• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Lesson learned, appreciate the PM

  • Like
Reactions: obx22
My bad....didn't realize we needed fractional inch pounds.

The one I showed I guess you could go between scale marks for .5 or sub half for .25.

At +\- 3% accuracy it wouldn't matter.

For something to measure inch pounds at fractional amounts and to have an accuracy rating to make it legit you must ask NASA what they use and pay accordingly.
 
I ran a preliminary tuner type test on my action screws. I was loosening and retorquing on each target. I found when I got close to best accuracy, it was very sensitive to how I held everything during the process. Made me think a finer adjustment would give even better results.

Sounds like a proper bedding job is what you need.
Then play with torque
 
Given the variation in thread friction and the resultant effect upon turning torque, attempts to achieve this sort of precision (<1%) will be random rolls of the dice at best.

Agreed that your time is better spent improving the action-stock bedding as to decrease the sensitivity of the system to tightening torque.
 
Given the variation in thread friction and the resultant effect upon turning torque, attempts to achieve this sort of precision (<1%) will be random rolls of the dice at best.
He's not wrong......


Is there such a thing as a torque wrench the indicates in sub in/lbs, as say you wanted 39.25 in/lbs on a fastener ? Looking for 0-70 inch/pounds range in as fine a reliable setting as possible.
Torque is just a convenient approximation for what really matters: fastener tension.

So if you want to get down to brass tacks, get ready to pay: https://www.checkline.com/bolt_tension_meters/ti-minimax

Oh and the price does not include the knowledge needed to understand what it tells you.
 
It’s a skim bed chassis.

You missed the larger point. You can't control torque as repeatably as you think you can no matter what tool you use.

Some of us are telling you what we're telling you because this is an area of professional expertise.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, I gave you a direction of where to look. But make sure you get educated or its easy to misunderstand the data you're getting. And just like in any engineering subdiscipline, the details run deep........
 
You missed the larger point. You can't control torque as repeatably as you think you can no matter what tool you use.

Some of us are telling you what we're telling you because this is an area of professional expertise.
🙃
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gohring65
I tuned my M40.......


This rifle was bedded by Gap and playing with torque did make a difference.

I went in 5 inch pound increments and still got dramatic results.

I don't think I can improve on what I ended up with. It still shoots as well and I have had it out of the stock.

I have a similar rifle in .223 and out of laziness use the same torque values and I am happy with the results.

Do you play with bullet jump?

I think once you get your basic torque you should play with your ammo as your returns on a .25 inch pound setting will not be as dramatic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22
I tuned my M40.......


This rifle was bedded by Gap and playing with torque did make a difference.

I went in 5 inch pound increments and still got dramatic results.

I don't think I can improve on what I ended up with. It still shoots as well and I have had it out of the stock.

I have a similar rifle in .223 and out of laziness use the same torque values and I am happy with the results.

Do you play with bullet jump?

I think once you get your basic torque you should play with your ammo as your returns on a .25 inch pound setting will not be as dramatic.
😉
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gohring65
How are you testing each torque value - with something like a 6x5, or is it more like tossing three rounds downrange and then move onto the next 0.25 in-lb step?

And when you make a change, are you backing off the bolts, or just snugging them up from the previous value?

What's the best 5- or 10-shot group that you've shot at any torque value? Could you go put that torque value on the action screws right now and recreate that target?
 
How are you testing each torque value - with something like a 6x5, or is it more like tossing three rounds downrange and then move onto the next 0.25 in-lb step?

And when you make a change, are you backing off the bolts, or just snugging them up from the previous value?

What's the best 5- or 10-shot group that you've shot at any torque value? Could you go put that torque value on the action screws right now and recreate that target?
Google “Hopewell Method” of barrel tuning. I followed that as described.
😶
 
Last edited:
Google “Hopewell Method” of barrel tuning. I followed that as described.

I did. Everything I read about it describes how to adjust a barrel tuner which is a weight on the barrel.

Nowhere did I see anything related to adjusting how tight the action screws are.
 
I did. Everything I read about it describes how to adjust a barrel tuner which is a weight on the barrel.

Nowhere did I see anything related to adjusting how tight the action screws are.
😶
 
Last edited:
And then we get into thread quality on the action and action screws...


Oh, and then how are you monitoring wear on the action screws and action threading since you are essentially lapping them.
Or, maybe increasing the torque required to overcome minor galling of the threads.

You're not using lube on the threads, right?

You do know that overcoming friction is where the greatest portion of your torque setting is used? Something on the order of 10% is applied to the actual clamping force. The other 90%, overcoming friction of threads and fastener heads.

Dry threads, lubed threads, thread quality and a whole bunch of other things come into play with torque.

Did I mention torque wrench accuracy? +/- 3% is pretty common.
Using the wrench in the middle of its range vs the upper and lower 10-20% will give you more consistent results.



Experiment if you want, but if you don't have the proper tools or knowledge, what are you gaining?
 
I backed off after each in/lb and retorqued. As for you’re last question, that’s kinda the point isn’t it?
I transferred a barreled action from a conventional stock, sighted in and shot incredibly poorly in a match. The following range trip I tested my accuracy from a bench, then proceeded to TRY the tuning method as I was ready to toss the stock. I discovered the torque I was using consistently sucked. When I tested last weekend with the best setting thus far, I set a new personal best in groups/distance.
Thus my question.


I have never torque tested my McMillan stocks I just set them at 65 inch pounds and forget it. Reality is they may benefit from some tweaking but I would never exceed the 65 inch pounds.

Testing my GAP bedded Mawhinney M40 is probably useless as it has pillars. Still its wood so I went for it. My 1903s may benefit more from it but even than if it is 35 inch pounds on one day the humidity level on the next day may make it more or less.

Your effort has some merit but I dont think it requires the measure of settings you seek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22

She is working on her technique....everything is falling apart so she cant keep the "aperture" open long enough to develope the film....

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Threadcutter308
Of course you didn’t, it’s for barrel tuning. In me it triggers a leap in thought- what if?
I don’t have a tuner yet, but I have 3 flash hider/linear compensators. When installed they made groups worse. If you can make something worse, you can possibly make something better. I’ll revisit the barrel tuning another day. I read of the Hopewell Method after seeing it mentioned on the Hide or a FB group, decided to try with my torque wrench on the action screws.

I’m amazed at the amount of responses claiming “it’s not possible/waste of time/inconclusive” once people find out why I want a tool, or what caliber I shoot, etc. etc.
It’s like people at my Gun club telling me I can’t shoot my handgun on the rifle range cause it’s not possible to hit anything. Help me test, but please don’t attempt to save me from myself.

I was asking a question for clarification because I can't read your mind.

Personally, IDGAF what you do.

I tried to educate a little about your idea to read torque in very finite increments. Do with that information what you will.

Now I'm really out.
 
You pull me back in......................damn you ;)
AD8CA1A3-64A0-485F-A1B5-E6D13AE6ADB8.gif
 
Looking for 0-70 inch/pounds range in as fine a reliable setting as possible.
OP

Please take advice and stop fighting facts..

In general torque instruments ar 5x min to max and calibration is 4%

So 15 to 75in lbs and +- 2.0 in lbs is about it

You might get NASA grade instrument at 2% But that is still 1.0 +-for 50 in lbs.

Lastly good in-lb (small) value torque tools are expensive and typically worse on a % basis when certified than larger ones... ie 4-6% vs 2-4%

People have been hinting this to you, but you clearly dont know what you dont know

So first thing is you need to get up to speed a bit on the subject

Lastly ill reiterate a the point that torque ( even if you coul get fine resolution) isnt even the thing that matters...

Torque is a 'proxy' (loosely correlated) variable for the real thing of interest... bolt stretch or tension.. .

Asking for .1 in lbs is pointless when that instrumented value isnt certifiable, and even if it was, the values dont translate to bolt stretch with enough quality to make good use of that resulution.

Dont let this dissuade you from doing you own research, but do use it to set or manage expectations, and be mindful of your findings in this context.
 
If ya wanna spend the money, here's the wrench you'll need:

Hope ya prove everyone wrong with 5x6 targets to prove it, but good luck!
 
OP...

pretty sure we all agree torque can change how a rifle shoots...

The problem is we (I think) disagree with your rationale and attempted execution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22
If ya wanna spend the money, here's the wrench you'll need:

Hope ya prove everyone wrong with 5x6 targets to prove it, but good luck!

If it really mattered ....buy two or three than average the readings by the number of wrenches bought......only way to be sure.....more wrenches mo better.
 
Seriously? Can you elaborate please?

I think I was the only one that referenced GAP in regards to the MaWhinney commemorative M40 over run I did my stock testing on.....those are sweet rifles and the bedding is beautifully done.
 
OP

Please take advice and stop fighting facts..

In general torque instruments ar 5x min to max and calibration is 4%

So 15 to 75in lbs and +- 2.0 in lbs is about it

You might get NASA grade instrument at 2% But that is still 1.0 +-for 50 in lbs.

Lastly good in-lb (small) value torque tools are expensive and typically worse on a % basis when certified than larger ones... ie 4-6% vs 2-4%

People have been hinting this to you, but you clearly dont know what you dont know

So first thing is you need to get up to speed a bit on the subject

Lastly ill reiterate a the point that torque ( even if you coul get fine resolution) isnt even the thing that matters...

Torque is a 'proxy' (loosely correlated) variable for the real thing of interest... bolt stretch or tension.. .

Asking for .1 in lbs is pointless when that instrumented value isnt certifiable, and even if it was, the values dont translate to bolt stretch with enough quality to make good use of that resulution.

Dont let this dissuade you from doing you own research, but do use it to set or manage expectations, and be mindful of your findings in this context.
😶
 
Last edited:
The two GAP rifles that I had to help troubleshoot were both surprisingly not the best examples of bedding work that I have seen. For the price that the owners paid, I expected better.
That said, I've bedded several rifles - my first two- that looked like utter garbage but shot well and could be disassembled and reassembled with hardly any measurable performance variation.

As for torque wrench absurdities and rat holes, I was a spacesuit and life support systems tech for while near the end of the last century. We only used frequently-calibrated, aircraft maintenance-grade, Snap-On wrenches.
If a mechanical system using tension fasteners is designed correctly and the parts are in good shape there should be no performance variations after disassembly and reassembly.
-Use good fasteners and replace them if necessary
-clean and inspect all contact or mating surfaces
-lubricate if designed to be lubricated, lock if designed to be locked
- proceed slowly
- repeatable technique is underestimated and rare

Just for kicks, you might want to look into newer bicycling related torque wrenches or even medical device torque wrenches if you want to go off the deep end.
At that point you'll be in the weeds so deep that you might as well sign up for bench rest comps.

Lastly, maybe try this...... put some modeling clay onto your stock at the contact points with the action -basically, where the bedding should be. Tighten your action to spec and then remove it and look at the contact points again. All or most of the clay should have been displaced. If not, you have gaps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drew M and obx22
The two GAP rifles that I had to help troubleshoot were both surprisingly not the best examples of bedding work that I have seen. For the price that the owners paid, I expected better.
That said, I've bedded several rifles - my first two- that looked like utter garbage but shot well and could be disassembled and reassembled with hardly any measurable performance variation.

As force torque wrench absurdities, I was a spacesuit and life support systems tech for while near the end of the last century. Frequently calibrated, aircraft maintenance-grade, Snap-On wrenches were all we used. If a system is designed correctly and the parts are in good shape there should be no performance variations after disassembly and reassembly.
-Use good fasteners and replace them if necessary
-clean and inspect all contact or mating surfaces
-lubricate if designed to be lubricated, lock if designed to be locked
- proceed slowly
- repeatable technique is underestimated and rare

Just for kicks, you might want to look into newer bicycling related torque wrenches or even medical device torque wrenches if you want to go off the deep end.
At that point you'll be in the weeds so deep that you might as well sign up for bench rest comps.

Did you work in Worcester?
 
Thank you, that‘ll likely serve the purpose 👍
If ya wanna spend the money, here's the wrench you'll need:

Hope ya prove everyone wrong with 5x6 targets to prove it, but good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: x2cross
The two GAP rifles that I had to help troubleshoot were both surprisingly not the best examples of bedding work that I have seen. For the price that the owners paid, I expected better.
That said, I've bedded several rifles - my first two- that looked like utter garbage but shot well and could be disassembled and reassembled with hardly any measurable performance variation.

As for torque wrench absurdities and rat holes, I was a spacesuit and life support systems tech for while near the end of the last century. We only used frequently-calibrated, aircraft maintenance-grade, Snap-On wrenches.
If a mechanical system using tension fasteners is designed correctly and the parts are in good shape there should be no performance variations after disassembly and reassembly.
-Use good fasteners and replace them if necessary
-clean and inspect all contact or mating surfaces
-lubricate if designed to be lubricated, lock if designed to be locked
- proceed slowly
- repeatable technique is underestimated and rare

Just for kicks, you might want to look into newer bicycling related torque wrenches or even medical device torque wrenches if you want to go off the deep end.
At that point you'll be in the weeds so deep that you might as well sign up for bench rest comps.

Lastly, maybe try this...... put some modeling clay onto your stock at the contact points with the action -basically, where the bedding should be. Tighten your action to spec and then remove it and look at the contact points again. All or most of the clay should have been displaced. If not, you have gaps.
😉
 
Last edited:
I only learned recently that early gen, and up until recently, Life support suits were built in Worcester, MA.

With that in mind seeing Elon Musks suits shocked me as something fake....


topic for a PM or its own thread. I don't want to screw up OPs post.
 
-Use good fasteners and replace them if necessary
-clean and inspect all contact or mating surfaces
-lubricate if designed to be lubricated, lock if designed to be locked
- proceed slowly

- repeatable technique is underestimated and rare
This is the stuff that matters, even after you have the right tools.

As for the Op

Correlation and causation are repeatedly confused. Until you start with calibrated test data, you have no idea what the real data is... even a 1% wrench at 50 in lbs is barely capable of resolving true 1.0 in lb variation... 49.4 and 50.4 are 49.9+-1%

So the claim one has already measured reliably in a casual experiment with uncalibrated 4-6% ( eg even normal snap on) torque tools is suspect.

Nobody is saying its wrong, its just very likely noisy data an needs work. Which is fine reason to start this thread..

Just listen to the people telling you that torque is hard to measure, and its hard to make strong inferences about non- torque things based on torque data.

The exception to this is systems engineered around specific torque ranges. But those systems are typically go/ no go. They are not continuous performance functions where torque alone is the optimizing varable...
 
Also, don't assume that your stock is 100%
Poke around a bit with some dental tools and your fingers - put a load on your mating surfaces to check for stability
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22
There is so very much concern with educating me on why it’s not possible or how much I must not know about the subject. The mindset is so firmly planted in what isn’t possible, without consideration of what is.
I’ve already stated I’ve charted REPEATABLE results. Guess that gets ignored. I didn’t ask opinions on what I’m doing, or if it would work, merely is there a “best” option.
Screw what I’m doing with it, maybe I’m building a time machine to escape this BS because the tool I seek either doesn’t exist, or isn’t applied to firearms...yet.

Dunning-Kruger
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDXGS and Baron23
I only learned recently that early gen, and up until recently, Life support suits were built in Worcester, MA.

With that in mind seeing Elon Musks suits shocked me as something fake....


topic for a PM or its own thread. I don't want to screw up OPs post.

Fuck it let's get this thread derailed

ILC-Dover made all the spacesuits for the Apollo program except the Block I suits which were made by D-C.

David-Clark made all the Gemini suits

I think D-C also made all the Space Shuttle orange suits.

The SpaceX suits are rad

ETA: David-Clark FTW in Red Bull Stratos
 
Last edited: