Rem 600 Mohawk - bedding the action?

[no-regard]

Morning All,
I've recently acquired a Rem 600 Mohawk in 6x47. I would like to squeeze everything I can out of this rifle, as such I assume bedding it would help.

I've never done this before but after watching lots of videos and doing lots of reading, I'm pretty confident I could do a decent job of it.

Has anyone done this to a 600 action? The rear action bolt is quite small and doesn't have much room to work with, especially if I were to pillar bed.

Any tips would be great, thanks.

[Dean2]

Pillar it or Devcon bed it, there is no point to doing both. If it was me doing it, I would Devcon bed from the front of the mag well to the recoil lug and first 1.5" of the barrel and the tang area. I would leave the rest un-bedded on a 600, or pretty much any Remington action.

[no-regard]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Pillar it or Devcon bed it, there is no point to doing both. If it was me doing it, I would Devcon bed from the front of the mag well to the recoil lug and first 1.5" of the barrel and the tang area. I would leave the rest un-bedded on a 600, or pretty much any Remington action.

Interesting. In my very limited knowledge on this topic I don't think I've seen a bedding job done that way. Mainly I've seen full glass bed, or full glass bed with a pair of pillars.

Do you mind explaining why the recommendation of doing just the forward part of the action? This certainly seems like it would be easier to do.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by no-regard

Do you mind explaining why the recommendation of doing just the forward part of the action? This certainly seems like it would be easier to do.

It is generally done that way to help support the barrel to help take the stress off the shank itself.
I was taught to o it with every rifle I bed.
Cat

[icehunter]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Pillar it or Devcon bed it, there is no point to doing both. If it was me doing it, I would Devcon bed from the front of the mag well to the recoil lug and first 1.5" of the barrel and the tang area. I would leave the rest un-bedded on a 600, or pretty much any Remington action.

x2

[58thecat]

I would take it out and shoot it, maybe you have a tack driver right off the bat, playing with it might just bugger it up....perhaps something as simple as a pet load developed is the way to go...that's the route I would go first

new a fella who bought a tikka 270 and we took our rifles to the range well factory ammo federal 130 gr I believe put all 5 shots in one cluster all touching at 100 yards....said he wanted to get the rifle pillar bedded etc and the action trued or something to that affect...he looked over to me for a response and saw the expression on my face...he then said or not

[DLab]

I consider the length and weight of barrel deciding whether or not to bed in front of the lug. A short light pencil profile barrel probably won't need or benefit from the extra support as much as a full Bull @ 30 inches.
As far as doing full or partial bedding with or w/o pillars on a Rem. or clone action build, depends on the stock type and the intended use of the build.

Generally speaking, I do full length bed, some times with either alum. pillars, some times poured epoxy, even lamp ferrules. If the stock has alum. V-block I still skim bed them for fit and bed the recoil lug.
Aside from chassis stocks I think pretty much all will benefit from either or both.
I did a lot of research on epoxy bedding before nervously attempting my first years ago, most if not all of the top custom rifle builders across the different shooting disciplines full length bed with pillars, I just figured there must be a reason.

[DLab]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

I would take it out and shoot it, maybe you have a tack driver right off the bat, playing with it might just bugger it up....perhaps something as simple as a pet load developed is the way to go...that's the route I would go first

Yup, I agree.

[catnthehat]

Lots of black art and Voodoo involved when it comes to stuff like bedding a rifle and many people I have met say they know all about but actually do not.
My favorite point in a bedding discussion is when some guys says " NO contact whatsoever on the bottom of the recoil lug, only the sides and the back- anything else will put undo pressure on the action"
"Really? You ever done a Mauser? "
That usually ends up with either crickets, or a huffy " Mausers are different and they are not accurate anyway!"
Cat

[DLab]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Lots of black art and Voodoo involved when it comes to stuff like bedding a rifle and many people I have met say they know all about but actually do not.
My favorite point in a bedding discussion is when some guys says " NO contact whatsoever on the bottom of the recoil lug, only the sides and the back- anything else will put undo pressure on the action"
"Really? You ever done a Mauser? "
That usually ends up with either crickets, or a huffy " Mausers are different and they are not accurate anyway!"
Cat

Now you went and done it Cat, let the Voodoo thing out of the bag. I stopped that part of the bedding Ritual, hated wasting all that good Rum and the live chickens made a mess with all them feathers and what not flying all over the place, not to mention the neighbours getting upset over the chanting and Cigar smoke.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by DLab

Now you went and done it Cat, let the Voodoo thing out of the bag, I stopped that part of the bedding Ritual, hated wasting all that good Rum and the live chickens made a mess with all them feathers and what not flying all over the place, not to mention the neighbours getting upset over the chanting and Cigar smoke.

I am still under a court order , something about headless chickens running around in the back yard and drums after 11:PM!
Cat

[Dean2]

My method of bedding hunting rifles varies from McMillans in that I make Devcon Pillars in the front a rear screw holes, drill the holes out and let them fill with Devcon, to ensure I have a single piece Contacting the bottom of the action. I also bed the recoil lug with no tape anywhere on it as that gives me the tightest no move fit for the recoil lug. I want the action and stock to be a one piece unit when put together. I use Devcon because, unlike Marine Tex and some fibreglass materials it has virtually zero shrinkage when curing or over time. It is also so hard you can drill and tap it so it isn't compressible.

I have never seen a gun shoot worse after being bedded but I have certainly seen a whole bunch shoot better.


Written by McMillan of McMillan stocks. Should be about as good a source as one can find.




Pillar Bedding : Part One

September 13, 2017 by mcmillan Leave a Comment
In the firearms industry it seems there is always a “trend” that is accepted as the state of the art for a period of time and then something else will come along and replace it. Right now aluminum bedding blocks seem to be the “trend”. I recently posted our views on the ABB so I won’t get into that today but there is a related trend I think needs to be addressed. “Pillar Bedding” or bedding using aluminum pillars.
First a little history: Many years ago when wood stocks ruled the world there was very few things that would improve the accuracy of a rifle as much as “glass bedding” would. Almost no factory guns came bedded and most shot barely acceptable. Glass bedding usually enhanced the accuracy as well as increased the dependability by limiting the effects of humidity and water which played havoc with point of impact (POI). By using an epoxy based product that was reinforced with some fiberglass, thus the term glass bedding, one could form a much better mating surface between the stock and the receiver. By reducing or eliminating any stresses caused by poorly match surfaces it allowed the rifle to shoot more consistently.
In the benchrest community they found that by torquing both guard screws with a torque wrench they could actually tune the way the gun would shoot. They were constantly checking the toque, between matches and even between groups, and most found that the more they shot the rifle, the more the amount of torque would decrease. They reasoned that the stock must be compressing some due to the pressure and stress associated with shooting. As a result they drilled out the holes around the guard screws to the next larger size (usually from 5/16 to 3/8 or 1/2 inch.) When bedding the action they would allow these larger holes to fill up with bedding material. After removing the screws (of course they waxed them first) they would then drill out the screw hole to 5/16th for some clearance, but that would in effect leave a pillar of 1/16 to 3/16” wall thickness of bedding material. The bedding material was dense and rigid so it made a nice pillar that would keep the stock from compressing under the pressure of 40-60lbs of torque, plus the stress of firing the rifle.
Not long after the pillar bedding process was developed, fiberglass stocks came onto the scene. While benchrest shooters were convinced that pillar bedding had a positive effect on the accuracy of their rifles they assumed that the same process would help to improve accuracy of a fiberglass stocked rifle. The process quickly adapted itself to “glass” stocks.
When Chet Brown and Lee Six first introduced fiberglass stocks to the competitive world in the late ’60’s, they used a process that left the stock with a “foam” core. The stocks were made of fiberglass cloth outer shells with the action area and barrel channels actually molded during the initial process. They would use a low density urethane foam to expand the material from the inside and force it out against the walls of the mold to form the gun stock. As a result between the receiver area and the bottom of the stock (where the guard screws are) there was a foam core. The foam was light weight to keep the weight of the stock within reason and when cured was rigid (unlike polystyrene of foam rubber) but had very little compression strength. In short order it was found that pillars were absolutely required in order to keep from compressing the stock when tightening the guard screws.
As a general rule, the same procedure was used to make the pillars as was used with wood stocks. Simply drill the guard screw holes over size and fill them up with bedding material. The draw back to this technique was that occasionally there would be some excessive shrinkage in the bedding material due to the volume of bedding compound that flowed down around the screws. Though this resulted in a less than perfect job from a cosmetic stand point, it had no adverse effect on the performance of the bedding. When guys like my father and Wally Hart and Fred Sinclair started to take on this type of work for their fellow competitors they felt a need to produce a better looking job and the use of precut aluminum pillars was introduced. More on the technical information on aluminum pillars in Part two.
When Gale McMillan introduced his fiberglass stocks in 1973 they were made in pretty much the same manner as the brown stocks. Urethane foam was a major component and this pillar bedding was a main ingredient in all benchrest stocks he made. Gale only made benchrest stocks for the first two years he was in business. Due to the weight limitations in benchrest, light stocks were a must and the materials used were not nearly as strong as they could have been in a stock weighing much more. Pillar bedding was one way to make up for their lack of strength in the receiver area.
Stay tuned for part two on November 2nd!

Filed Under: Taking Stock Tagged With: fiberglass stocks, McMillan Blog, McMillan Stocks, pillar bedding
Pillar Bedding : Part Two

November 2, 2017 by mcmillan Leave a Comment
When pillar bedding gained acceptance, there wasn’t much argument about how to do it right. It seemed almost everyone in the competitive arena used pretty much the same technique. Upon the introduction of precut aluminum pillars, experts began to disagree on what was the proper way to install the pillars. As with standard pillars, the function was the same. That was to insure that the action area of the stock would not compress when tightening down the guard screws. How to best accomplish this became the topic of debate. I won’t suggest that the way we install our pillars is the only right way to do it, though it is our belief that it is the best right way. To be perfectly honest the difference in performance of the different type of techniques used is probably immeasurable. But, we believe that whether or not you can prove your ideas to be the best, it is important to use the technique which you believe produces the best results.
When installing aluminum pillars we measure the depth from the the bottom of the receiver to the bottom of the stock where the pillars are to be installed. We then cut our pillars about .035 shorter than this measurement. We apply the bedding materials to the stock and the receiver to insure uniform non porous surface finish, filling the pillar holes with bedding material. We then place the pillars, with the screws inside of them, in the stock from the bottom of the stock. Holding the barreled action in the vise we bring the stock up to the barreled action and start the screws. We tighten each of the screws a half turn at the time cleaning off the excess material as we go. By placing the pillar in from the bottom, along with the fact that the pillars are shorter than the distance between the bottom of the stock and the action, we create a small space between the top of the pillar and the action. This .035 gap between the pillar and the action is filled with bedding material. By using this technique we have created a completely uniform bedding surface that is 100% consistent.
One of the objectives of glass bedding is to produce a stress free union between the action and the stock. By bedding the entire receiver area (as opposed to the recoil lung and rear tang) we have effectively created the only “perfectly stress free” union possible. By not allowing the aluminum pillar to come in contact with the receiver we have eliminated one possible source for unwanted stress. While some use other techniques, we believe ours to create the perfect relationship between stock and action.
A number of well respected, very successful gunsmiths and gun builders use other techniques than the one described above. As I said they are very successful, the guns they build are very accurate and no one can say that there technique doesn’t work. As I stated we believe; that ours is the best way but realize that having choices is always a good thing, so I’ll describe the other technique most widely used.
Kenny Jarrett of Jarrett Rifles in Jackson South Carolina is one of the most respected gun builder in the south. He specializes in high dollar hunting rifles that perform like benchrest rifles. As a matter of fact he uses “benchrest” techniques for building all his rifles. His pillar bedding differs from ours in that he allows the pillar to come in contact with the receiver. As a matter of fact he counters the top of a 1” diameter aluminum pillar to match the radius of the receiver (that is of course allowing that the receiver is round, he uses almost exclusively Remington 700’s for actions). He had a special tool ground to cut a 1.365 radius so that he could precut his pillars so that they fit a Remington 700. The rest of his technique is very much like ours, but he ends up with this large shiny aluminum piece embedded in the action of the stock. It is very visible when you take the barreled action out of the stock. In the case of ours, we have had customers question whether or not we even put pillars in because with .035 of bedding materials covering the top of the pillar you have to look really close to be able to see it.
There are basically two things we don’t like about this method. As I stated the top of the pillar is contoured to cut a 1.365 radius. Remington receivers are put though a process where they are actually polished by hand. Because each is done independently not all actions are exactly 1.365. They may very as much as .005. I know that doesn’t sound like much, and probably has little to no effect on accuracy, but the purpose of glass bedding is to make a “perfect” union between stock and action. If you were to allow for at least the smallest amount of bedding material to cover the pillar, it would compensate for any irregularities in action diameter and come closer to making that perfect fit.
Secondly, remember what the pillar is designed to accomplish. Its only function is to eliminate any compression of the stock material under the receiver. Why use a 1” pillar when a 3/8” is enough and 1/2” is plenty. In our stocks we prefer not to remove too much of the material from the stock. Remember the front screw is always near the recall lug, in some actions it screws into it, so having as much material in tact is important. Though pillars give the stock compressive strength they don’t offer much in the way of shear strength which is whats needed around the recoil lug.
Lastly, I’m often asked by customers who would like to bed their own stock but lack the confidence to try “pillar” bedding, “do you need pillars?”. Because of the construction techniques and materials we use in making our stocks it is not necessary to use pillars. With the exception of benchrest stocks which are almost always glued in and use a lighter fill in the action area than all other stocks, pillars are unnecessary. Tests have proven that the materials we use to fill the action area of stocks have less that 1% compression at 100lb psi. What the means is that there is no way you are going to be able to torque your guards screws tight enough to compress the material under the action. Why do we put them in every bedding job we do when installing our stocks? Because it’s state of the art. It’s what has become the excepted way to do things. It’s not a fad. It is a valuable technique that is necessary when bedding stocks that use a different method of construction, which almost all other synthetic manufacturers do. It’s just that with ours it is not necessary.

Filed Under: Taking Stock Tagged With: fiberglass stocks, McMillan Blog, McMillan Stocks, pillar bedding
Leave a Reply

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by no-regard

Interesting. In my very limited knowledge on this topic I don't think I've seen a bedding job done that way. Mainly I've seen full glass bed, or full glass bed with a pair of pillars.

Do you mind explaining why the recommendation of doing just the forward part of the action? This certainly seems like it would be easier to do.

Bedding at the front and tang creates two perfect contact points. You then ensure the stock either does not touch the action anywhere else or you skim coat the rest of the action, depending on what king of stock it is, wood, fibreglass, Kevlar, Chassis etc. With the 600 I presume it is a wood stock so what you are trying to do is stop the recoil lug from moving, even a little, support the chamber area to get a good free float on the barrel, or establish the baseline with really thin barrels to glass it all the way down if you get POI shift from the first shot to the next two. You also want to stop the action from being able to compress the wood stock under torque and by making Devcon supports you effectively do this with no high spots anywhere else to put stress on the action.

[no-regard]

Some great info here, I've only had time for a quick skim as I'm supposed to be concentrating on a PLC course that I'm taking, but I look forward to reading everything closer, this evening.

A little more info about the rifle, it has a Ron Smith gain twist barrel. I've used a bore scope to follow the land/grooves inside in an effort to measure the twist. Measuring from the action there is 1 twist in 18", measuring from the muzzle there is 1 twist in 16". Barrel is 21" long, with a muzzle diameter of 0.66".

Due to the seemingly slow twist rate I'm currently shooting 58gr VMax bullets, but I'm hoping something heavier will work, just need time and components to experiment.

I'm using the rifle for short range bench rest, this is my second year of shooting the league here in Lethbridge, great fun! The gun seems to be shooting quite well, this past week I shot a 48, 47, 46-1X, 45 (out of 50) at 200m. The first 3 rounds out of a cold bore shot a 0.3" group, again at 200m. (not saying this is normal)

Maybe I should leave well enough alone?

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by no-regard

Some great info here, I've only had time for a quick skim as I'm supposed to be concentrating on a PLC course that I'm taking, but I look forward to reading everything closer, this evening.

A little more info about the rifle, it has a Ron Smith gain twist barrel. I've used a bore scope to follow the land/grooves inside in an effort to measure the twist. Measuring from the action there is 1 twist in 18", measuring from the muzzle there is 1 twist in 16". Barrel is 21" long, with a muzzle diameter of 0.66".

Due to the seemingly slow twist rate I'm currently shooting 58gr VMax bullets, but I'm hoping something heavier will work, just need time and components to experiment.

I'm using the rifle for short range bench rest, this is my second year of shooting the league here in Lethbridge, great fun! The gun seems to be shooting quite well, this past week I shot a 48, 47, 46-1X, 45 (out of 50) at 200m. The first 3 rounds out of a cold bore shot a 0.3" group, again at 200m. (not saying this is normal)

Maybe I should leave well enough alone?

That would completely change how I would recommend bedding this rifle. Benchrest versus a hunting rifle is an entirely different kettle of fish. Properly bedded, the gun will NOT shoot worse than it does now. Good bedding job improves consistency of POI as well as groups size almost 100% of the time. I have never seen a serious BR gun that wasn't bedded.

[elkhunter11]

I generally bed from the tang to 1" to 1-1/2" in front of the recoil lug, and I usually free float the barrel. I did however have to replace the pressure pad in one rifle with a lightweight barrel, after it shot larger groups after bedding. Once the pressure pad was reinstalled, the groups tightened up to smaller than before the bedding job.

[DLab]

Originally Posted by no-regard

Some great info here, I've only had time for a quick skim as I'm supposed to be concentrating on a PLC course that I'm taking, but I look forward to reading everything closer, this evening.

A little more info about the rifle, it has a Ron Smith gain twist barrel. I've used a bore scope to follow the land/grooves inside in an effort to measure the twist. Measuring from the action there is 1 twist in 18", measuring from the muzzle there is 1 twist in 16". Barrel is 21" long, with a muzzle diameter of 0.66".

Due to the seemingly slow twist rate I'm currently shooting 58gr VMax bullets, but I'm hoping something heavier will work, just need time and components to experiment.

I'm using the rifle for short range bench rest, this is my second year of shooting the league here in Lethbridge, great fun! The gun seems to be shooting quite well, this past week I shot a 48, 47, 46-1X, 45 (out of 50) at 200m. The first 3 rounds out of a cold bore shot a 0.3" group, again at 200m. (not saying this is normal)

Maybe I should leave well enough alone?

Yup, Benchrest is fun, we are finishing up 200 yards next week here in the Hat.

Full length bedding, done correctly, certainly won't hurt as already stated.
That gain twist is really slow, not sure what to recommend for bullet weight, but choosing a better bullet than the V-Max wouldn't hurt either.

If you can go heavier and find them, 68 gr. Berger FB., also can recommend Stinger Ballistics 64 gr. FB. very good and local made in Calgary couple guys shooting them here. I'm not sure that twist will stabilise much heavier, most are running 13 or 14 twist for this bullet weight range in 6 BR's or 6PPC. I'm shooting their 115 Killer Bee's in my 30 BR., they are VERY consistent bullets in Ogive to base and weight.
The main problem these days is finding components.

[prarie_boy1]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I generally bed from the tang to 1" to 1-1/2" in front of the recoil lug, and I usually free float the barrel. I did however have to replace the pressure pad in one rifle with a lightweight barrel, after it shot larger groups after bedding. Once the pressure pad was reinstalled, the groups tightened up to smaller than before the bedding job.

This was my experience also. I have bedded a decent amount of rifles now both sporter/HB contours and all but one improved with a proper bedding job. I have yet to see a measurable difference between bedding the first 1-2” ahead of the recoil lug vs fully free floating the barrel. A pencil barrel m77 tang safety almost tripled in group size after I did a proper bed job on it and a stack of paper under the fore end confirmed the suspicions.

[no-regard]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

I would take it out and shoot it, maybe you have a tack driver right off the bat, playing with it might just bugger it up.

Yes, this is my fear! I'll definitely finish this years BR season before changing to much about the rifle. As stated, it is shooting very good right now.

Originally Posted by DLab

As far as doing full or partial bedding with or w/o pillars on a Rem. or clone action build, depends on the stock type and the intended use of the build.

The rifle will be for targets and possibly varmints occassionally.

Originally Posted by Dean2

That would completely change how I would recommend bedding this rifle. Benchrest versus a hunting rifle is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Since it's a dedicated target rifle, does that mean you would lean towards bedding the entire action, as opposed to the tang and the lug?

Originally Posted by DLab

If you can go heavier and find them, 68 gr. Berger FB., also can recommend Stinger Ballistics 64 gr. FB. very good and local made in Calgary

I just received 1 box of the 68 gr FB Bergers, hoping to try them soon. A guy from league had told me about the Stingers as well, I did forget about them. I'll have another look.

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by no-regard

Yes, this is my fear! I'll definitely finish this years BR season before changing to much about the rifle. As stated, it is shooting very good right now.



The rifle will be for targets and possibly varmints occassionally.



Since it's a dedicated target rifle, does that mean you would lean towards bedding the entire action, as opposed to the tang and the lug?



I just received 1 box of the 68 gr FB Bergers, hoping to try them soon. A guy from league had told me about the Stingers as well, I did forget about them. I'll have another look.

I would need to see the actual stock, what it is made of and its shape and contour to be able to say what bedding method I would suggest or use. Pretty good article on BR accuracy.


https://bryantcustom.com/what-makes-...rifle-accuracy



The Stock
The stock and its relationship to the barreled action play a significant role in the accuracy of the rifle. There are three major methods of stock bedding to barreled action. In the majority of benchrest rifles, the predominant method is the glue-in in which the action is glued into the stock with epoxy glue. Another method that is being used is pillar bedding. Conventional glass bedding is also used, but by very few in the benchrest community.
The glue-in is the easiest to use and the easiest method to obtaining an accurate rifle. It does, however, have its drawbacks. For one, it is harder to take the action from the stock in case of mechanical problems. Triggers have to be able to be removed from the bottom of the stock, which is no problem with the actions commonly used in benchrest. These actions usually have trigger brackets that are removable from beneath the action. The Remington actions that are being used in competition have holes through the stock that allow the trigger pins to be driven out and the trigger removed. This is not too practical if the glue-in happens to be on a hunting rifle like a Remington 700. The thumb safety would make it extremely difficult to remove the trigger from the bottom. Secondly, just because an action is glued-in doesn’t mean that it is glued-in without stresses on the action. If the action is stressed when it is glued-in, you then have a bedding problem. But, it’s a bedding problem that you can’t detect. Lastly, the glue-in is intended to be bedded permanently. But in time a glue-in can become completely or partially unglued by cleaning solvent seeping under the action or any other number of reasons. Murphy’s law applies to this really well. When you can least afford the gun coming apart is probably the time it will. A friend of mine had just shot a 0.140 group at 100 yards in the previous match, when his action came unglued before he could shoot the next group. The 0.140 did win him small group for the 100-yard segment, but he was unable to finish the match. That won’t happen with a pillar bedded rifle and is also unlikely to happen with a properly glued-in action.
Pillar bedding with aluminum or glass pillars is a method that has started showing up in a large number of benchrest rifles, as well as in high accuracy hunting rifles. As you can guess from my opinion of glue-ins, the rifles that I shoot in competition are pillar bedded. (I now use both methods in competition, pillar beds and glue-ins. I did shoot strictly pillar beds in ’96 when this article was published. A properly done glue-in will not cause any problem.) The glue-in is still the most popular bedding method in benchrest competition. But, the number of top competitors, such as L. E. Red Cornelison, Harold Broughton, Speedy Gonzales, Frank Wilson and others, that have shot pillar bedded rifles in competition shows that they believe that they are not losing any accuracy because their rifles are not glued-in. Believe me, if a competitor thought that he was at any disadvantage by shooting a pillar bedded rifle, there is no way that he would be shooting it in competition.
One of the chief advantages with pillar bedding is that the rifle can be taken apart. The bedding can be checked with a dial indicator that measures in ten thousandths by checking the movement between the barrel and forend of the stock as the action screws are loosened and tightened. There should not be any more than 0.002″ movement between the barrel and the forend. If there is more than that, say 0.003″, you have a bedding problem and your rifle will not shoot to its potential. The action cannot bind in the stock. With a round receiver, you should be able to take the guard screws out of the stock and have the barreled action drop out of the stock. Flat bottom receivers with square sides won’t do this. But, even with them, the barreled action should come easily out of the stock. The bedding area and the receiver should be completely clean before they are screwed together. Even the smallest piece of crud between the action and the bedding surface will show up when the dial indicator test is used. All action screws should not touch any part of the stock except at the screw heads. Likewise, the bolt handle must not touch any part of the stock. When the bedding tests out right, don’t’ take the action out of the stock any more than absolutely necessary. Every time the action is removed is just taking a chance of nicking the action or messing up the bedding area in the stock. Really tight screws are not necessary; so don’t get carried away tightening guard screws.
Conventional glass bedding has all the advantages of pillar bedding except that the bedding can easily be ruined if the guard screws are over-tightened. I personally know of only one competitor that used conventional glass bedding and he may not anymore. (To my knowledge, he doesn’t compete anymore.) There may be more that I am unaware, but this is an area that is not listed on competitor equipment lists.
Stock shape makes a difference in accuracy not because it makes the rifle’s potential accuracy any better, but because it makes that accuracy easier to obtain. That is why benchrest rifles have three-inch wide flat forends. But, stock shape has to be practical for the purpose that the rifle is to be used. After all, who would want a deer rifle with a three-inch flat forend?