Custom rifle query
- Thread starter .243 t3
- Start date
- Status
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Very likely. Can you give it a tap and knock it square again? If so, that barrel isn’t on tight. If it’s solidly sitting off centre, likely it turned with the final tightening of the barrel when fitted
I’d not be happy.
Looks like a Remington 700. Can’t imagine it left the factory like that. Well, actually…
I’d not be happy.
Looks like a Remington 700. Can’t imagine it left the factory like that. Well, actually…
Probably not provided it was glass bedded in accordance with the profile/cant in question.
K
K
This is my point. If it was glass/Devcon bedded with that lug cant it would very much have been noticed when removing from the stock after curing. A degree of remedial 'relief' of the lug recess would have been required but not enough to massively impact accuracy IMHO.
If however one corner is sitting on-point within a pre-cut recoi lugg well then clearly that's not good.
K
. As long as it doesn’t touch the side of the recoil lug pocket, then it doesn’t really matter. But it’s an easy fix, just ask whomever built it.
Does the Op have a lump hammer? I'm certain Tim243 would be able to help.
K
K
.243 t3
Well-Known Member
No it didn’t shoot accurately. Tried loads of different ammunition. It’s been back to the builder and he’s saying there’s nothing wrong with it. Said it absolutely shot fine. Fabulous was his actual words at 300 yards on a steel plate.
tackb
Well-Known Member
what is it capable of shooting at 100m ? what are your expectations?
i would maybe take it back and ask to see the builder demonstrate it shooting 'fabulous' at 100m on a paper target
Ronin
Distinguished Member
If the lug is not orientated to 6 o’clock to the base of the action - it isn’t in the image then if the action is bedded it will cause serious issues removing the action from the stock
You can mitigate with tape to prevent this during bedding but ,,, that would not have left me like that
If the lug is in contact with the rear of the recoil lug pocket then it is doing its job and transferring recoil into the stock
If one side is only touching then there will be some twist going on causing the action to move on firing away from the part of the lug that’s touching
The second image shows witness marks on both sides so I appears to be in contact “equally”
Shooting a steel at 300 is doffernt to shooting paper and measuring the shot placement
I’d ask for a retest using paper and measure the results
I’d also ask to be there when that test is done,,,,
You can mitigate with tape to prevent this during bedding but ,,, that would not have left me like that
If the lug is in contact with the rear of the recoil lug pocket then it is doing its job and transferring recoil into the stock
If one side is only touching then there will be some twist going on causing the action to move on firing away from the part of the lug that’s touching
The second image shows witness marks on both sides so I appears to be in contact “equally”
Shooting a steel at 300 is doffernt to shooting paper and measuring the shot placement
I’d ask for a retest using paper and measure the results
I’d also ask to be there when that test is done,,,,
Please note I've seen a number of factory bedded (I use the word advisedly) rifles where the base of recoil lug is in contact with the stock by an amount that prevents the action/barrel being pulled flush.
K
K
For the maker of a rifle to use a steel plate (at any distance) as a definitive test - especially when the customer has raised concerns - is ridiculous.
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Million dollar question
.243 t3
Well-Known Member
The barrel is not sitting in stock square , it’s more to one side than other , also you can flex barrel to touch stock on one side and won’t go anywhere near other side .
Have brought this up but apparently this not the problem !!
I'm sure the rifle builder will correct it if they are responsible for this aspect of the 'build'.
Did they commit to any element of load development for the chambering in question prior to handing over for proofing or was it a build with a view to shooting factory ammo of a given projectile weight?
K
Did they commit to any element of load development for the chambering in question prior to handing over for proofing or was it a build with a view to shooting factory ammo of a given projectile weight?
K
Last edited by a moderator:
.243 t3
Well-Known Member
He has had it back but apparently shoots fabulous. Said he bedded the Pic rail which is fine but when I questioned him about the crown looked a different pitch he then went on to say that he skimmed it off just to make sure that I didn’t dent it.
- Status
Similar threads
