Hale rifles, but it was easily sorted by spending a few minutes with a bit of sandpaper wrapped around a dowel. I now have clearance between metal and woodwork for the full length of the barrel, and accuracy is consistent regardless of what type of support I use for the shot.

 

[User00040]

The "pressure point" at the forend of a classic wooden stock will give you grief if you want to use a bipod. As you lean into the bipod to steady the rifle for a shot the forend will flex and alter the pressure on the barrel. It took me a while to figure out that this was the problem with my old Parker-Hale rifles, but it was easily sorted by spending a few minutes with a bit of sandpaper wrapped around a dowel. I now have clearance between metal and woodwork for the full length of the barrel, and accuracy is consistent regardless of what type of support I use for the shot.

Good point, I am not intending to use a bipod with the rifle, just shooting off a stick occasionally, will mostly be offhand or with a hand supporting the fore-end whilst resting on an object.

I think bipods are great for prone and target shooting but are over-used now, especially on older wooden stocked rifles that were not designed for them (not a jab at you @VSS, your rifle your choice !)

A bipod that secures to a sling stud is also sub-optimal, a picatinny rail or dedicated bipod interface is always better, but a bipod is not supposed to be standard equipment on a sporting rifle (shock horror!).

 

[User00040]

double post

 

[NP435]

I am a confirmed free float fan, however if the rifle in question isn't free floated and shoots acceptably i dont change things.

 

[Jelen]

The "pressure point" at the forend of a classic wooden stock will give you grief if you want to use a bipod. As you lean into the bipod to steady the rifle for a shot the forend will flex and alter the pressure on the barrel. It took me a while to figure out that this was the problem with my old Parker-Hale rifles, but it was easily sorted by spending a few minutes with a bit of sandpaper wrapped around a dowel. I now have clearance between metal and woodwork for the full length of the barrel, and accuracy is consistent regardless of what type of support I use for the shot.

Have to agree. My P/Hale M81(81?) was the same. Removing the pressure point (before the age of bi-pods) didn't make the group noticeably smaller, but it did make it more consistent.

 

[Alantoo]

The "pressure point" at the forend of a classic wooden stock will give you grief if you want to use a bipod. As you lean into the bipod to steady the rifle for a shot the forend will flex and alter the pressure on the barrel. It took me a while to figure out that this was the problem with my old Parker-Hale rifles, but it was easily sorted by spending a few minutes with a bit of sandpaper wrapped around a dowel. I now have clearance between metal and woodwork for the full length of the barrel, and accuracy is consistent regardless of what type of support I use for the shot.

Interesting...I had always assumed that the flex of the forend would be the same whatever the support, whether bench bag, hand, sticks or high seat rail because the barrel is the same weight whatever...I have never owned a bipod and had not twigged the forend stresses a result of "leaning in".

I guess the effect on a free floating barrel would be insignificant because the "leaning in" flex would be increasing the barrel/forend clearance.

Another good reason to continue to avoid bipods then!

Alan

 

[VSS]

Good point, I am not intending to use a bipod with the rifle, just shooting off a stick occasionally, will mostly be offhand or with a hand supporting the fore-end whilst resting on an object.

I think bipods are great for prone and target shooting but are over-used now, especially on older wooden stocked rifles that were not designed for them (not a jab at you @VSS, your rifle your choice !)

A bipod that secures to a sling stud is also sub-optimal, a picatinny rail or dedicated bipod interface is always better, but a bipod is not supposed to be standard equipment on a sporting rifle (shock horror!).

Agree about bipods. I now don't use one on my main stalking rifle (P-H 270), preferring instead a pair of very short sticks for prone shots (or a bag for zeroing).
However, when first I started shooting rifles I was glad of the bipod, as it gave me a bit more confidence.

 

[ejg]

I believe there is only one reason for a pressure point and that is to pull a crooked stock straight. This will make sure the barrel gap left and right between barrel & stock is equal. This measurement is one of the main quality inspections on a rifle. Mostly the smaller the gap and the more uniform the gap is, the higher the quality of the rifle.
It make no physical sense to have the pressure point especially with a material such as wood which changes the pressure depending on surrounding conditions. Another point often forgotten is that if one holds the rifle on the forend or rests on the forend the upward pressure is relayed 1:1 onto the pressure point and barrel, one might as well rest on the barrel.
For my own rifles I would remove the pressure point. Rifles work after physics… not voodoo.
edi

 

[sh1kar]

I have a mix. Wood and blue 275 and 375 fully bedded and don’t use a bipod as they are barrel band swivels so use a pack and when prone and same poi as when off bench. I also have a 223 and 7mm RM fully floated with bipod. Happy with both but different shooting styles with each
S

 

[User00040]

I have a mix. Wood and blue 275 and 375 fully bedded and don’t use a bipod as they are barrel band swivels so use a pack and when prone and same poi as when off bench. I also have a 223 and 7mm RM fully floated with bipod. Happy with both but different shooting styles with each
S

Thanks for your reply! Not many people own fully bedded rifles.

Do you ever take them out of the stock for cleaning?

 

[Ronin]

If your shooting off sticks you are using the same mechanics as shooting off a bipod

Ie

Your forend is being supported by a fixed point / load bearing upwards

Free float - way forwards

Pressure point - alters with humidity, temperature , load / barrel harmonics

We’ve moved on from the 50’s

Free float gives more consistent barrel performance therefore consistent accuracy

 

[cjm1066]

Have a MX10 with a pressure point, no gap between barrel and fire end for crud. Shoots nicely and has done for nearly 40 and it was second hand then.

 

[Alantoo]

If your shooting off sticks you are using the same mechanics as shooting off a bipod

Ie

Your forend is being supported by a fixed point / load bearing upwards

It is only the same mechanics if a free floating barrel. i.e. the barrel is supported only by cantilever from the action.

@VSS 's point however, was that by "leaning in" to the bipod there was a turning moment at the bipod/forend connection point which would be stressing the forend away from the barrel and thus altering (reducing) the upward bearing support of the forend pressure point on the barrel.

Alan

 

[Ratwhiskers]

l'm running an A1 in 6x.222rem with a fully bedded barrel channel (devcon and S/S pillars). There's a Harris on the fore end and an Eagle Cheek bag on the back. l'm running loads between 58 -87grns in jacketed bullets and 95grn cast at subsonic.
The sub's need further work on the load (just ran out of time and never really got back to it), while all others have groups that are sub quarter moa.
l've shot it over 15 round details on a DSC1 course along with steady load development, and not noticed any physical movement between the barrel and stock at any time
On the bench is another stock which l've just bedded the action only and awaits testing and further development.

l had the opportunity some years back to speak to Melvin Forbes of NULA and really liked his work and some of the ideas he espoused regarding lightweight hunting rifles and their ability to shoot accurately in a fully bedded and stabilised lightweight stock.
Barret bought into what was left of another project Melvin had been involved with and in so picked up some of his old actions and began making what is now the "Fieldcraft" rifle, which also has a fully bedded barrel channel and shoots very well (l have a "Rifle" mag from the US with it's test article)

 

[Ronin]

Hear what your saying Ratty but there’s a difference between semi encapsulated - full length bedded barrel and a timber pressure point that will alter with season (temp, humidity etc)

Full length bedded is often used on full custom sporting rifles carried in slips to the firing point by the ghillie or guide and fired infrequently

I think even something bedded in such a manner may and I stress the point “ may “ offer non repeatable accuracy over sustained shot strings as the barrel will heat unevenly at the forend channel encapsulation causing vertical movement

This I add is just a theory

However, free floated will remain stable (providing barrel isn’t lightweight profile )

 

[NP435]

My question is why a lightweight barrel wont remain stable when free floated? Seems it has too provided the action is correctly bedded.

 

[ejg]

Interesting...I had always assumed that the flex of the forend would be the same whatever the support, whether bench bag, hand, sticks or high seat rail because the barrel is the same weight whatever...I have never owned a bipod and had not twigged the forend stresses a result of "leaning in".

I guess the effect on a free floating barrel would be insignificant because the "leaning in" flex would be increasing the barrel/forend clearance.

Another good reason to continue to avoid bipods then!

Alan

Instead of avoiding a bipod just avoid any part of the barrel touching the stock, then it doesn't matter how or on what you rest the rifle. The bigger the barrel channel the better. Also a not so stiff forend should have a larger gap. Tube guns are not the worst shooters for a reason.
edi

 

[Ratwhiskers]

Ay up Andy, how's trick old mate? l hope all's well down your way!!

Like l said, for short strings in load development and as far as a DSC1 range test goes, so that's strings of three/five shots fired steadily over a period of time and not exceeding/attempting to cause any dramatic temperature swings. So l too agree with your statement
Even Melvin never intended his rifles to shoot accurately for more then the first magazine full if fired continuously. Besides, as has been asked by the OP, this is in a hunting rifle where only the first one to three shots may be needed to count.
lf it weren't for the fact that this little pest has fast become one of my favourites for a walk about after vermin, l'd run the test to see how many and how fast l could fire it and let you know if the barrel rouse like the proverbial living dead from it's grave.

 

[ejg]

l'm running an A1 in 6x.222rem with a fully bedded barrel channel (devcon and S/S pillars). There's a Harris on the fore end and an Eagle Cheek bag on the back. l'm running loads between 58 -87grns in jacketed bullets and 95grn cast at subsonic.
The sub's need further work on the load (just ran out of time and never really got back to it), while all others have groups that are sub quarter moa.
l've shot it over 15 round details on a DSC1 course along with steady load development, and not noticed any physical movement between the barrel and stock at any time
On the bench is another stock which l've just bedded the action only and awaits testing and further development.

l had the opportunity some years back to speak to Melvin Forbes of NULA and really liked his work and some of the ideas he espoused regarding lightweight hunting rifles and their ability to shoot accurately in a fully bedded and stabilised lightweight stock.
Barret bought into what was left of another project Melvin had been involved with and in so picked up some of his old actions and began making what is now the "Fieldcraft" rifle, which also has a fully bedded barrel channel and shoots very well (l have a "Rifle" mag from the US with it's test article)

I just can't understand how a half bedded barrel should work or have an advantage.... only half of the barrel bounce is stopped, half of the barrel cools different to the other half. Sorry does not make sense to me.
The only time a stressed/bent pressured barrel "might" make sense would be in the target scene in certain circumstances. Even then controlling the changes would be fun.
edi