The "a chassis should not need to be bedded" myth........

[Long Range 338]

What level of precision are you trying to obtain? Turning necks and working primer pockets can improve groups as well but at the end of the day the gains are incremental so not many are doing it.

My understanding is that the "Okie Special" is all the top PRS guys want to shoot. Interesting that they don't feel the need to bed the foundation stocks.

If a guy wants to eliminate all the variables, this is just another one to be eliminated.

 

[chevy_man]

If it worked like that, you’d never have a zero shift when you remove and reinstall a barreled action into a chassis.

Which I don’t think anyone would argue never happens.

You also have different zeros if you use something like an SEB rest and a rabbit ear bag vs a bipod and squeeze bag……with the exact same rifle. So, your rifle zero isn’t just with the barreled action.

Odd.

I have pulled several barreled actions in and out of the same chassis with no shift. I have only seen shift when removing and reinstalling the scope.

I also don't need to change my scope with different bags.

I think a lot of this is making excuses for sucking at shooting.

Or I'm just lucky and have several Bravos that perfectly fit several different Bergara and Remington actions. I torque them down with a t-handle and stop when it flexes too much. Never used a torque driver either and some here would have you believe that's impossible.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Odd.

I have pulled several barreled actions in and out of the same chassis with no shift. I have only seen shift when removing and reinstalling the scope.

I also don't need to change my scope with different bags.

I think a lot of this is making excuses for sucking at shooting.

Or I'm just lucky and have several Bravos that perfectly fit several different Bergara and Remington actions. I torque them down with a t-handle and stop when it flexes too much. Never used a torque driver either and some here would have you believe that's impossible.

That's one of the perks of building 100 rifles or more a year. Don't have to base opinions on a few Bergaras and Remingtons.

If your limited experience proved to be universal, you could literally zero a barreled action in your chassis of choice, then transfer it to another chassis and it would still be zero'd......as in your supposition the optic is zero'd with the barrel and nothing else.

 

[chevy_man]

That's one of the perks of building 100 rifles or more a year. Don't have to base opinions on a few Bergaras and Remingtons.

If your limited experience proved to be universal, you could literally zero a barreled action in your chassis of choice, then transfer it to another chassis and it would still be zero'd......as in your supposition the optic is zero'd with the barrel and nothing else.

I have done that with excellent results...

I'm sure you are quite a lot of things that the average guy never sees.
Like anything else, when you only see the problems people bring you it can skew your perception of how widespread they are.


I would bet that a majority of chassis you wouldn't measure a difference. I'd also bet it doesn't hurt most of the time unless you get it thick enough to throw things out of tolerance.

 

[Tokay444]

Bergara shooters aren’t going to be able to appreciate the difference bedding a chassis will bring, but they’ll talk on the internet like they know something about it.

 

[Secant]

Just throwing out the other graph from the #3 chassis in that article (MPA, foundation, and MDT made up almost 80% of the data)

Between those top 3, it looks like ~93 did not bed and ~36 did bed their chassis/stock.

Below is the graph for all stocks/chassis in the poll

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2024/03/15/best-rifle-chassis-stocks-what-the-pros-use/

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Just throwing out the other graph from the #3 chassis in that article (MPA, foundation, and MDT made up almost 80% of the data)

View attachment 8380847

View attachment 8380838

Between those top 3, it looks like ~93 did not bed and ~36 did bed their chassis/stock.

Below is the graph for all stocks/chassis in the poll

View attachment 8380845

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2024/03/15/best-rifle-chassis-stocks-what-the-pros-use/

Yea, its definitely not required. However, it’s far from “a chassis shouldn’t need to be bedded. “

 

[Terry Cross]

It’s not very likely that people using Foundation stocks are less cautious than those using MPA.

Most that bed chassis have done some sort of testing and have seen things like a zero shift from rough handling of the rifle.

There is a very well known individual in the precision rifle competition world that is a world class shooter and rifle builder. He is also Rain Man smart and very innovative. This person was very involved in the origin and early evolution of the Foundation stocks products.

In the early days of Foundation stocks pushing into serious competitive circles, this individual and a couple of others did quite a bit of testing with bedded versus un-bedded. They could not find or induce any statistical difference in the accuracy or zero retention between bedded and un-bedded Foundation stocked rifles when using their own barreled actions.

This information was not ignored by the community. Their testing was and still is influential with a lot of builders and shooters using Foundation for their stocks.

.

 

[Terry Cross]

Chassis have minimum compression on torque of action, composite stocks do have a tiny bit of compression. When you torque in a receiver to a composite stock, it squishes into place nicely. A chassis is "you get what you get".

Would it be fair to say that the vast majority of bedded composite stocks (CF, Fiberglass, Micarta, etc.) are pillared when they are bedded?
I thought the whole premise in justifying a properly pillar bedded stock was to have zero compression.

When bolting actions back into stocks, I cannot detect any difference in how the bolts come up to torque between my pillar bedded composite stocks, composite stocks with internal chassis and my un-bedded chassis stocks.
All 3 seem to go from zero to tight in a pretty limited rotation of the stock bolts.

Would it be fair to ask if a person is feeling the torque value slowly creep up (the squishy you refer to) as you rotate the stock bolts to the target torque value, there is a potential variable at play that we don't want?

.

 

[Secant]

Yea, its definitely not required. However, it’s far from “a chassis shouldn’t need to be bedded. “

Just to be clear, my post wasn’t intended to state or imply that bedding is or is not needed. I think the MDT poll does muddy the water a little bit compared to just contrasting the MPA & Foundation polls. Regardless, the PRB article doesn’t have a clear takeaway regarding the need or not for bedding - at least for me. I think people can look at that article and takeaway whatever they are looking for:

-MPAs, specifically, may have an issue. Or maybe chassis globally have an issue? Or neither.

-As has been noted, some gear is fairly regional. So processes like bedding may be more regional than gear specific. OR certain regions will perform specific processes as a direct result of the regional gear that is widely used.

-Manufacturer's recommend bedding as a CYA, and it cuts both ways - 'you're not seeing the best results because you haven't bedded your chassis' AND 'it's not the chassis fault that you are not seeing the best results, it probably wasn't properly bedded'. OR, manufacturer's should be seen as the SMEs and you should follow their advise to bed.....or not to bed

-The common thread in the linked video interviews in the article is that guys have "peace of mind" when they bed their rifle. That can also cut both ways. Feelings aren't fact and it's a poor argument to performance/results. Also, most of shooting is between the ears, so feelings actually matter.

-What 200 polled shooters 'do' and 'don't do' may or may not be causational. OR, the top 200 PRS members opinions should be heavily weighed since they are at the top of their discipline.


I think the discussion is interesting, but at this point I view the answers to the bedding question to be more indicative of personality than they are tied to performance.

 

[Terry Cross]

-The common thread in the linked video interviews in the article is that guys have "peace of mind" when they bed their rifle. That can also cut both ways. Feelings aren't fact and it's a poor argument to performance/results. Also, most of shooting is between the ears, so feelings actually matter.

-What 200 polled shooters 'do' and 'don't do' may or may not be causational. OR, the top 200 PRS members opinions should be heavily weighed since they are at the top of their discipline.

I think the discussion is interesting, but at this point I view the answers to the bedding question to be more indicative of personality than they are tied to performance.

Very good points made.

.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Would it be fair to say that the vast majority of bedded composite stocks (CF, Fiberglass, Micarta, etc.) are pillared when they are bedded?
I thought the whole premise in justifying a properly pillar bedded stock was to have zero compression.

When bolting actions back into stocks, I cannot detect any difference in how the bolts come up to torque between my pillar bedded composite stocks, composite stocks with internal chassis and my un-bedded chassis stocks.
All 3 seem to go from zero to tight in a pretty limited rotation of the stock bolts.

Would it be fair to ask if a person is feeling the torque value slowly creep up (the squishy you refer to) as you rotate the stock bolts to the target torque value, there is a potential variable at play that we don't want?

.

The only time I've felt the squishy is when tightening something that has an o-ring underneath it.
An oil filter is a good example. So is a bolt or screw with a Stat-o-seal (AKA sealing washer) underneath it.

Otherwise, when tightening a fastener, it should be smooth, and a slight resistance should be felt as the surfaces come together. It should come to an abrupt stop. Extra torque should come at the expense of much higher resistance and very limited rotation.

If a fastener is wobbly going in, it's a bad fit. It's highly probable the fastener will loosen over time. Locktite will slow the loosening down, but it will not prevent it.

If you are experiencing squishy as you tighten things, something is wrong. Stop and find it.

 

[morganlamprecht]

Just to be clear, my post wasn’t intended to state or imply that bedding is or is not needed. I think the MDT poll does muddy the water a little bit compared to just contrasting the MPA & Foundation polls. Regardless, the PRB article doesn’t have a clear takeaway regarding the need or not for bedding - at least for me. I think people can look at that article and takeaway whatever they are looking for:

-MPAs, specifically, may have an issue. Or maybe chassis globally have an issue? Or neither.

-As has been noted, some gear is fairly regional. So processes like bedding may be more regional than gear specific. OR certain regions will perform specific processes as a direct result of the regional gear that is widely used.

-Manufacturer's recommend bedding as a CYA, and it cuts both ways - 'you're not seeing the best results because you haven't bedded your chassis' AND 'it's not the chassis fault that you are not seeing the best results, it probably wasn't properly bedded'. OR, manufacturer's should be seen as the SMEs and you should follow their advise to bed.....or not to bed

-The common thread in the linked video interviews in the article is that guys have "peace of mind" when they bed their rifle. That can also cut both ways. Feelings aren't fact and it's a poor argument to performance/results. Also, most of shooting is between the ears, so feelings actually matter.

-What 200 polled shooters 'do' and 'don't do' may or may not be causational. OR, the top 200 PRS members opinions should be heavily weighed since they are at the top of their discipline.


I think the discussion is interesting, but at this point I view the answers to the bedding question to be more indicative of personality than they are tied to performance.

Foundation Stocks - people are bedding?

I've seen a few guys saying they fully bedded their Foundation Stock. Anyone care to explain their decision to do this? Peace of mind? Poor mating/accuracy without? I just placed an order for an exodus. I've only shot chassis's and Foundation states their stocks don't require bedding/pillars...

www.snipershide.com

its pretty easy to tell if its tied to performance/reliability

hit tf out of the barrel on something and shoot it

my sample of one MPA would shift all over

none of my foundations exhibited a shift

 

[Tokay444]

I have done that with excellent results...

I'm sure you are quite a lot of things that the average guy never sees.
Like anything else, when you only see the problems people bring you it can skew your perception of how widespread they are.


I would bet that a majority of chassis you wouldn't measure a difference. I'd also bet it doesn't hurt most of the time unless you get it thick enough to throw things out of tolerance.

Take your front action screw out, and torque the rear just enough to keeps the barrel from contacting the channel. If your theory is correct, you should see zero difference on target. Be sure to post before and after pics.
Actually, let’s get ahead of the curve with some before groups now.

 

[Secant]

Foundation Stocks - people are bedding?

I've seen a few guys saying they fully bedded their Foundation Stock. Anyone care to explain their decision to do this? Peace of mind? Poor mating/accuracy without? I just placed an order for an exodus. I've only shot chassis's and Foundation states their stocks don't require bedding/pillars...

www.snipershide.com

its pretty easy to tell if its tied to performance/reliability

hit tf out of the barrel on something and shoot it

my sample of one MPA would shift all over

none of my foundations exhibited a shift

I get why people do what they do to try and see if there's a difference. I also think your experience with your gear is completely valid - and I only read the post that you linked (I'll get through the whole thread later). The skeptic in me reads the linked post and thinks:

-What's the actual group size from a larger sample (like 20 or 25+ rounds). How do the perceived/real shifts of the 3-round groups compare to the overall group size.
-What's the consistency/variance of the group-to-group center from the shooter's build-and-break based on larger round counts? How does that variance play into the perceived/real shifts?
-To what degree does the 'bang test' impact the muzzle device, barrel to action joint, scope rail to action, scope rings to rail, scope in rings, and scope internals? How are any of those isolated from the action-to-chassis "joint"?
-Do any of the above sometimes compound showing an unfavorable result and sometimes cancel each other out showing a favored result?
-If there is an issue found for any given stock/chassis, is that a one-off scenario where, for example, you get an action on one end of the tolerance spectrum and a chassis on the other (wrong) end of that tolerance spectrum (or one/both out of tolerance) and it equals an 'unstable' system? How applicable are the results to the rest of the units in that production batch (actions and stocks), what about the whole model line, or that specific manufacturer, is it only that action model to that stock/chassis model, etc.

Just saying there are a lot of potential variables to control.

 

[chevy_man]

Take your front action screw out, and torque the rear just enough to keeps the barrel from contacting the channel. If your theory is correct, you should see zero difference on target. Be sure to post before and after pics.
Actually, let’s get ahead of the curve with some before groups now.

For some reason I can't say I'd put my face behind that. Recoil lug or not, it sounds like a good way to plant an action inside your head.


I'm just here to argue. You wanted to hear something reassuring you're doing it right. I'm telling you there is no one size fits all, and running around parroting something isn't helping the community.

Why not show us your before and after?

I have plenty of wood stocks that needed bedding to shoot well. So I do believe it helps when it's actually needed. I just don't believe it's always needed in every application.

 

[Tokay444]

I'm just here to argue. You wanted to hear something reassuring you're doing it right. I'm telling you there is no one size fits all, and running around parroting something isn't helping the community.

No one is doing any of that. In fact, what’s being done is an attempt to stop people from parroting that chassis can’t benefit from bedding.

 

[morganlamprecht]

I get why people do what they do to try and see if there's a difference. I also think your experience with your gear is completely valid - and I only read the post that you linked (I'll get through the whole thread later). The skeptic in me reads the linked post and thinks:

-What's the actual group size from a larger sample (like 20 or 25+ rounds). How do the perceived/real shifts of the 3-round groups compare to the overall group size.
-What's the consistency/variance of the group-to-group center from the shooter's build-and-break based on larger round counts? How does that variance play into the perceived/real shifts?
-To what degree does the 'bang test' impact the muzzle device, barrel to action joint, scope rail to action, scope rings to rail, scope in rings, and scope internals? How are any of those isolated from the action-to-chassis "joint"?
-Do any of the above sometimes compound showing an unfavorable result and sometimes cancel each other out showing a favored result?
-If there is an issue found for any given stock/chassis, is that a one-off scenario where, for example, you get an action on one end of the tolerance spectrum and a chassis on the other (wrong) end of that tolerance spectrum (or one/both out of tolerance) and it equals an 'unstable' system? How applicable are the results to the rest of the units in that production batch (actions and stocks), what about the whole model line, or that specific manufacturer, is it only that action model to that stock/chassis model, etc.

Just saying there are a lot of potential variables to control.

All valid when discussing lots of cases…

All I can say is that same barreled action/scope combo in a foundation didn’t shift…neither do any of my others rifles

I could shoot build and break drills with my eyes closed left or right handed and not see shifts like that, in this instance shooter is a known quantity

But yes, there are lots of factors that can come into play if everything isn’t squared away

You can ask “what’s ifs” all day, but in the end like I said in the old thread…it can be a problem and it may need to be addressed, if so

 

[ma smith]

if someone doesnt want to do it or pay for it, fine...but if your zero is ever randomly off by small amounts...its worth looking into cause it absolutely can matter...its been checked and tested by better shooters than me, as well

+1

I'm not sure what kind of person would argue with a common-sense approach...

 

[NateVA]

Well this convinced me to order a Foundation instead of a chassis for an upcoming build. It definitely wasn't the take-home of this thread but I'd rather not worry about this stuff.

 

[TheOE800]

Well this convinced me to order a Foundation instead of a chassis for an upcoming build. It definitely wasn't the take-home of this thread but I'd rather not worry about this stuff.

Samson seems nice, but I wish he’d laser checker the grip.

 

[NateVA]

Samson seems nice, but I wish he’d laser checker the grip.

I ordered a Centurion (asked for 12.5" minimum LOP) for starters and will see if I want a Samson down the road. If I fall in love with it I'll go Samson for my Vudoo.

 

[MikeMiller]

Would it be fair to say that the vast majority of bedded composite stocks (CF, Fiberglass, Micarta, etc.) are pillared when they are bedded?
I thought the whole premise in justifying a properly pillar bedded stock was to have zero compression.

When bolting actions back into stocks, I cannot detect any difference in how the bolts come up to torque between my pillar bedded composite stocks, composite stocks with internal chassis and my un-bedded chassis stocks.
All 3 seem to go from zero to tight in a pretty limited rotation of the stock bolts.

Would it be fair to ask if a person is feeling the torque value slowly creep up (the squishy you refer to) as you rotate the stock bolts to the target torque value, there is a potential variable at play that we don't want?

.

Terry do you see any problem from bedding a chassis?

I have missed feelings on a lot of this. I always thought the reason to bed action was to keep cold bore consistent and I believe in my fiberglass stocks this holds true

In the early days we bedded fiberglass stocks before pillars were around and they never were consistent for cold bore. We added Pillars and the cold bore placement was more consistent

I don’t know if it’s the pillars and bedding or the more consistent torque due to the pillars not compressing

All our PD guns had the HS Precision Stocks and all needed bedding even with aluminum bedding blocks to shoot great.

my early comp guns were built by NorCal Precision. His bedding looked terrible but he used stainless steel pillars. The rifles all shot great

My GAP built rifles all have perfect bedding and pillars. They all shoot better than anyone can hold

My 300 WM built by kampfield is stuck in an AICS MK13 stock. No bedding. It shoots better than any 300WM I have ever shot before

Fng crazy stuff

 

[Terry Cross]

Terry do you see any problem from bedding a chassis?

No. I do not see any problem with bedding a chassis.

One of the main "intended" benefits of the chassis concept was to have a stable, accurate and repeatable rifle without having to bed.
Some chassis do a better job than others of approaching this goal.

.

 

[MikeMiller]

No. I do not see any problem with bedding a chassis.

One of the main "intended" benefits of the chassis concept was to have a stable, accurate and repeatable rifle without having to bed.
Some chassis do a better job than others of approaching this goal.

.

Thank you

 

[Sheldon N]

I had two MPA chassis, I bedded them both after testing. I now have four Foundation stocks and haven't bedded any of them.

 

[Smokin7s]

As mentioned in the second post, it’s unlikely it’s just a better safe than sorry reason. If so, it would be reflected in other chassis/stocks.

It’s not very likely that people using Foundation stocks are less cautious than those using MPA.

Most that bed chassis have done some sort of testing and have seen things like a zero shift from rough handling of the rifle.

The point of referencing the people in the article doing so isn’t the driving reason to do it. It’s just an example of how common it is, compared to how uncommon most expect it to be.

People have been bedding chassis for years. It’s similar to dialing wind. 3-5 years ago, you’d get crucified for telling the internet you dial wind, however many top shooters were dialing.

Joe walls beds anything and also builds a ton of prs rifles I’m sure that would have some play in the bedded foundations.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I'm telling you there is no one size fits all.....

You literally did the opposite. You claimed that an optic is zero'd to the barrel and thusly the barreled action moving in the chassis can't affect the zero. You stated that you don't see any of that with your "bergaras and 700's and bravo chassis."

You then went on to claim that any zero shifts people observed are just bad shooting.

All of that is literally telling people there's one size that fits all. That barreled actions moving in a chassis don't affect zero and that any observations were shooter error.

 

[iceng]

Would it be fair to say that the vast majority of bedded composite stocks (CF, Fiberglass, Micarta, etc.) are pillared when they are bedded?
I thought the whole premise in justifying a properly pillar bedded stock was to have zero compression.

When bolting actions back into stocks, I cannot detect any difference in how the bolts come up to torque between my pillar bedded composite stocks, composite stocks with internal chassis and my un-bedded chassis stocks.
All 3 seem to go from zero to tight in a pretty limited rotation of the stock bolts.

Would it be fair to ask if a person is feeling the torque value slowly creep up (the squishy you refer to) as you rotate the stock bolts to the target torque value, there is a potential variable at play that we don't want?

.

Glad someone brought up pillars. The "squish" I commented on is not an actual rubbery take-up feeling, its the receiver and interface (bedding, chassis, whatever) finding its natural point of rest. As you tighten things down, they do have a very small settling in period.

I agree with you that most composite stocks have pillars and are bedded, and yes pillars minimise compression.

get a piece of round plastic, 25mm diameter and 50mm long, drill a 7mm hole in it. Put a bolt through it and a washer and nut on it, finger tight.
Put a texta (sharpie) mark on the bolt and washer, so they line up. Torque it up to 70in-lbs. Take note of the angular change between the bolt and nut.

Repeat the experiment with aluminium not plastic. You can still achieve the same torque, however there will be ever so slightly less angular change between the nut and bolt.

I have a theory. Because alu chassis have less angular change when tightening, loosening them is also essier as theres less degrees to undo to drop tension ??

Only a theory, maybe a directional and spring washer will negate it ?

 

[AirgunnerPCP]

get a piece of round plastic, 25mm diameter and 50mm long, drill a 7mm hole in it. Put a bolt through it and a washer and nut on it, finger tight.
Put a texta (sharpie) mark on the bolt and washer, so they line up. Torque it up to 70in-lbs. Take note of the angular change between the bolt and nut.

Repeat the experiment with aluminium not plastic. You can still achieve the same torque, however there will be ever so slightly less angular change between the nut and bolt.

I have a theory. Because alu chassis have less angular change when tightening, loosening them is also essier as theres less degrees to undo to drop tension ??

Only a theory, maybe a directional and spring washer will negate it ?

I'm no joint engineer but I don't think your theory makes much sense. If both joints are tightened to theoretically the same torque and therefor exhibit the same clamping load (again theoretically, it actually doesn’t work like this) there should be no difference.

Maybe the friction difference between the plastic - steel interface and steel - steel interface would play a part? I dunno again I'm not joint engineer. IIRC @308pirate has a background in joint analysis?

On the pillars, my thought was that pillars protected against loading the laminate in a way it wasn't designed to be (compression) while bedding provided a consistent interface for the action. I'm probably wrong though I dunno.

 

[308pirate]

@308pirate has a background in joint analysis?

I do. But I'm not going to comment except to say that you get it.

 

[Terry Cross]

get a piece of round plastic, 25mm diameter and 50mm long, drill a 7mm hole in it. Put a bolt through it and a washer and nut on it, finger tight.
Put a texta (sharpie) mark on the bolt and washer, so they line up. Torque it up to 70in-lbs. Take note of the angular change between the bolt and nut.

Repeat the experiment with aluminium not plastic. You can still achieve the same torque, however there will be ever so slightly less angular change between the nut and bolt.

I do not think your analogy is accurate.
You are ignoring other variables.

That being said, I have the 1st place trophy for being wrong every day and am no expert.

.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Glad someone brought up pillars. The "squish" I commented on is not an actual rubbery take-up feeling, its the receiver and interface (bedding, chassis, whatever) finding its natural point of rest. As you tighten things down, they do have a very small settling in period.

I agree with you that most composite stocks have pillars and are bedded, and yes pillars minimise compression.

get a piece of round plastic, 25mm diameter and 50mm long, drill a 7mm hole in it. Put a bolt through it and a washer and nut on it, finger tight.
Put a texta (sharpie) mark on the bolt and washer, so they line up. Torque it up to 70in-lbs. Take note of the angular change between the bolt and nut.

Repeat the experiment with aluminium not plastic. You can still achieve the same torque, however there will be ever so slightly less angular change between the nut and bolt.

I have a theory. Because alu chassis have less angular change when tightening, loosening them is also essier as theres less degrees to undo to drop tension ??

Only a theory, maybe a directional and spring washer will negate it ?

What type of plastic?
It really does matter.

Also, when performing the torque, are you torquing the the nut or the bolt?
It matters.

Where is your washer?
It matters.

What is the thread pitch of the bolt?
It matters.

Are the threads dry, or lubed?
It matters.

 

[Milf Dots]

As a newb I have to admit this thread is engaging...

 

[chevy_man]

You literally did the opposite. You claimed that an optic is zero'd to the barrel and thusly the barreled action moving in the chassis can't affect the zero. You stated that you don't see any of that with your "bergaras and 700's and bravo chassis."

You then went on to claim that any zero shifts people observed are just bad shooting.

All of that is literally telling people there's one size that fits all. That barreled actions moving in a chassis don't affect zero and that any observations were shooter error.

I was providing examples that I have witnessed.

I do think many times shooter error has more effect than it's given credit. Especially when people are buying high end custom rifles and gear.

 

[kthomas]

I was providing examples that I have witnessed.

I do think many times shooter error has more effect than it's given credit. Especially when people are buying high end custom rifles and gear.

To your point, as humans and shooters one of our flaws is our tendency to fault the equipment before ourselves. There's a constant stream of examples of that one here - if someone can't seem to get a rifle to shoot, almost every suggestion is in regards to the equipment, rather than addressing any of the many potential shooter related issues that would cause such an error.

And to that point, some shooters may be bedding their chassis' in order to find and alleviate perceived faults with their equipment, rather then themselves.

But I also do think that in some cases, there certainly is a benefit to bedding chassis'. Some chassis and action combinations probably benefit more than others. There's probably individuals that are bedding their chassis because at a minimum, it certainly can't hurt. And others that do it on the advice of their gunsmiths, or because regionally its considered the acceptable way to do things (i.e. a trend).

 

[GenericBadGuy]

I'm over just thinking about the flat bottom double lug Badger m2008/m2013 and the AI actions...

 

[Tokay444]

I'm over just thinking about the flat bottom double lug Badger m2008/m2013 and the AI actions...

Full surface contact > line contact.

 

[iceng]

What type of plastic?
It really does matter.

Also, when performing the torque, are you torquing the the nut or the bolt?
It matters.

Where is your washer?
It matters.

What is the thread pitch of the bolt?
It matters.

Are the threads dry, or lubed?
It matters.

Fully agree with you, everything matters. Tiny variations change results, which echos my original assumption/point of composite stocks and alu stocks achieve the same torque rating, but at different points of angular rotation.

If i get a chance, ill try to grab a spare bit of billet and video that experiment once i finish this chassis im machining.

Heck, i may be completely full of shit and the experiment doesnt show any difference. Least ill learn from it.