Gunsmithing Bedding Opinions

[Turd in the Pool]

CST didn't teach us bedding so I learned from the guy at the shop I worked at after school. His method was to bed the rear tang and from the front of the mag well up to about the chamber neck area. I decided that bedding a tapered bbl was a bad idea. Heat expansion, yada yada yada.

I've since gone to bedding the full length of the action and nothing in front of the recoil lug.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ugsly]

Ive been doing the same and everything has shot great.

Kc

 

[Andy Warhog]

it depends on the rifle and type of glass you use. sako, AI, mosin nagant etc. you need to use the metric specific glass and if you bed in front of the recoil lug, you cant bed anywhere behind the mag well. everything else made in merica you bed the tang and in front of the lug, but you have to use a standard resin or it wont work

 

[redirt78]

Tagging to learn a thing or three

 

[Turd in the Pool]

Thanks for the metric tip Andy. I'll file it. Guess those made in merica guns are so fine they don't need bedding after all. Sorry I've screwed so many up.

 

[nzgrip]

So what is Metric Specific Glass and why is it fine for bedding Metric rifles and no good for bedding imperial rifles??? Sounds like someone's taking the piss?

 

[7mmRM]

Full length of action and 1- 1.5" ahead of lug.

 

[Turd in the Pool]

Full length of action and 1- 1.5" ahead of lug.

Saw your work on the bbl marking thread. That and the floating Savage rear tang issue I read on some thread made me ask.

Don't guess I could talk you into floating one in front of the lug to see if it makes any difference?

BTW Like your logo!

 

[dakor]

I have played around with this on 5 different Remington Custom rifles I own and 3 of them are sporter barrels and the other 2 were a 27 inch and a 30 inch Varmint contour barrels. All rifles are different calibers. I bedded each rifle the full length of the action up to the back of the recoil lug and I worked up a load with each. All these rifles shoot ½ MOA or under. I re bedded each rifle the same way except I went 1 inch in front of the recoil lug supporting the barrel.
I test fired each rifle with the same load and there was no change in Accuracy in any of the rifles. They shot the same as they did without bedding in front of the lug.

I took one of the rifles and removed the bedding again in front of the lug and test fired the same load and again there was no change in Accuracy. I did this over the course of the last 2 years and I still to this day have not seen any Accuracy changes or any flyers with these rifles. From my test results my conclusion is it does not make a difference on a Remington anyway if you bed up to the lug or in front of it supporting the barrel as long as you tape the front and sides of the lug off when you bed it so only the back of the lug touches the bedding when you are finished. Now others might have different results but these are the results I have seen from my own testing.

 

[7mmRM]

I've done many without a pad and in some certain instances still do.

A Savage with a bbl nut , or a 700/clone that will be used as a switch bbl will have nothing in front of the lug.

Like Dakor I've not seen a difference either way in performance.

Its much more of a personal preference and standardization of process than anything.

I always float the tang on Savage. Always.

 

[19Scout77]

The only reason to bed in front of the lug is extra support for a can or super heavy long barrel. Otherwise a pad in front of the lug is nothing but a pain in the ass come rebarrelling time. It make ZERO accuracy difference.

 

[damoncali]

Barrel threads are preloaded with thousands of pounds of force. I don't see how even the heaviest barrel needs any support.

 

[LRI]

In 15+ years I've yet to bed forward of the lug on a C/F action.

All your doing is making an already complicated process more complicated.

Judge for yourself:





C.

 

[jonaddis84]

If you're not blessed with cnc equipment, the one thing bedding in front of the lug can do is make it easier to look clean. Few wraps of Shercon in front of the lug then just enough electric tape to touch the channel in front of that, then you can break anything off that flows in front of that easy. Remains floated and wouldn't affect barrel swap.

Galaxy S3 on tapatalk

 

[Turd in the Pool]

Ok, we pretty much agree that nothing in front of the lug works.

Can someone explain the Savage tang floating thing. I can't grasp the concept if it's a stress free bed. An unbedded stock is another thing.

 

[Blackbrush]

While this is being thrown around, what is the issue with allowing the lug to make contact with the sides, bottom or front? Why, as many suggest, should it only touch on the load/back side?

 

[Turd in the Pool]

While this is being thrown around, what is the issue with allowing the lug to make contact with the sides, bottom or front? Why, as many suggest, should it only touch on the load/back side?

Good point. I think it's hype. Just like pillars. It does however ease in assembly.

 

[Deadshot2]

While this is being thrown around, what is the issue with allowing the lug to make contact with the sides, bottom or front? Why, as many suggest, should it only touch on the load/back side?

Good point. I think it's hype. Just like pillars. It does however ease in assembly.

I've bedded the lug so it's snug on both sides but with clearance on bottom and front. I did take some time and relieve the bottom corners with a dremel burr, where the lug has a radius. This is to keep the front of the action from being loaded when the lug/barrel/action heats up. Having the sides bedded insures that the action screws are perfectly centered and the action has not rotated even the slightest when torqued. While bedding I put O-Rings on the action screws to keep them centered in the pillar/block.

FWIW, I learned this from a Bench Rest shooter who just recently posted a 400-16X score in a match, shot at 300 yards. For practice he shoots fly's that land on a target he's baited with sardine oil.

 

[acts238]

is bedding the front of the lug just for ease of disassembly or ?...
I have heard - some recommend bedding the lower 1/4 inch or so of the front of the lug.
but still tape the sides & bottom
the above post sounds like a good reason to bed the sides of the lug

 

[Blackbrush]

So then the guys that do "glue ins" have it wrong? I'm just very curious.

 

[damoncali]

The only issue with a glue in is that it's glued in. Otherwise, it solves the problem perfectly - which is to keep the action stuck to the stock at all times. Can't do any better than glued. Kind of a problem for maintenance, though. And who knows about reliability - the only people nutty enough to do this shoot benchrest, and don't exactly abuse their rifles.

A recoil lug serves one purpose for sure - to transmit the recoil force to the stock. So you must have zero clearance on the back. Nothing else is important from that point of view.

You might argue that a recoil lug is also there to maintain the action's rotational alignment to the stock. In that case, zero clearance on the sides of the lug would be required. There is no justification for the front or bottom of the lug to touch.

I would argue that the rotation is more than held in place by friction. The torque on a rifle action is very small, and friction between the receiver bottom and pillars is more than enough to hold it in place.

Although I've not seen it tested, I'd bet that well machined metal pillars, tight action screws, and a solid contact with the back of the lug are all that is necessary - you could probably leave a gap everywhere else and be fine. The bedding just makes sure that happens during assembly, but doesn't really contribute much to the actual work of holding the action in place. <-- pure speculation in case that's not clear.

 

[Blackbrush]

So.....why don't glue ins need clearance on the bottom or front of the lug? That is, how is a glue in really different than an action that is fully bedded everywhere? Don't mean to sound nieve or dense....

 

[damoncali]

Nothing needs contact on the front or bottom of the lug, glued or otherwise. The force is all backwards (or sideways if you're talking about torque).

Basically, the lug and friction will share the recoil load. The better the lug contact and stiffer the lug, the more load it takes. And less is taken up by the friction between the action and stock (load follows stiffness, as they say). Since lugs are more reliable than friction (which varies with torque, lube, etc), this is generally what you want.

With glue ins, glue replaces the friction. If it's strong enough, you don't need anything else. Since most glue ins are wimpy calibers like 6PPC, many don't use a lug at all. But if you have a lug in a glue in, you must have good contact on the back of the lug, or it won't share the load with the glue (imagine an air gap behind the lug - all of the load would be taken by the glue). It will just sit there, not doing anything but acting as a safety backup in case the glue totally fails.

(Incidentally, the recoil lug is a major driver of barrel vibration - something to think about - do we even want the lug taking the load if there is a better way?)

 

[dieselten]

The only reason you need clearance on the sides, bottom, and front of the recoil lug is so that it does not scrape the bedding during installation and forcing the residual bedding compound to the bottom of the recoil lug recess, thus holding the receiver up off of the bedding job you just did.

 

[Deadshot2]

I would argue that the rotation is more than held in place by friction. The torque on a rifle action is very small, and friction between the receiver bottom and pillars is more than enough to hold it in place.

You are correct on the torque being small but unfortunately it's more of an impulse torque. Think impact wrench in a tire shop. The air motor itself doesn't deliver much torque but the constant hammering in the mechanism does the work.

You can add more torque to the action screws but that adds stress to the action. A Remington Action screw, torqued to 65 In/Lbs, imparts over 1100 lbs of stress in each part of the action it is screwed into. Those bench rest shooters use glue in actions to remove all this stress. Just a piece of steel sitting on a stock that doesn't require any "tuning' of the action screws.

The idea of bedding an action rather than just using the pillar supports is to provide a nice firm, stress free, support for the action so it responds in the same manner through shot after shot.

 

[Deadshot2]

The only reason you need clearance on the sides, bottom, and front of the recoil lug is so that it does not scrape the bedding during installation and forcing the residual bedding compound to the bottom of the recoil lug recess, thus holding the receiver up off of the bedding job you just did.

I solve this by relieving the corners of the recoil lug pocket. Just a dremel burr and work out the bottom corners. IF any bedding compound is scraped off, which is doubtful as I use Devcon 10110, then it has these recesses to escape into without forcing the action up out of the hole. This still gives full contact along the sides of the recoil lug.

Just to toss in something that's now hitting the market both among competitive shooters and some factory built "custom stocks" is the "V-Block" action mount.

Just as it says, a V-Block that supports the round bottom of a typical Remington Action. The action is pulled into the block by the screw torque and the forces generated are divided into three coordinates. The downward force at 180 Degrees is resisted by forces at 90 degrees and 270 degrees. This holds the action perfectly straight through recoil and heat variations. This method also allows competitors to change actions within the same stock with great success. (ask Dave Whidden who makes one of these blocks).

Some stock manufacturers are using a similar system. I recently bought a B&C stock and found that the action block has been relieved down the center, leaving two "rails" about 1/8" or so along the outer edges. When the action was "spotted in" it showed two lines of contact that were uniform from the recoil lug to tang.

When torqued to 65 in/lbs the rifle shot as good as any I'd ever owned. With some minor load adjustments it was giving me sub .200 groups at 100 yards. I even swapped out my 5-R with a new SPS-Tactical in the same stock. The 5-R is at Benchmark in the final stages of re-barreling so I just figured I'd use that B&C stock for a while with the SPS-Tac in .223. With a 73gr Berger the rifle also likes to shoot the "bugholes" at 100 yards. No change in the action block or bedding needed.

 

[damoncali]

I just had a Barnard built and considered the V block, but I chickened out when I saw how little contact there is between the shear pin and the action - it's basically taking that shear in the threaded area of the pin (the shear pin is just a screw that sticks out of the bottom of the action and fits in a hole in the bottom of the v block). I hear good things about the setup, but that particular implementation just seems to be asking for trouble. (Note there is no recoil lug on a Barnard by default, but you can use one if you like).

 

[Deadshot2]

I just had a Barnard built and considered the V block, but I chickened out when I saw how little contact there is between the shear pin and the action - it's basically taking that shear in the threaded area of the pin (the shear pin is just a screw that sticks out of the bottom of the action and fits in a hole in the bottom of the v block). I hear good things about the setup, but that particular implementation just seems to be asking for trouble. (Note there is no recoil lug on a Barnard by default, but you can use one if you like).

With the V-Block system there is excellent control over action movement when properly torqued. Even if it had to rely on that "shear pin" the pin itself would, more likely than not, handle several thousand pounds of shear pressure.

I'm wondering if recoil lugs are just a hold-over from the early days of flimsy wood stocks. Something that's retained even though there are far more superior materials and methods in use today to control recoil within the stock. I guess a thicker one is useful if you cut the chamber too deep. Save's cutting off part of the barrel and having to re-chamber

 

[damoncali]

I'm with you on that. I'm just hesitant to rely too much on friction to hold the action in place (it's probably a psychological block from my days as an engineer when such practices were considered evil). And it's disappointing that Barnard did not engineer that screw properly - they could easily have jus counter sunk it a bit more and had a proper close tolerance shear pin. The current design has only got about 15 thousandths of bearing surface on the action. I'm not even sure that pin does anything. Then again, maybe that's a good thing, and I just need to get over my fear of the v block working all by itself.

I do think recoil lugs are an inherently bad design - unless they are annular. I've seen a few tube gun/chassis setups that use an annular lug and that makes a lot of sense to me. That we resort to bedding rifles at all strikes me as an indicator that we're doing it wrong in the first place.

 

[Deadshot2]

I'm with you on that. I'm just hesitant to rely too much on friction to hold the action in place (it's probably a psychological block from my days as an engineer when such practices were considered evil). And it's disappointing that Barnard did not engineer that screw properly - they could easily have jus counter sunk it a bit more and had a proper close tolerance shear pin. The current design has only got about 15 thousandths of bearing surface on the action. I'm not even sure that pin does anything. Then again, maybe that's a good thing, and I just need to get over my fear of the v block working all by itself.

I do think recoil lugs are an inherently bad design - unless they are annular. I've seen a few tube gun/chassis setups that use an annular lug and that makes a lot of sense to me. That we resort to bedding rifles at all strikes me as an indicator that we're doing it wrong in the first place.

Friction is used every day to hold things in place. In a shoulder fired rifle, just exactly how much energy is imparted by recoil? A lot less than one thinks. Yes, enough to be uncomfortable but if you're applying 1000 lbs plus of clamping force on the narrow surfaces of a V-Block it will definitely secure the action with the fraction of the clamping force that is the recoil.

The recoil force at the shear line in a v-block is greatly diminished by the mass of he action, barrel, and all other attachments to these.

 

[LRI]

Years ago I sent a barreled action to a gunsmith who'd not yet bought his lathe and mill. A short time later he returned the B/A claiming it didn't shoot. It was a Nesika model M chambered in 300RUM with a big ol fatty barrel.

I didn't have a stock setup for it. I did have a D/L sports prototype chassis stock kicking around under my bench. It was setup for a K length receiver. (shorter)

A trip to the Janitorial closet rewarded me with 2 hose clamps and a short time later I was shooting .1 size groups in the tunnel. It looked absolutely ridiculous generating numerous snickers from the shop. Punctuate that with the awkward conversation telling the kid that he needs to revisit his bedding procedure.

Point is, you can get away with quite a bit when bedding a gun. Do the best job you can with the tools you have. So long as you don't distort the stock as your casting your bedding or tweak the action, chances are it'll run just fine.

C.

 

[damoncali]

Friction is used every day to hold things in place. In a shoulder fired rifle, just exactly how much energy is imparted by recoil? A lot less than one thinks. Yes, enough to be uncomfortable but if you're applying 1000 lbs plus of clamping force on the narrow surfaces of a V-Block it will definitely secure the action with the fraction of the clamping force that is the recoil.

The recoil force at the shear line in a v-block is greatly diminished by the mass of he action, barrel, and all other attachments to these.

Coincidentally, I ran into a gentleman at the range today who runs a 6mmBR in a Barnard with a V block with no center screw at all - just friction. I know it works - can't dispute the evidence. Just after years of engineering practice that says it's bad (and it is when you're talking about spacecraft), it's hard for me to adjust the brain.

 

[300sniper]

from what i remember, without taking the recoil lug into account, it would take over 250 lbs of force to overcome the friction between a steel action and a 90* vee block torqued to 65 inch lbs . it would be higher for a non-anodized aluminum vee block. i'm no engineer but i know there are some on this site, i'd love for the math on this to be revisited. and maybe the force required for a fully bedded receiver.

 

[damoncali]

from what i remember, without taking the recoil lug into account, it would take over 250 lbs of force to overcome the friction between a steel action and a 90* vee block torqued to 65 inch lbs . it would be higher for a non-anodized aluminum vee block. i'm no engineer but i know there are some on this site, i'd love for the math on this to be revisited. and maybe the force required for a fully bedded receiver.

I am an engineer and that number isn't far off. Here's the back of the envelope version (not taking the v into account because I'm lazy): A 1/4-20 screw at 65 in-lbs will be loaded up to (very approximately) 1000 pounds of clamping force. What that means is that you'll have about 600 pounds of friction between a steel action and aluminum bedding block - IF they are clean and dry, and that's a pretty loose number anyway. If there's any oil in there, it will be considerably less. So 250 is a pretty conservative number to use.

 

[300sniper]

I am an engineer and that number isn't far off. Here's the back of the envelope version (not taking the v into account because I'm lazy): A 1/4-20 screw at 65 in-lbs will be loaded up to (very approximately) 1000 pounds of clamping force. What that means is that you'll have about 600 pounds of friction between a steel action and aluminum bedding block - IF they are clean and dry, and that's a pretty loose number anyway. If there's any oil in there, it will be considerably less. So 250 is a pretty conservative number to use.

and the vee-block should greatly inclrease the normal force.

 

[Aeon1]

A completely different take on bedding and recoil management.

 

[kortik]

A completely different take on bedding and recoil management.

Aeon1,

Exceptional job!

I was actually thinking for some time now of buliding "stockless" custom MN rifle, exactly the same concept as yours - massive receiver (for everything functionally important) and simple metal stock attached straight to the rear. No stock - no bedding problem. Theoretically, should be extremely accurate and consistent setup.

Here is another proven confirmation of the same concept from 1941:

Picture of the Degtyarev PTRD 1941 (PTRD-41) - Military Guns

PTRD-41 was viewed as pretty accurate rifle by itself, according to various sources.

 

[nzgrip]

A completely different take on bedding and recoil management.

Would that take a bit off dialing in, wouldn't clamping something to the barrel affect the harmonics affecting accuracy?

 

[Aeon1]

I can't take credit for the design. After seeing a couple of similar ideas being used I was mulling over how to fabricate my own version when this one came out. At the time I was putting together a 1000yd BR gun and decided to try it. It was manufactured by Gene Beggs in Odessa TX. Gene is a short range benchrest shooter who also owns his own test tunnel. I don't know if he still manufacturers them or still uses them himself. Gene also makes his own version of a barrel tuner that he used with this stock. People were skeptical that they would work with forend/bag rider mounted to the barrel. It tunes and shoots just like a normally stocked rifle. I have a traditional laminated wood BR stock for it for comparison but I have never taken the time to finish it so I can swap and compare.

An early version of this concept that got me thinking and Gene to acting on it: Davidson?s Amazing ?Tinker-Toy? 30BR within AccurateShooter.com

A writeup on Gene's stock: Beggs? Radical Skeleton Stock within AccurateShooter.com

 

[damoncali]

Have you ever tired moving the block all the way to the muzzle?

 

[Aeon1]

I have not tried it at the muzzle. I have thought of trying it and also thought of moving it fore and aft to see if it liked a particular position better than another but with a tapered barrel it's not an easy thing to do. At one time I talked to Gene about this and he found it didn't care too much where the block was mounted. He's used them on different profile barrels and just slides the block up to where it fits that particular profile and goes with it with the fine tuning done with the tuner. I do have some of Gene's tuners but have not used one on this rifle. I'm guessing you've found that rifles with conventional stocks sometimes respond better with different rest placement in relation to the forend.

BTW I spoke with Gene a bit ago this morning, he still uses the stock and still has a supply of them although he's hesitant to sell them to just anybody. He said he prefers to sell them to someone that does their own machine work in case there are any fitment problems. It was originally designed for a Stiller Viper and I had to shim mine slightly for a Panda.

 

[damoncali]

It's interesting, that's for sure. I'm impressed that someone actually built something so weird (and that has a lot of thought in it). I've often wondered about something similar. I'd like to see what happened if the stock was moved up inline with the bore so that the entire rifle was shaped like a crutch. Possibly with a counterweight on the bottom to balance the scope. With a perfectly symmetrical rifle, I bet you would have something that was very insensitive to loads.

 

[Aeon1]

Not exactly what you are proposing but close in concept: Joel Pendergraft Sets New IBS 1000-Yard Heavy Gun World Record « Daily Bulletin

There are bunch of short range BR rail guns built with that concept too.

To add: Gene's stock was made to conform to IBS and NBRSA short range BR stock dimension rules although I believe NBRSA recently has eliminated the stock rules for the Sporter class. No such rules apply as far as I'm aware for long range BR.

 

[damoncali]

Reminds me of this - scroll to the bottom to see a good picture of what might be the most ridiculous rifle ever made.

Blackpowder Slug Guns ? Precision Paper Punching Machinery

 

[sgtsmmiii]

Full length of action and 1- 1.5" ahead of lug.

Same here. Bedding the area ahead of the lug keeps some of the stress off of the action threads. Think about the difference in trying to hold a varmint weight barrel in your hand with two fingers & your thumb versus holding it with your whole hand. More support = less stress.

 

[300sniper]

Same here. Bedding the area ahead of the lug keeps some of the stress off of the action threads. Think about the difference in trying to hold a varmint weight barrel in your hand with two fingers & your thumb versus holding it with your whole hand. More support = less stress.

Stress. How much stress is on your action screws torqued to 55-65 inch lbs? How much more stress is on your action screws torqued to 55-65 inch lbs with an 8 lb barrel hanging off the action? How much stress is on your action screws torqued to 55-65 inch lbs with that same barrel effectively 1.5 inches shorter?

Now I don't want to intentionally bend an action but I'm not so sure stress is as evil as some make it out to be.

 

[sgtsmmiii]

Stress. How much stress is on your action screws torqued to 55-65 inch lbs? How much more stress is on your action screws torqued to 55-65 inch lbs with an 8 lb barrel hanging off the action? How much stress is on your action screws torqued to 55-65 inch lbs with that same barrel effectively 1.5 inches shorter?

Now I don't want to intentionally bend an action but I'm not so sure stress is as evil as some make it out to be.

Good thoughts. Stress can be good. But, I don't think we want our actions "stressed". My understanding is we want the action as stress free as possible. But, I look at the action screws torqued down as "tension". In my mind, that's different. Bill Calfee, the legendary .22 BR gunsmith proved that a heavy barrel loads the action's threads differently from front to rear.

But, when you get right down to it, I believe Chad may be right: " Point is, you can get away with quite a bit when bedding a gun. Do the best job you can with the tools you have. So long as you don't distort the stock as your casting your bedding or tweak the action, chances are it'll run just fine."

 

[LRI]

So long as you don't distort the stock as your casting your bedding or tweak the action, chances are it'll run just fine."


Is it narcissistic to quote yourself?

Here's the ticket gents. I once watched and employee dote over a bedding job on a Nesika years ago. Prep work was perfect, mixed the resin, etc. Lays it all up and then grabs a big ol wood working clamp and squashes the action into the stock. I could visually see (from 10 feet back) that he was distorting the stock as the action pulled up on the pillar registers.

I decided to use it as an exercise so I kept my mouth shut. Next day we pop the thing out and it looks great. Then we got out the indicators and started checking stuff. The stock was out about .008" across its mid length between front/rear guard screw holes.

So, the lesson here is you have to think this stuff through a little bit. It's not rocket science, but there is some common sense involved. I turn to high performance engine building for guidance. Torque plates have been around now for decades. They simulate the distortion to a cylinder case created when the heads are bolted on. The better equipped shops have gone so far as to circulate hot water/oil through the engine blocks as the cylinders are being honed. The whole purpose being attempting to replicate the conditions the engine case will experience when assembled and running. -make the holes round and free of taper under the conditions the materials experience while its running.

Using this as our inspiration, I encourage those who like to take on this kind of work to begin exploring things along these lines. IF an action truly does distort from a 8lb barrel hanging off it, then maybe we need to ensure that we bed the receiver in such a manner that this "stress" is accurately cast into the resin. More importantly, IF it does, find out if it effects anything. I think we already have that answer, but in the interest of avoiding a nasty internet battle I'm going to dodge the specifics.

IF a guard screw causes a material deflection around the circumference of the hole where it screws into it, then maybe it'd be beneficial to ensure we torque the screws when bedding as we would when assembled. This way the casting accurately mirrors this distortion.

And finally, while your doing all this keep in mind that the best, most precise, sexiest bedding job in the world won't solve a barrel issue. It just won't.

When your bedding a gun, a scope base, lapping lugs, tuning loads, etc your searching for that last mystical 15-20 hp that a pro stock team spends millions looking for each season. If they have a turd for an engine, then its a waste of time.

Good luck.

C.

 

[Deadshot2]

IF an action truly does distort from a 8lb barrel hanging off it,

C.

Considering that most actions are built from "steel" that has yield strengths over 100,000 psi, just how much "stress" is induced by that 8" BBL hanging off he front?

FWIW, just how much "stress" is relieved with that extra bit of bedding that we've been discussing? Or, how much more stress is induced due to the fulcrum point added?

Sometimes stress can be advantageous -------- as long as it is controlled and predictable. Whatever works for the individual and his equipment.

 

[damoncali]

It's not stress - it's deformation. If you're going to go through all the trouble to bed an action so that there is perfect contact everywhere, you shouldn't let the bedding set up when either the stock or the action are deformed in an unusual way, or you'll get tiny gaps, which defeats the purpose of bedding. But to answer your question, it will deflect very, very little due to the barrel - zero for practical purposes. I'd be far more worried about deforming the stock locally than the action. This is why pillars are important. The high forces capable of moving material around are all related to the action screws.