-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Gunsmithing Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
- Thread starter wolfeel
- Start date
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
A quick google search and I found 50-65 in. lbs. I think I usually do 55.
A quick google search and I found 50-65 in. lbs. I think I usually do 55.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
45 INCH lbs. when using the factory trigger guard is enough. the more torque added the higher chance the bottom metal may crack around the bolt holes.
45 INCH lbs. when using the factory trigger guard is enough. the more torque added the higher chance the bottom metal may crack around the bolt holes.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hardhitting</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK 45" #'s it is and thanks,Thought I read here on the hide 65" seemed hi to me...Al </div></div>
65in lbs is recommended for the aftermarket ones like badger ord, CDI, etc. they are much beefier around the mounting areas.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hardhitting</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK 45" #'s it is and thanks,Thought I read here on the hide 65" seemed hi to me...Al </div></div>
65in lbs is recommended for the aftermarket ones like badger ord, CDI, etc. they are much beefier around the mounting areas.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
Just for reference, and to further complicate the simplistic....
12 inch pounds equals 1 foot pound....spec on lug nuts for a '70 Chevelle is 100 foot pounds, or 1200 inch pounds.
I can "hand tight" a hex headed 1/4-28 fastener with a MAC nut driver handle, as hard as I can grip it, hand slipping and can't turn anymore, to 93 inch pounds....or 7.75 foot pounds.
Which represents the max value that I could personally hand tighten a 700's stock bolt...if the allen headed driver could take that much force. I only have one of those at the moment, so I'm not going to test the breaking torque on it.
45 inch pounds (or 3.75 foot pounds) is less than half that value, and 10 inch pounds less than I personally torque my own stock bolts in McMillan stocks. The only time I would fret a "high" torque value is with a non pillar wood stock to avoid compressing the wood fibers. At these representive values, and even up to the afore mentioned 65 inch pounds, I highly doubt breaking factory bottom metal is a valid issue unless the metal is faulty, or installed incorrectly (grossly stressed with a bow/twist/etc).
Torquing stock bolts is much more about a repeatable consistant mounting of the action in the stock for the sake of some degree of "accuracy", and not so much about what is "tight" or "not tight".........
Just for reference, and to further complicate the simplistic....
12 inch pounds equals 1 foot pound....spec on lug nuts for a '70 Chevelle is 100 foot pounds, or 1200 inch pounds.
I can "hand tight" a hex headed 1/4-28 fastener with a MAC nut driver handle, as hard as I can grip it, hand slipping and can't turn anymore, to 93 inch pounds....or 7.75 foot pounds.
Which represents the max value that I could personally hand tighten a 700's stock bolt...if the allen headed driver could take that much force. I only have one of those at the moment, so I'm not going to test the breaking torque on it.
45 inch pounds (or 3.75 foot pounds) is less than half that value, and 10 inch pounds less than I personally torque my own stock bolts in McMillan stocks. The only time I would fret a "high" torque value is with a non pillar wood stock to avoid compressing the wood fibers. At these representive values, and even up to the afore mentioned 65 inch pounds, I highly doubt breaking factory bottom metal is a valid issue unless the metal is faulty, or installed incorrectly (grossly stressed with a bow/twist/etc).
Torquing stock bolts is much more about a repeatable consistant mounting of the action in the stock for the sake of some degree of "accuracy", and not so much about what is "tight" or "not tight".........
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
add recoil affect and the stress may increase at the bolt head/bottom metal interface.
add recoil affect and the stress may increase at the bolt head/bottom metal interface.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">add recoil affect and the stress may increase at the bolt head/bottom metal interface. </div></div>
I'm bettin' heavy odds that's the reason somebody, somewhere, at some point, said...."hey man, like, dude, maybe we need a recoil lug on this thing, ya know?"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">add recoil affect and the stress may increase at the bolt head/bottom metal interface. </div></div>
I'm bettin' heavy odds that's the reason somebody, somewhere, at some point, said...."hey man, like, dude, maybe we need a recoil lug on this thing, ya know?"
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">add recoil affect and the stress may increase at the bolt head/bottom metal interface. </div></div>
I'm bettin' heavy odds that's the reason somebody, somewhere, at some point, said...."hey man, like, dude, maybe we need a recoil lug on this thing, ya know?" </div></div>
recoil isn't traveling on one plain, forward and back..... YA KNOW?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">add recoil affect and the stress may increase at the bolt head/bottom metal interface. </div></div>
I'm bettin' heavy odds that's the reason somebody, somewhere, at some point, said...."hey man, like, dude, maybe we need a recoil lug on this thing, ya know?" </div></div>
recoil isn't traveling on one plain, forward and back..... YA KNOW?
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean "plane", right? </div></div>
i knew you'd agree with me
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean "plane", right? </div></div>
i knew you'd agree with me
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
So, despite the well known main function of a recoil lug taking the brunt of the recoil off of the stock bolts (so it doesn't damage stock bolts/bottom metal/stock/etc.) and transferring it through the stock to the shoulder pocket, you're saying a significant amount of recoil is transferring, up? and down?, through the stock bolts?...then?
Guess I better unfloat all my mag boxes and bed my stock bolts in solid with no clearance........ya know, to beef 'em up.
Maybe we should all retrofit with 1/2" bolts, instead of these paltry 1/4-28's.........??
So, despite the well known main function of a recoil lug taking the brunt of the recoil off of the stock bolts (so it doesn't damage stock bolts/bottom metal/stock/etc.) and transferring it through the stock to the shoulder pocket, you're saying a significant amount of recoil is transferring, up? and down?, through the stock bolts?...then?
Guess I better unfloat all my mag boxes and bed my stock bolts in solid with no clearance........ya know, to beef 'em up.
Maybe we should all retrofit with 1/2" bolts, instead of these paltry 1/4-28's.........??
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
yes energy does transfer up, down, side to side.
have you never seen barrel whip? that same energy is torquing right back in the action.
and no the bolts are not the weak point.. it was the bottom metal...^^^ look up^^^^
yes energy does transfer up, down, side to side.
have you never seen barrel whip? that same energy is torquing right back in the action.
and no the bolts are not the weak point.. it was the bottom metal...^^^ look up^^^^
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
Simply mind boggling then, that some rifle manufacturers dare use plastic parts.....
You are adding over speculated hypothesis to an already over complicated simplicity in a rather embarrassing attempt to justify your statement, considering the recoil lug actually does as it was intended to do.
Try yourself a torque test and see how tight you can yourself get a 1/4-28 fastener by hand, which is the most common way it's done outside this narrow torque wrench toting demographic of teeth knashing worriers such as we. Joe Blow just cranks his shit down tight and goes on his merry way...seldom if ever do you hear about him breaking his shit due to some hypothetical force of recoil bent on destroying his bottom metal. If that were the case then no rifle maker would dare use cast aluminum (basically pot metal), and God forbid plastic.
Do try to wrap your brain around what 10 inch pounds of torque really is as it relates to the specific hardware being discussed. It's 83% of a footpound, less than 1% of the torque required on a lug nut...when added to your 45inlb "max" it's a miniscule amount of additional "tight" that comfortably resides somewhere between not tight enough at all and as tight as one can do it without the aid of a wrench of some kind, regarding Remington 700's.
Having personally experienced a requisite amount of heavy bullet load development with a bedded/pillared but otherwise bonestock 300 RUM CDL(factory bottom metal), and testing torque settings from 40 inch pounds to 65 inch pounds, and more than enough other misc. range time; I can attest the bottom metal suffered no ill affects due to recoil...which on the upper end, with a 7 pound rifle, was enough to cause me to not like it one bit. If your concerns were valid, that rifle would have proved them.
Unless you can provide a raft of real life verification that the OP is going to break his shit with a setting between 45 and 65 inch pounds then you just need to drop the matter....because the millions of rifles out there now are proving you wrong.
Simply mind boggling then, that some rifle manufacturers dare use plastic parts.....
You are adding over speculated hypothesis to an already over complicated simplicity in a rather embarrassing attempt to justify your statement, considering the recoil lug actually does as it was intended to do.
Try yourself a torque test and see how tight you can yourself get a 1/4-28 fastener by hand, which is the most common way it's done outside this narrow torque wrench toting demographic of teeth knashing worriers such as we. Joe Blow just cranks his shit down tight and goes on his merry way...seldom if ever do you hear about him breaking his shit due to some hypothetical force of recoil bent on destroying his bottom metal. If that were the case then no rifle maker would dare use cast aluminum (basically pot metal), and God forbid plastic.
Do try to wrap your brain around what 10 inch pounds of torque really is as it relates to the specific hardware being discussed. It's 83% of a footpound, less than 1% of the torque required on a lug nut...when added to your 45inlb "max" it's a miniscule amount of additional "tight" that comfortably resides somewhere between not tight enough at all and as tight as one can do it without the aid of a wrench of some kind, regarding Remington 700's.
Having personally experienced a requisite amount of heavy bullet load development with a bedded/pillared but otherwise bonestock 300 RUM CDL(factory bottom metal), and testing torque settings from 40 inch pounds to 65 inch pounds, and more than enough other misc. range time; I can attest the bottom metal suffered no ill affects due to recoil...which on the upper end, with a 7 pound rifle, was enough to cause me to not like it one bit. If your concerns were valid, that rifle would have proved them.
Unless you can provide a raft of real life verification that the OP is going to break his shit with a setting between 45 and 65 inch pounds then you just need to drop the matter....because the millions of rifles out there now are proving you wrong.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=111729
here you go... a split trigger guard on a brand new gun.
and in every post above i've said that higher torque values MAY cause a problem. never once mentioned it WILL.
i guess it only took one rifle to PROVE YOU WRONG.
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=111729
here you go... a split trigger guard on a brand new gun.
and in every post above i've said that higher torque values MAY cause a problem. never once mentioned it WILL.
i guess it only took one rifle to PROVE YOU WRONG.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=111729
here you go... a split trigger guard on <span style="text-decoration: underline">a brand new gun</span>.
and in every post above i've said that higher torque values MAY cause a problem. never once mentioned it WILL.
i guess it only took one rifle to PROVE YOU WRONG.
</div></div>
Oh really...........
Regarding his findings with the trigger.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This really makes me suspect the rifle I purchased was not a virgin.</div></div>
That ain't a brand new rifle he's talking about. If it was he's a damn fool for not sending it back to Remington for an inspection and/or warranty claim, or for that matter buying it in the first place.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I found quite a bit of debris in the chamber and barrel. I blew it out with compressed air, shot some cleaner into the action and brushed it out. I looked down the barrel and still saw some debris, ran a patch through it and found plenty of metallic looking debris.</div></div>
You think this is my first fucking rodeo?
After reading up until I found where he torqued his action screws to <span style="font-weight: bold">60 inch pounds</span> (15 higher than you laud as high enough, fingernail gnawing aside) on his new McM A5 stock, your little example of one was about a used, bubba'd, tupperware stocked ADL POS the guy over paid for to "build" on, that obviously had beed abused and neglected by the previous owner(s), and CAME to him with the busted trigger guard. No telling how that ADL trigger guard got split, but I've got my intuative suspicions.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The purpose of pillars as I understand it is to give the action something solid to bolt onto. <span style="text-decoration: underline">When we torque the action to spec (about 60 in LBS) we are </span>asking a lot of the stock. If you have an aluminum bedding block you probably do not want to do pillars. McMillan has said in the past that their stocks are so rigid that there is no need to add pillars but they will inlet the stock for pillars if you wish.</div></div>
Um, your turn, I suppose...........?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=111729
here you go... a split trigger guard on <span style="text-decoration: underline">a brand new gun</span>.
and in every post above i've said that higher torque values MAY cause a problem. never once mentioned it WILL.
i guess it only took one rifle to PROVE YOU WRONG.
</div></div>
Oh really...........
Regarding his findings with the trigger.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This really makes me suspect the rifle I purchased was not a virgin.</div></div>
That ain't a brand new rifle he's talking about. If it was he's a damn fool for not sending it back to Remington for an inspection and/or warranty claim, or for that matter buying it in the first place.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I found quite a bit of debris in the chamber and barrel. I blew it out with compressed air, shot some cleaner into the action and brushed it out. I looked down the barrel and still saw some debris, ran a patch through it and found plenty of metallic looking debris.</div></div>
You think this is my first fucking rodeo?
After reading up until I found where he torqued his action screws to <span style="font-weight: bold">60 inch pounds</span> (15 higher than you laud as high enough, fingernail gnawing aside) on his new McM A5 stock, your little example of one was about a used, bubba'd, tupperware stocked ADL POS the guy over paid for to "build" on, that obviously had beed abused and neglected by the previous owner(s), and CAME to him with the busted trigger guard. No telling how that ADL trigger guard got split, but I've got my intuative suspicions.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The purpose of pillars as I understand it is to give the action something solid to bolt onto. <span style="text-decoration: underline">When we torque the action to spec (about 60 in LBS) we are </span>asking a lot of the stock. If you have an aluminum bedding block you probably do not want to do pillars. McMillan has said in the past that their stocks are so rigid that there is no need to add pillars but they will inlet the stock for pillars if you wish.</div></div>
Um, your turn, I suppose...........?
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
my point proves trigger guards crack. can you prove that they won't when put under excessive stress? you even say the rifles been bubba'd... maybe torqued to much?
heck, the way the screw heads have the bottom taper to it, probably acted like a wedge and made the guard split.
the bottom line is 45 is enough.
my point proves trigger guards crack. can you prove that they won't when put under excessive stress? you even say the rifles been bubba'd... maybe torqued to much?
heck, the way the screw heads have the bottom taper to it, probably acted like a wedge and made the guard split.
the bottom line is 45 is enough.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
Yawn.....
My point is you are arguing insignificant semantics and over thinking something that doesn't matter within the spectrum discussed here; and pitching out advice/hypothesis without any real first hand knowledge or experience to back it up.
If you have a spare BDL factory bottom metal laying around I'll be more than happy to proof test it for you to show exactly what torque limit will split it. I'd be interested to know myself what would give out first....the bottom metal, the bolt head, or the driver. My inch pound torque wrench goes up to 200, and of course I have a foot pound wrench.
Till then....??
Yawn.....
My point is you are arguing insignificant semantics and over thinking something that doesn't matter within the spectrum discussed here; and pitching out advice/hypothesis without any real first hand knowledge or experience to back it up.
If you have a spare BDL factory bottom metal laying around I'll be more than happy to proof test it for you to show exactly what torque limit will split it. I'd be interested to know myself what would give out first....the bottom metal, the bolt head, or the driver. My inch pound torque wrench goes up to 200, and of course I have a foot pound wrench.
Till then....??
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
ummm i never over thought it to begin with... 45 has always been my answer.
every post you've done has been trying to convince me and who ever that 45in lbs. won't work.
why won't it work??
ummm i never over thought it to begin with... 45 has always been my answer.
every post you've done has been trying to convince me and who ever that 45in lbs. won't work.
why won't it work??
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
No where in any of this have I said that 45 "won't work" and you clearly have a reading comprehension problem. YOU are saying that higher than your "suggested" 45 is too much....that's where I took disagreement.
My only argument here, based on my own real world experience of actually putting together M700's and shooting them, is that your argument is just plain silly.........
No where in any of this have I said that 45 "won't work" and you clearly have a reading comprehension problem. YOU are saying that higher than your "suggested" 45 is too much....that's where I took disagreement.
My only argument here, based on my own real world experience of actually putting together M700's and shooting them, is that your argument is just plain silly.........
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so you agree 45in lbs is fine... </div></div>
Stop trying to change the context of your diatribe. You justified 45 in lbs to the whole world wide web by saying any higher risked damage to the rifle through some mystical force of recoil that magically escapes the control of the recoil lug-to-stock-to-shoulder transfer of energy......total BS within the definition of what we are talking about here.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so you agree 45in lbs is fine... </div></div>
Stop trying to change the context of your diatribe. You justified 45 in lbs to the whole world wide web by saying any higher risked damage to the rifle through some mystical force of recoil that magically escapes the control of the recoil lug-to-stock-to-shoulder transfer of energy......total BS within the definition of what we are talking about here.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
i guess you just can't admit there is nothing wrong with my suggestion of 45in lbs. and besides, i've never said you can't do 65. i just cautioned the OP what MAY happen to the trigger guard.
nothing i've given was bad advice.
i guess you just can't admit there is nothing wrong with my suggestion of 45in lbs. and besides, i've never said you can't do 65. i just cautioned the OP what MAY happen to the trigger guard.
nothing i've given was bad advice.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i just cautioned the OP what MAY happen to the trigger guard.
nothing i've given was bad advice. </div></div>
Yawn....yet again.
Not exactly good advice either, considering the horde of shooters and manufacturers who easily contradict you with much higher torque values.
Unsubstantiated ballyhoo, at best......
Paint it any color you want, if that's what helps you sleep.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRENCHHEAD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i just cautioned the OP what MAY happen to the trigger guard.
nothing i've given was bad advice. </div></div>
Yawn....yet again.
Not exactly good advice either, considering the horde of shooters and manufacturers who easily contradict you with much higher torque values.
Unsubstantiated ballyhoo, at best......
Paint it any color you want, if that's what helps you sleep.
Re: Stock torque rem.700 sps ltr ?
YAWN...
you're still running your suck, but still your point has gotten no where...
YAWN...
you're still running your suck, but still your point has gotten no where...
