I've heard so many different opinions on this, but just wondering thoughts. I've always been under the impression that a quality pillar bedding job on a quality stock will always be more consistent than any kind of chassis system. I think there is much to consider on this and I know others have much more knowledge of this topic than myself so I'm looking to gain knowledge on the topic. I've never been a chassis guy, but I'm thinking of taking the AI spill and trying one out. I've been living Mcm A5 and it's just hard to leave that platform. I know GAP likes that barrel pad bedding for the shank of the barrel, but you can't really do that with a chassis. I've also seen guys bed just the recoil lug on an AI as if they aren't getting the contact they like and open them up for larger recoil lugs. Just want to try a chassis system out, but know what to expect. Appreciate the time.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Pillar Bedding vs Chassis System
- Thread starter viper42
- Start date
Most of the time you won't notice a difference in accuracy between the two. There are chassis styles that limit the flaws of not bedding. Round bedding block<V block<roller bedding<glass bedding. There are tons of bughole shooting rifles in each of those styles. I for one hate second guessing my equipment so I take everything to the extreme and prefer glass bedding, but I nitpick dumb stuff.
Another benefit to bedding the recoil lug on a chassis is the ability to remove the barreled action and put it back in exactly the same place. The lug will realign in the bedding perfectly every time. Works the same with a stock. In theory this works great for switch barrel rifles. In both instances (glass bedding stock vs lug bedding chassis) you are removing the ability to use other actions in that chassis or stock since it's then permanently mated to that lug/action. Might as well bed the whole damn chassis at that point.
Another benefit to bedding the recoil lug on a chassis is the ability to remove the barreled action and put it back in exactly the same place. The lug will realign in the bedding perfectly every time. Works the same with a stock. In theory this works great for switch barrel rifles. In both instances (glass bedding stock vs lug bedding chassis) you are removing the ability to use other actions in that chassis or stock since it's then permanently mated to that lug/action. Might as well bed the whole damn chassis at that point.
There is a lot less bedding material to remove if you just bed the lug. Its not that hard to remove with a flat blade screw driver.
Regardless of how much precision goes into making an action and a stock/chassis, there are always imperfections in each of them. When you take an imperfect action, and bolt it into an imperfect chassis, it will torque the action out of its natural alignment (we're talking very slightly). When the action is under tension and slightly out of alignment, it introduces another variable for inconsistency. Pillar and glass bedding takes care of this; it will create a surface for the action to lay in that is a perfect match for your action, eliminating the error seen with bolting an action in a chassis.
Now, with that said, there's a huge difference between a factory Remington 700 action tolerances and the tolerances of a defiance/surgeon/stiller/etc..
Now, with that said, there's a huge difference between a factory Remington 700 action tolerances and the tolerances of a defiance/surgeon/stiller/etc..
I have a rifle that's bedded, one rifle in a mini-chassis and another in a KRG Whiskey 3 and all three shoot 5 shot groups better than .5 MOA. With this said, if I were shooting F-Class or Benchrest, I'd probably error on the side of bedding. But for shooting steel and the occasional F-Class stuff that I do, I'm confident with any of my rifles and honestly...if there is a difference in accuracy between them, I can't shoot the difference.
It is absolutely unnecessary to bed a quality chassis system. In fact, you could also probably get away without bedding many Manners or McM stocks too. I have a rifle that is set up on a pillar bedded McM A5, and another on a Manners T5 mini-chassis ... absolutely zero difference in performance, and I have routinely swapped barreled actions out between the two stocks (both are set up for surgeon 591/R receivers).
The best thing to do is to try it without bedding it. If you want piece of mind, you can bed the recoil lug, but I doubt it's really going to do that much for you.
I disagree in the mentality that pillar/glass is better than a chassis...It's really all about the quality of the chassis system compared to the quality of the bedding...
I run chassis on all my rifles and I've never once had an issue comparable to the 2/3 bedded rifles I've owned that have had significantly larger groups...
As always though, it's a question of what YOU want and what YOU have confidence in...Do what your gut says.
I run chassis on all my rifles and I've never once had an issue comparable to the 2/3 bedded rifles I've owned that have had significantly larger groups...
As always though, it's a question of what YOU want and what YOU have confidence in...Do what your gut says.
I think that the quality of the accuracy relationship between the barreled action and the handle we manipulate (stock, pillars, chassis, etc.) is always going to exist on a per-system basis. Rather than make a prediction that is subject to this caveat, I will say that you have to try it (the individual solution) to actually know, and that in many cases, it will be such a subjective matter that it will all boil down to a subjective judgement.
In my own instance, i will tell you that I have never fired a chassis based rifle, and that in seeing the before and after involving a factory pillar bedding upgrade, I was woefully incapable of detecting any accuracy difference whatsoever. This took place about 15 years ago, I still own the rifle, and I probably wouldn't even now be able to make that judgement call. I will say simply that in both instances, the rifle shot/shoots fabulous, probably far beyond my own personal capability.
This 'it shoots better than I can' reference is common true in many/most cases. Modern rifles, even the factory rifles, are simply that much more accurate across the board than the ones I was shooting in the 90's. This is primarily the product of an industry's responsiveness to the demands of its clientele. I firmly believe that the Savage Accu-Stock evolved in direct response, largely from this site, to the shortcomings of its predecessor.
In the end, it probably takes a significant problem in one to indicate a difference between two solutions, and that the difference will point to a malfunction, rather than a qualitative difference between the specific bedding types.
IMHO, the real question is whether any of of the systems work at all, and if they do, they will be so close in performance as to be indistinguishable without numerical gauging methods. Honestly, I think the color of the paint makes as much difference as what kind of method one uses. They either do or don't work at all, the differences are just too close to call for the average shooter.
Assume they either work or are defective, and that the important criteria for each solution will involve the other features, like the ergonomics, rather than the bedding method each employs.
I can only offer opinions here, based on my own subjective observations, and my opinions are no more definitive than those of any other individual.
Greg
In my own instance, i will tell you that I have never fired a chassis based rifle, and that in seeing the before and after involving a factory pillar bedding upgrade, I was woefully incapable of detecting any accuracy difference whatsoever. This took place about 15 years ago, I still own the rifle, and I probably wouldn't even now be able to make that judgement call. I will say simply that in both instances, the rifle shot/shoots fabulous, probably far beyond my own personal capability.
This 'it shoots better than I can' reference is common true in many/most cases. Modern rifles, even the factory rifles, are simply that much more accurate across the board than the ones I was shooting in the 90's. This is primarily the product of an industry's responsiveness to the demands of its clientele. I firmly believe that the Savage Accu-Stock evolved in direct response, largely from this site, to the shortcomings of its predecessor.
In the end, it probably takes a significant problem in one to indicate a difference between two solutions, and that the difference will point to a malfunction, rather than a qualitative difference between the specific bedding types.
IMHO, the real question is whether any of of the systems work at all, and if they do, they will be so close in performance as to be indistinguishable without numerical gauging methods. Honestly, I think the color of the paint makes as much difference as what kind of method one uses. They either do or don't work at all, the differences are just too close to call for the average shooter.
Assume they either work or are defective, and that the important criteria for each solution will involve the other features, like the ergonomics, rather than the bedding method each employs.
I can only offer opinions here, based on my own subjective observations, and my opinions are no more definitive than those of any other individual.
Greg
Last edited:
There isn't any measurable difference for most people's uses. Build 10 rifles with bedding and 10 with chassis, and I'd bet there isn't a difference in average group size.
Unless you're shooting Benchrest (with a big B), you'll never be able to tell the difference. I like a chassis because it allows me to use on stick for multiple barreled actions and I don't ever have to worry about bedding material breaking down from solvents, shrinkage, etc.
Unless you're shooting Benchrest (with a big B), you'll never be able to tell the difference. I like a chassis because it allows me to use on stick for multiple barreled actions and I don't ever have to worry about bedding material breaking down from solvents, shrinkage, etc.
Greg,
Respectfully,
Is my interpretation here correct, that you’ve only had 1 bedded action?
Thanks, I know this is an old post!
Similar threads
