Gunsmithing Any benefit to a flat bottomed action versus a curved?

[Milf Dots]

From a 'smithing perspective, is there any advantage to an action with a flat bottom, versus a curved bottom? Does an action with a flat bottom offer the potential for better "locking down" with a chassis or stock? Does it make inletting for DBMs easier?

I know Howa 1500 and Winchester m70 actions have flat bottoms, and there are probably others.

So far, it appears the following bolt actions have flat bottoms:

Accuracy International
Kelbly Black Bear Tactical
Surgeon - XL model only
Badger Ordnance m2008 and m2013
Seekins Precision Havak HiT- No LH option
Winchester m70
Howa 1500 (they only make Right Handed) and Weatherby Vanguard (RH or LH)
Mauser K98
Springfield '03

 

[MarinePMI]

There are some info here: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/flat-trigger-or-curved.6393344/

?

 

[fdkay]

many have espoused the benefits of a flat bottomed action when it comes to bedding, etc...
Once you properly bed the action, I don't see what difference it would make.
If there was a real benefit, I think you would see more custom actions going that route.

The Howa is an excellent action.

 

[blbennett1288]

AI is flat bottom...just sayin

 

[Milf Dots]

There are some info here: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/flat-trigger-or-curved.6393344/

I asked about flat versus curved bottoms of actions, not triggers.

 

[pmclaine]

With no empirical evidence to back it up.....

Im thinking a round action has more liklihood to "twist" in the stock/chassis.

Think about it.

Most round actions rely on a front lug either integral with the receiver or sandwiched beteen barrel and receiver to take rearward force as well torsional force. I have Remington 700 in mind.

A flat receiver (thinking Springfield 03 or Win Model 70) has a front lug for rearward/twisting force control as well the entire 90 degree edge of the flat bottom to resist torque.

Round is easier to manufacture - its a tube gun. Flat requires more machine work.

Either works great assuming proper bedding in the stock. A round receiver is easier to bed/release.

Bedding in my Model 70....

Bedding in a M40 (Remington 700) clone.....

 

[308pirate]

There are some info here: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/flat-trigger-or-curved.6393344/

 

[natdscott]

Round actions, particularly with any lack of concentricity on the outside surface, have a much greater propensity to shoot themselves out of their bedding than do flat actions, as they basically only have the little sand-wished recoil lug's side surfaces to keep it from twisting (which is a shitty design, in itself). Flat bottoms also just have more square inches in good contact with bedding material, all else equal.

Always been thata way.

The 40XBR action was "invented" by Mike Walker to specifically address this...basically, they took Remington 40x receiver blanks off the line, completed most of the machining, hardened them, THEN turned them to outside diameter between centers. Any receiver that warped too much in hardening to clean up for a full 180 degrees around the bottom was scrapped.

If the receiver DID clean up, it was sent on through final polishing, bluing, and had the serial number and model electrically engraved (as the XBR would damage all of that machinery in the "normal" assembly line).

The ENTIRE reason for all that work was so the "XBR" rifles would stop vibrating and shooting free of their bedding. Remember, we're only talking about TEN THOUSANDTHS of inches of unpredictable bedding movement to cause fliers by BR standards.

Then along came Ralph Stolle. Or maybe it was Ed Shilen first. Doesn't matter... Ralph's "Panda" aluminum/steel hybrid, single shot, flat-bottomed receivers were REVOLUTIONARY in their ability to shoot well, stay put in bedding, and still be light enough to make weight.

Shilen's DGA was a very similar concept, but entirely steel. Hart, and others, were undoubtedly experimenting with flat-bottomed sleeves for Rem. 721s, 40XBs, etc. as well.

At the same time as you improve the bedding characteristics of the action by making it flat-bottomed, you also increase the basic rigidity of the action v. a round counterpart of otherwise-equal dimensions and material. Greater rigidity = less barrel flex, provided other factors like the tension in the threaded joint, are also in line.

All of this is a long explanation to let ya know that yes, flat-bottomed receivers are a better design for ultimate precision.

Flat bottoms are also heavy. They CAN also be much more expensive to make (unless you investment cast like a Ruger or Shilen).

The weight can be solved by material change, but people's criticism of the Stolle (now Kelbly) Panda, Grizzly, Polar, etc. was often about that aluminum, despite the steel integration at all wear points.

Soo....


Kelbly heard it for 30+ years, and noticed Shlen wasn't making a "go" of the DGA/DGV in any significant fashion, and saw that the "Tactical" "Hide" shooters and the like SURE seem to have a lot of moany, and don't mind heavy rifles....

Sooooo..

They "invented" the Black Bear.

One big, nasty, behemoth of an ultimate solution to rifle receiver rigidity and bedding, at an execution level that only a "small shop" like Kelbly's could produce. I bet you could hang a 45" barrel off that thing without issues.

-Nate

 

[LRI]

It's been my experience that a flat bottom action just creates more work in the stock department. They are typically trickier to bed as its very easy for air to become trapped under the flat/broad surface of the receiver.

Now, look at the rifle stock itself, in a single shot scenario its of little consequence as the stock provides a great deal of mass under the receiver. Even with thinner sidewalls the thing as a whole usually has enough "spine" to resist folding up like a lawn chair.

A repeater gets more complicated. If we imagine what a typical rifle stock is doing under recoil, it becomes easier to appreciate all this. Put your hands together as if in prayer. Fingertips touch as do your palms. Your tips act as the recoil lug. Gun fires, force is exterted against them and a gap forms down by your palms.

Rifle stocks setup as repeaters do this every time they go bang. That energy is transmitted to the lug and outward/down along the sides of the stock to the grip, and eventually to your shoulder. What happens is the barreled action "out runs" the rifle stock for a brief moment. The stock yields and spreads apart slightly, then slingshots to catch back up. This is almost exactly how alot of "rail cars" in drag racing are intended. The back half of the car moves while the middle arches like a cat, then shoots forward to trip the lights and start the clock.

My point in all of this is that when you have a square receiver, you are taking mass away from the stock that combats everything described. The compelling argument to use a flat receiver is that it will manage barrel torque more effectively than a round receiver. It makes sense, but I guess I've yet to see a rifle stock in the modern age destroyed by a 300+ grain bullet in a "4" twist barrel. (absurd no doubt)

Personally, I think its a topic to fuel these conversations and sway the inexperienced to buy something thinking they are solving a problem that has yet to be clearly defined.

C.

 

[natdscott]

Personally, I think its a topic to fuel these conversations and sway the inexperienced to buy something thinking they are solving a problem that has yet to be clearly defined.

Perhaps.

None of my rifles shoot well enough to see it, and maybe none of yours do either, but I won't be tellin' SR Benchresters that their experiences didn't happen.

-Nate

 

[Milf Dots]

Plenty to think about in this thread. I really like the idea of an action with a flat bottom- have a top 'smith optimize it along with a premium barrel and trigger- and bolt it into a top quality chassis system, but I may or may not go that route. I feel the same way about the tops of actions being flat and not curved- for better mating with Pic rail, scope bases, etc.


So far, it appears the following bolt actions have flat bottoms:

Accuracy International
Kelbly Black Bear Tactical
Surgeon - XL model only
Badger Ordnance m2008 and m2013
Seekins Precision Havak HiT- No LH option
Winchester m70
Howa 1500 (they only make Right Handed) and Weatherby Vanguard (RH or LH)
Mauser K98
Springfield '03

 

[Black max]

Plenty to think about in this thread. I really like the idea of an action with a flat bottom- have a top 'smith optimize it along with a premium barrel and trigger- and bolt it into a top quality chassis system, but I may or may not go that route. I feel the same way about the tops of actions being flat and not curved- for better mating with Pic rail, scope bases, etc.


So far, it appears the following actions have flat bottoms:

Accuracy International
Kelbly Blackbear
Winchester m70
Howa 1500 (they only make RHand) and Weatherby Vanguard (RH or LH)
Mauser K98
Springfield '03

You forgot Badger M2008, M2013 and the Surgeon xl

 

[natdscott]

Plenty to think about in this thread. I really like the idea of an action with a flat bottom- have a top 'smith optimize it along with a premium barrel and trigger- and bolt it into a top quality chassis system, but I may or may not go that route. I feel the same way about the tops of actions being flat and not curved- for better mating with Pic rail, scope bases, etc.


So far, it appears the following actions have flat bottoms:

Accuracy International
Kelbly Blackbear
Winchester m70
Howa 1500 (they only make RHand) and Weatherby Vanguard (RH or LH)
Mauser K98
Springfield '03

The Springfield, Mouser, Vanguard, and M70 are non options, for various reasons. Some would say the same for the Howa.

 

[b6graham]

With all the intergrail lug actions we have now, youd think there'd be more with square bottoms if there was a benefit besides ease of inletting/matching R700 footprint. They could all do it. The material is already there

 

[supercorndogs]

A flat bottom action wont roll off the bench.

 

[wapiti16b]

Stock /Chassis options are more plentifull for rounds vs flats and that is the real concern for most shooters, for me flat is where it's at!.
AI must think so also otherwise they would go round and gain more market share amongst options from various vendors of shooting hardware!
JMHO!

 

[pmclaine]

Hide member @THEIS is working on a flat action based rifle...

Hoplite Arms

Hi, Well I figured with everyone going off about someone not having any details or pics of their upcoming new product release, lol... Figured I would play the exact opposite side of the coin and just drop picture hint with the full alloy details. NOTE: We are not entering the receiver market at...

www.snipershide.com

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

This topic always brings out not only debates but peoples personal feelings and black magic thoughts.

Quick thought (I will have to reply later with full opinion lol)...

Structural building beams are not round for a reason
They have flat top and flat bottom on I-Beams.
It is easier to flex/bend a 1" round rod than it is to flex/bend a 1" square rod of same alloy.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[b6graham]

i think the hard part is the standard is the R700 and until that changes in a big way, we're mostly stuck with round actions just from a compatibility standpoint unless you go with a full rifle platform like an AI or Hoplite

 

[pmclaine]

Had an M70 built into a replica of a USMC sniper two years ago.

Using Lyman aperture sights it was capable of about an inch and with a external adjust Unertl I got similar results.

Barrel is a Douglas premium 1/10.

The builder botched the barrel.

It has chamber issues and a muzzle "anomaly" that should prevent it shooting well at all.

Against my better instincts I sent the rifle off to him yesterday for re barreling on his dime.

Im expecting it will shoot better if he can get it right and if it does shoot better based on its current messed up state and performance it will be impressive in deed.

The M70s and Springfields shoot well - only issue is lock time can be compared to that of a matchlock when put up against other rifles.

Can you hold fundamentals for those extra few miliseconds?

 

[brianf]

if i remember apples to apples round is better for torsional forces (drive shafts are round not square)

a rifle action as stated before does not just have uni-directional forces

but its not just about the forces its also about the mounting

strongest material in the world...but if its attached with scotch tape...

crappy bedding or chassis channel not milled properly will all cause problems with the best/strongest action

tight tolerances proper QC and process is always the name of the game

bedding came about because of wood stocks and poor machining

band aid's in engineering covering for design or spec issues

 

[pmclaine]

if i remember apples to apples round is better for torsional forces (drive shafts are round not square)

a rifle action as stated before does not just have uni-directional forces

but its not just about the forces its also about the mounting

strongest material in the world...but if its attached with scotch tape...

crappy bedding or chassis channel not milled properly will all cause problems with the best/strongest action

tight tolerances proper QC and process is always the name of the game

bedding came about because of wood stocks and poor machining

band aid's in engineering covering for design or spec issues

Square can lead to an area more prone to cracking.

Im thinking specifically of Garand op rods.

Originally they were designed wirth a 90 degree corner where the charging portion meets the piston portion.

They experienced cracking at the 90 degree angle where the two sections were milled to meet.

The fix was to mill a round half moon at this point and eliminate the 90 degree angle stress point.

Kind of a different engineering problem though, unsure if receivers are subject to the same stresses.

Now Im thinking torsion bars in heavy vehicles like a tank.

The force is entirely twisting not longitudinal as in the Garand example.......does it matter if the torsion bar is square or round?

If anything the square torsion bar would be more rigid than round.

Apparently failure of a torsion bar begins on the surface than travels inward.

So those 9o degree corners, like the 90 degree Garand op rod, would be the Achilles heal and point of eventual failure.

If I could get my head around the math the true answer to that question might be found here.......

Shafts Torsion

The torsion of solid or hollow shafts - Polar Moment of Inertia of Area.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

 

[natdscott]

...Springfields shoot well - only issue is lock time can be compared to that of a matchlock when put up against other rifles.

Can you hold fundamentals for those extra few miliseconds?

That's not the only issue with them. The Springfield's gas handling is pretty poor, there are the recognized issues with hardness and temper in certain serial ranges, and the receiver is generally fairly flexible. Despite these issues, the -03 rifles carried a reputation for good accuracy by the standards of the day, and very few shooters were ever actually HARMED by the rifles that blew up....

...some of which was not an issue with the rifles, so much as the end user's tampering with ammunition.

Square can lead to an area more prone to cracking.

Im thinking specifically of Garand op rods.

Originally they were designed wirth a 90 degree corner where the charging portion meets the piston portion.

They experienced cracking at the 90 degree angle where the two sections were milled to meet.

The fix was to mill a round half moon at this point and eliminate the 90 degree angle stress point.

Kind of a different engineering problem though, unsure if receivers are subject to the same stresses.

Now Im thinking torsion bars in heavy vehicles like a tank.

The force is entirely twisting not longitudinal as in the Garand example.......does it matter if the torsion bar is square or round?

If anything the square torsion bar would be more rigid than round.

Apparently failure of a torsion bar begins on the surface than travels inward.

So those 9o degree corners, like the 90 degree Garand op rod, would be the Achilles heal and point of eventual failure.

If I could get my head around the math the true answer to that question might be found here.......

Shafts Torsion

The torsion of solid or hollow shafts - Polar Moment of Inertia of Area.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

You're not wrong about unradiused inside corners.

But on these receivers, it is 1) NOT an inside corner, and (2) they aren't undergoing that mode of movement.

Totally incorrect thinking.

However, as it regards the stocks or chassis, yeah, that COULD be possible. If it were a couple tons more torque being applied.

The amount of torque that would have to be generated from the rifling grooves to cause issues with that would be much more than any shoulder-fired weapon generates.

-Nate

 

[THEIS]

crappy bedding or chassis channel not milled properly will all cause problems with the best/strongest action

tight tolerances proper QC and process is always the name of the game

Hi,

I bet you that Tom Irwin will rank the statement above as about 95% of the reason why AI does not offer their receivers as a stand alone product.

Way too easy for a gunsmith to blame any "problems" on the receiver instead of the potential compounded errors caused by the gunsmith himself.

Way to easy for a shop that is not setup with a QC department that is bound by International audit organizations as independent auditors and such to mess certain things up and blame on the receiver.

I can tell you that your quote above is the EXACT reason that Hoplite Arms is going full weapon system route for our first products.
Not only from a marketing reason but from a QC reason too!!

Not too many custom gun building shops have access to 7 axis scanning machines, etc to measure every piece that makes every component that makes every sub-assembly that makes every final assembly.

Pure receiver manufactures are open to too many issues in the process that seem to get blamed on them vs blaming on a compounding usage of "universal" components...this trigger, that DBM, this magazine, that inlet, etc etc etc.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[LRI]

Perhaps.

None of my rifles shoot well enough to see it, and maybe none of yours do either, but I won't be tellin' SR Benchresters that their experiences didn't happen.

-Nate

I base my info on the following experience(s) (I made some edits just so it reads better)

For three years I plumbed guns for the Anschutz National Service Center. That facility was located less than 5m away from the National Training center in CoS. My boss's son (David Johnson) was the National Team Coach at the time. The osmosis from this experience meant that I devoted a great deal of effort to most of the rifles used by resident athletes at the time. To include Matthew Emmonds.

It's not chest-beating. It's simply meant that when you're dealing with the top .00001% of Smallbore competitive shooters in the world, you get very, very, very good feedback on what works, and what doesn't.

A rimfire 22 is a sterling litmus test to weed out some of the bullshit associated with fundamental design parameters on a receiver. Bullets loiter in the barrel roughly 3x longer than they do in a centerfire application. Therefore there is 3x more time (on a watch) for something/anything to influence them. The "no stone unturned" approach becomes a lot more relevant.

Edit:

At that time (late 90's/early 2000's) the Anschutz model 54 and the "20 series" actions were the flagship pieces offered. One receiver being round (Model 54) and the 2000 series resembling more of a brick.

With capable hands, anyone that I was exposed to in that community would be hard-pressed to define what was the better piece. Matthew may have won gold, but I also watched Eric Uptagrafft clean the course on the downstairs range twice in one day. At the time, he was the first person to have ever done that. That was on a round action 54 if I recall correctly.

A little sidebar note on the subject of the downstairs range facility at the OTC:

(The USOTC range complex was shut down for a period of time in the late 90's/early 2000s due to elevated lead contamination levels. Cleanup and retrofitting the ranges with the appropriate exhaust fans was incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Once opened again, the fans created a unique atmospheric challenge for an active shooter to deal with. If a door was opened in the facility as a bullet was traveling downrange, it was very likely to produce an off-call shot. The sudden draft and pressure differential in the building created this little bit of added drama. You could feel it in your sinus/ear canal. It was a known issue. For whatever reason, Eric was able to have two back-to-back performances where it didn't affect him. One has to remember that you are shooting iron sights at 50m and you are not scoring X's and 10's. Your scoring "tenths of a ten". A 10.1 does not score like a 10.9. Those decimals matter.

As far as the BR game being an absolute "10 commandments" on this topic, I would encourage us to consider that it is a very, very common/popular practice for BR gun owners to literally glue their action to the stock. The subject of bedding becomes largely irrelevant at that point as you effectively eliminate any slippage, torsional rotation, etc.

When considering this, I think most would agree that it's an apples and onions type debate.


Interesting topic regardless. Have a great weekend all.

C.

 

[pmclaine]

That's not the only issue with them. The Springfield's gas handling is pretty poor, there are the recognized issues with hardness and temper in certain serial ranges, and the receiver is generally fairly flexible. Despite these issues, the -03 rifles carried a reputation for good accuracy by the standards of the day, and very few shooters were ever actually HARMED by the rifles that blew up....

...some of which was not an issue with the rifles, so much as the end user's tampering with ammunition.



You're not wrong about unradiused inside corners.

But on these receivers, it is 1) NOT an inside corner, and (2) they aren't undergoing that mode of movement.

Totally incorrect thinking.

However, as it regards the stocks or chassis, yeah, that COULD be possible. If it were a couple tons more torque being applied.

The amount of torque that would have to be generated from the rifling grooves to cause issues with that would be much more than any shoulder-fired weapon generates.

-Nate

Good stuff. I like the mental exercise of thinking about things and seeing if I can come up with a half assed hypothesis.

Though not an inside corner the edge of the outside corner would still be the most likely point of failure if there is weakness in the metal or surfaces adjacent to the corner are not properly supported. Which means nothing because if the job is done right in the first place you avoid....Garbage in, Garbage out.

Yes could imagine any rifling torque applied that could twist a receiver would make it a pretty tough rifle to shoulder.

Recall McMillan did comment on the tangs of some heavy caliber M70s that would flex under recoil and became an issue they solved by making stock and receiver one, looks like @THEIS receiver is beefy enough to avoid that happening.

 

[natdscott]

I base my info on the following experience(s)

For three years I plumbed guns for the Anschutz National Service Center. That facility was located less than 5m away from the National Training center in CoS. My boss's son (David Johnson) was the National Team Coach. The osmosis from this situation meant that I devoted a great deal of time there and I built most of the rifles used by resident athletes at the time. To inclue Matthew Emmonds.

It's not chest beating here, its simply that when your dealing with the top .00001% of smallbore competitive shooters in the world, you get very, very, very good feedback on what works, and what does not work.

A rimfire 22 is a sterling litmust test for bullshit. Bullets loiter in the barrel roughly 3x longer than they do in a centerfire application. Therefore there is 3x times (on a watch) for something/anything to influence them. The "no stone unturned" approach becomes a lot more relevant.

Edit:

At that time (late 90's/early 2000's) the Anschutz model 54 and the "20 series" actions were the flagship pieces offered. One round, one like a firebrick.

In capable hands, anyone was hard pressed to define what was better. Matthew may have won gold, but I also watched Eric Uptagrafft clean the course on the downstairs range twice in one day. At the time, he was the first person to have ever done that. That was on a round action 54 if I recall correctly.

(The USOTC range complex was shut down for a period of time in the late 90's/early 2000's due to elevated lead contamination levels. Cleanup and retrofitting the ranges with the appropriate exhaust fans was incredibly expensive and time consuming. Once opened again, the fans created a unique challenge. If a door was opened in the fascility as a bullet was traveling down range, it was very likely to produce an off call shot. The sudden draft and pressure differential in the buiding created this little bit of added drama. You could feel it in your sinus/ear canal. It was a known issue. For what ever reason, Eric was able to have two back to back performances where it didn't affect him.) One has to remember that your shooting iron sights at 50m and your not scoring X's and 10's. Your scoring "tenths of a ten". 10.1 does not score like a 10.9. Those decimals matter.

As far as the BR game being the "10 commandment" on this topic, I would encourage us to consider that it is a very, very common/popular practice for BR gun owners to literally glue their action to the stock. The subject of bedding becomes largely irrelevant at that point as you effectively eliminate any slippage, torsional rotation, etc.

When considering this, I think most would agree that its an apples and onions type debate.


Interesting topic regardless. Have a great weekend all.

C.

Oh, damn you, Chad.

I had a bunch of shit typed in that first post of mine about gluing in, and the types of epoxy being used at the time when that approach became the norm versus the hardened stuff we use now, and blah blah.... but I deleted it because I thought it was over the top.

lmao... figures...

On the one hand, I don't disagree with you about the rimfire thing, and it is cogent input here.

On the other, I want to point out that not even the very best rimfire IR50 and ARA rifles, on the very best days, can be accused of consistently shooting in the zeroes and teens.

I mean, my 54 has gone as low as 0.180 Minute when I had a tuner for it, but I'll not say it can do it all the time. And incidentally, the Anschutz 54 rifles are not a truly "round" system, given that they have a steel recoil block (or bedding), bearing in the groove under the action.

That, and rimfire rifles generate almost no torque on a bedding system relative to centerfire.

SR BR rifles ARE expected to perform well under 1/4 Minute all the time. Have to, or they're almost guaranteed to lose. Have to stay glued, or they lose.

If round actions never had an issue with rotation in the stocks, nobody would have ever bothered to try to fix it.



All of this gets really esoteric on a "Sniper" forum where most shooters are doing really well to keep all their rounds in 1/2 Minute.

-Nate

 

[Milf Dots]

So far, it appears the following bolt actions have flat bottoms:

Accuracy International
Kelbly Black Bear Tactical
Surgeon - XL model only
Badger Ordnance m2008 and m2013
Seekins Precision Havak HiT- No LH option
Winchester m70
Howa 1500 (they only make Right Handed) and Weatherby Vanguard (RH or LH)
Mauser K98
Springfield '03



Are there any others?

 

[blbennett1288]

I added Hoplite to this list.
Does anyone know if the Tikka T3/T3x actions are milled flat on bottom like they are on top? Are there any others not shown?

Tikka T3 is not flat, they are rounded.

Kelby’s Black Bear is a flat bottom

 

[b6graham]

Tikka T3 is not flat, they are rounded.

Kelby’s Black Bear is a flat bottom

Badger 2008/2013 as well

 

[fdkay]

Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round.
(definitely NOT flat bottomed)

 

[Milf Dots]

Turns out the new Seekins Precision Havak HiT has a flat bottom receiver.

 

[Aftermath]

Hi,

This topic always brings out not only debates but peoples personal feelings and black magic thoughts.

Quick thought (I will have to reply later with full opinion lol)...

Structural building beams are not round for a reason
They have flat top and flat bottom on I-Beams.
It is easier to flex/bend a 1" round rod than it is to flex/bend a 1" square rod of same alloy.

Sincerely,
Theis

Round vs Square=Apples vs Oranges.
Cross-sectional area tells more of the story there.
1" square bar has cross-section area of 1 in^2.
1" round bar has cross-section area of 0.785 in^2.
Question: How does the flex comparison of round vs square if the shapes now have the same cross-section area? In this case, we would be comparing the 1" square bar with a round bar of 1.128" DIA.

 

[Aftermath]

Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round.
(definitely NOT flat bottomed)

Are you saying that a fat bottomed girl will make you (and the rest of the world) prefer the round receiver?

 

[fdkay]

Are you saying that a fat bottomed girl will make you (and the rest of the world) prefer the round receiver?

Probably

 

[wapiti16b]

As far as the fat bottom girls go " it's the motion of the ocean " for bolt actions refer to everything Accuracy International among others of their caliber!

 

[Milf Dots]

Has anyone bedded an AI AX action? Just curious, and I have no idea why anyone would do that!

 

[fdkay]

Has anyone bedded an AI AX action? Just curious, and I have no idea why anyone would do that!

I thought they were epoxied in place.