TargetTalk

I've just come across an 2011 poster on this forum asking how to improve his scores with an 1813. Two experienced contributors to the forum advised that he should glass/pillar bed the rifle rather than worrying about, for example, extension tubes and tuners. Is this a good idea? Wouldn't it negate the whole idea of the advantage of a floating barrel? Having an 1813 myself, and being, like the original poster, just an average (or worse) club shooter, I'm a bit puzzled. Facts/opinions, please.

Cumbrian,

bedding can improve accuracy, and should not affect free-floating at all.

Bedding means replacing the stock-action contact surface with a layer of slow cure metal-impregnated epoxy (fibreglass was used many years ago, so the process is still at times called "glass" bedding). The original bedding surface is normally chiselled back to a depth of 1/8-1/4in so the action is still level. The action is coated in a release agent (often a thin coating of shoe polish), and it's pressed into the epoxy, which sets around it to form a glove like fit. Obviously the trigger is removed!

If the stock was properly inlet, and the action was a perfect stress-free fit into the wood, bedding may not make much difference to accuracy. Although epoxy bedding should make the rifle less sensitive to environmental change, where an unbedded stock may warp or expand with humidity. The key word is "if"; the problem is, that if the factory bedding isn't good the action can be placed under stress. Stress isn't good for accuracy. In this case epoxy bedding may help. Epoxy bedding can also be useful where the factory bedding has been damaged by exposure to oil/solvents, or overtightening the bedding bolts.

As for affecting the free-floating of the barrel, it's usually only the action that is bedded. Sometimes the epoxy is extended for an inch or two under the barrel. The Anschutz 54 action isn't that long at the front (compare it to a FWB 2602/2700 or Walther KK300), and some shooters/gunsmiths feel that bedding under the barrel gives more support to the receiver, and reduces stress. The rest of the barrel is left free-floated. Barrel bedding, as practised with .303 servcie rifles, isn't needed with a heavy barrel smallbore.

Bedding can include pillars; these are metal or epoxy sleeves used to strengthen the bedding bolt holes, and prevent crushing of the wood. A progression of pillar bedding is to use a bedding block; the wood under the action is cut away, and an aluminium block in bonded in, onto which the action is bedded.

Tim

Tim,

That's prompt! And very helpful. Thank you. I understand now about the limited extent of the bedding, which makes perfect sense.

Next question: is this something that really applies only to the best shooters, where its marginal benefits might make the difference, or could it help even someone in my own not very exalted world? I have never scored more than 97 on a match card, though I have managed occasional 98s and even 99s on practice cards, when nerves don't come into play. I should add that these results have been fairly evenly distributed between the 1813 wooden stock and a Gemini stock, whose aluminium ought, I would guess, to provide all the stiffening that bedding the wooden stock would achieve.

Cumbrian,

that's the $64,000 question.

I would very much doubt whether bedding your 1813 stock will give you a 99.9 average; in fact it almost certainly won't. I've seen consistently high averages shot at 25 yards with unbedded, and uncleaned, rifles, so your issue is more likely to be with position/technique/mentality. Spending money on a few sessions with a coach would probably give more immediate results.

That doesn't mean that bedding is not worthwhile. Properly executed bedding won't make the rifle less accurate, and should improve consistency. For some shooters confidence in their equipment is important, and bedding does at least remove/lessen one of the variables.

Yes the Gemini, along with other machined aluminium stocks, is very strong. It does have a very thin bedding gasket, but the CNC machining is very precise, and it's unaffected by humidity.

Tim,

Thank you again. I thought I would probably get a reply on those lines. And I entirely share your doubts! I'll save my money for some batch tested ammo at Bisley: again, probably only a marginal difference in it for someone at my level but I'm a romantic believer that somewhere there are some magic bullets just waiting for me - and the testing is fun.

Don't mention it.

I wouldn't rule out bedding totally, as I wrote earlier it won't make the rifle less accurate if done well. But as you already have the Gemini (which IMHO is as good as bedded), I wouldn't put bedding the 1813 as a high priority.

Selected ammo is not a romantic folly. If you are shooting at 50m and 100 yards, good ammunition is important.

I'll save my money for some batch tested ammo at Bisley: again, probably only a marginal difference in it for someone at my level but I'm a romantic believer that somewhere there are some magic bullets just waiting for me - and the testing is fun.

A little "off the wall" but I would consider a reasonable telescopic sight. you could then use it to "batch" a wide range of ammunition and will find that it is an excellent training aid. You can end up with batches that you have selected when shooting from the shoulder (not from a rest) and those you will have real confidence in.

Rutty

Many thanks for the suggestion of using a telescopic sight. Will have to try that. I have sometimes wondered about the possible lack of correspondence between the results obtained from a clamped rifle and those from one held in the shoulder, assuming, of course, a constant hold and position on the part of the shooter.

assuming, of course, a constant hold and position on the part of the shooter.

That's the beauty of it, you will learn a lot about what affects your stability by using a 'sope sight. You get instant feedback.

Rutty

Many thanks for the suggestion of using a telescopic sight. Will have to try that. I have sometimes wondered about the possible lack of correspondence between the results obtained from a clamped rifle and those from one held in the shoulder, assuming, of course, a constant hold and position on the part of the shooter.

Years ago, before there was such a thing as dedicated testing centers where you could take your rifle and test lots from a rest, that was pretty much how it was done, shoot off some sandbags with a scope and do the final select of the most promising lots shooting from the shoulder, again with a telescope.

Even if you are not the next Sergei Martinov you will find there is some benefit to matching a lot to your rifle. It is speculated in Ways of the Rifle that around 570 a prone shooter can start to tell the difference between a good lot and poor one. Does not mean you will see a sudden dramatic increase in score but shots will be a little tighter here and there.

With all the discussion on bedding, have you tested your rifle to see if it "likes" a certain bedding torque. Most 1813s seem to have a sweet spot arounds 45 in-lbf of bedding screw torque. Just one simple thing can do.

Cheers,
'Dude

Thank you for reminding me about torque. I have been running it at 5 nm in the 1813 stock, which I think is much the same as 45 in lbs. (Slightly more when I use my aluminium stock). And, yes, certainly at the three batch testing sessions I have ever attended, there were notable differences between batches even with the most expensive ammunition. So much so, that without such testing it really would not be worthwhile to buy the most expensive stuff; you would be just as likely to strike lucky with an off the shelf lot of the next grade down. Maybe it's my barrel, which is not a selected one, but, frankly, some of the groups were pretty bad, and not simply because of a single flyer. From what I could see, other people's barrels returned similar discrepancies. I must add, however, that at least in the case of Lapua, the groups for Midas+ were considerably tighter in general than those for Centre X. For RUAG, I have tested only R50, and I have never tested any Eley, who don't seem interested in offering this service at Bisley during the annual small bore meeting.

Cumbrian,

you've hit upon a very valid point, unless you are testing (and doing so quite carefully) it's difficult to justify the premium for Tenex, R50, or Midas. I had a chance to test some Match at the start of the outdoor season; I got nice round groups from the machine rest, and then consistent groups from the shoulder.

Out of interest had you cleaned the barrel before batch testing? If not, it might be worthwhile giving it a thorough clean with a bronze brush and 009 (or your solvent of choice) beforehand to see if it makes a difference. Although if your barrel has seen a bit of use, it may need a little crud in the throat to fill in any wear.

Tim,

Yes, I had cleaned the barrel - and the RUAG guy asked the same question (see below). I use 009 or, at the moment, Kroil, and patches. I have used a bronze bush once in several thousand rounds, and once also a VFG felt with bronze particles, but I have become nervous about metal brushes. Perhaps this is over cautious, but I worry about damage when my bronze brush is fairly new, not nicely worn. And I reckon you can tell that the barrel is clean, even with my conservative regime, because the first shot through it subsequently is unusually loud, giving a real 'crack'. On the other hand, I also worry about hidden lead build up - even when the bore looks really shiny, the rifling stands out clearly, and there is no line or shadow near the chamber - because I understand that fliers can be caused by one round every ten or so picking up the lead and then spinning eccentrically. In my limited experience, even the best groups in the batch testing, however, seem to have at least two fliers, so to speak, which put the groups at 13-15 mm, whereas 11-12 mm is allegedly achievable. I can't imagine how Anschutz obtain the results on the test cards they send out with new rifles. My 1600 barrel, a select one, came with an 8-9 mm group on its test card and even the 1800 barrel came with one of 10-11.

To condition the clean barrel, RUAG put some rounds of their cheapest ammo through it before the actual testing. It was fascinating to notice on the computer screen how the first shot was a real flier and how the next 4 or 5 progressively tightened up. I guess therefore I need to employ ten sighting shots rather than the five I have been accustomed to.

Hi Cumbrian,

that seems a sensible routine, although I don't think you need to worry about the bronze brush, as the wires are much softer than the steel of the barrel.

The difference between your batch testing results and Anschutz's test targets is easily explained. Firstly they are shot indoors not in the LRC "tunnel", secondly the barrel is clamped into a vice (not from the stock in a recoil rest) so the vibrations will be smaller, and thirdly they only show you the best group.

Tim, my selected 1913 came with two or three sheets of test groups, probably ten a sheet from a variety of batches (according to the written markers) of Tenex and R50, allegedly to suggest that the rifle would likely group well with a wide selection of premium ammo. Now, subsequent batch testing has not borne this out, and not all the test groups were good, but there were certainly several that could be compared to the one in the booklet, which I've never measured but suspect to be around 11mm, and my batch testing sessions have revealed similar groups as well, though certainly not with a wide variety of batches. Testing with Eley for the first time on 8th September and looking forward to seeing how that goes.

Tim,

Ah, I see. That would explain the otherwise apparently unrepeatable Anschutz results. And thanks for the reassurance about the bronze brush.