Is bedding the AR barrel a myth? What's the best way?

Imagine how much you'd know if you tried some of this stuff for yourself.

610yd said:

Like I said, Pros & Cons.

1) If you wax both ID and OD, then the substrate is wax and wax. Are people only doing a release wax on the ID? How then do you get the 620 off the barrel, or is the barrel now a throw away item?

2) 620 is expensive, has a short shelf life, and most won't use much of the tiny bottle.

3) The use of an activator is mostly for speeding up a "set" time, but it impacts strength of the 620 final cure. I have email somewhere from Henkel stating the activators in general reduce max strength of the anaerobics. The anaerobics work best with active substrates. This graph is similar to wax-wax substrate setup, be lucky to get 50% of what the 620 has to offer, which however may still be enough, maybe that's why it knocks out so easily?

View attachment 8698410

Click to expand...

Not concerned about 620s gluing strength.
It's hard enough to remove as is. It takes an oak dowel and hammer hard on a concrete floor to remove.
The research & tech data is fine, but we don't need the parts glued permanently together....
Obviously you have never used 620 ...
As you say "it knocks out so easily"....it does not.

This is an 8.6 Blackout and the infamous 3 twist headed for the scrap yard.
I just had to try the 3 twist for my self.
Notice, the oak dowel is swaged up to get this barrel out. The dowel will be trimmed back for the next AR 10 barrel...and that's with the wax on the reciever only...which I tried to measure with a tenths indicator and got zero reading.
Plus there is only usually .0002" to .0005" maximum depth around the steel barrel extension to take up the tolerance and slight out of roundness between the 2 parts.

Why do some have good luck without doing the glue-ins because usually there is not that much extra space around the reciever and barrel extension ...but a few will "wobble" a bit.
And it makes improvements for me as one of the accuracy enhancements to the AR platform.

I actually measured the 620 thickness...here its about .0004" or 4 ten thousandths of an inch thick all the way across...but there are slightly thicker and thinner .0002" to .001" on one side as it drops into the groove...
So most of 620 sticks to the steel without activators, and expands to take up unneeded space to make a solid barrel to reciever fit.
The wax surface is non measurable.
We are not trying to glue them permanently together...just make a solid or nonmovable fit between the barrel and receiver.
It seems to work as most ARs assembled with 620 plus other accuracy enhancements will shoot quite few 1/2" groups with various powders and bullets.

An excellent example:
This is 9 mm with many thousands of rounds on it, with a binary trigger, so it got smokin hot more than a few a few times.
It also has tons of plus P loads in it almost exclusively...like 115 gr at 1720 fps.

The 620 buffs off easily with a fine silicon carbide deburring wheel.
Expensive? Cost per round in this case is ridiculously low, even if ya used it once and threw the rest away.
No one cares if ya use 620, use what ya like.
But I try to present the facts, through experience and actual measurement.
If I find something better, I'll use that.

610yd said:

2) 620 is expensive, has a short shelf life, and most won't use much of the tiny bottle.

Click to expand...

620 is $20 on Amazon and is enough to lay up hundreds of ARs.

620 kind of sucks and for none of the reasons you've said.

Loctite 620 on every AR barrel here with great success. I don't wax or do anything else, just 620 during assembly. Bonds very tight and easy enough to remove with the wooden dowel as has been described.

45-90 said:

As you say "it knocks out so easily"....it does not.

Click to expand...

But I didn't say that, I was quoting someone else who said it knocks out easily with a wooden dowel.
We should be concerned about 620 final strength, but not in the context of "gluing" pieces together, we want the goop to resist movement, that's the goal. As I mentioned, reduced final cure strength does mean you are not getting the full potential of the 620, so then maybe I would choose a wax release and epoxy method instead?

I have used 620 on other things, the bottles usually have exp date on them about 1yr from purchase. Doing hundreds of AR's with 620 in 1yr? I applaud that effort.

For those who like using 620, use 620. I don't think is matters too much what goop is used, there's little diff between them in end results, but we know some Pros & Cons for each, and, we know using something is better than nothing at all. For me I found JB Red was just way easier to use.

The whole notion of "accuracy and precision" in the same talk as "should bedding be used" creates conflict. If I wanted to obtain the best accuracy and precision I would have the barrel maker provide barrel with oversized extension 1-3thou bigger than mic'd bore ID, then I would spin barrel and shave off what's needed to make that very snug fitment, and still use minimal goop stuff to lubricate the install.