Pillar bedding a Sako 85 or Tikka T3
- Thread starter REMY
- Start date
Bill Scheider
Bill Scheider
Pillar Bedding
Yes_
See American Gunsmith Institute _ Pillar Bedding by Darrel Holland.
Richard Franklin _ Stress-Free Pillar Bedding.
Both very good DVD's for your quest into Pillar Bedding.
May need Google to find both.
Good luck,
Bill
Yes_
See American Gunsmith Institute _ Pillar Bedding by Darrel Holland.
Richard Franklin _ Stress-Free Pillar Bedding.
Both very good DVD's for your quest into Pillar Bedding.
May need Google to find both.
Good luck,
Bill
Bill, thanks for your reply and yes a while back i got a video from Richard Franklin and found it to be very well made and helped me 100% on a rem. type rifle i was doing then ,but with the Sako or Tikka is that they have a recioi lug thats not part of the rifle ,instead it sit's in the stock when pulled apart and goe's up into a slot when put together ,so i would like to know how this is done.
Kind Regards to all , Remy
Kind Regards to all , Remy
deadwooddick
New member
FWIW, LongRiflesLLC in Sturgis, SD is getting EXCELLENT results when "tuning" the T3. Also true of MT Guns.
Over at the 'Hide, Jeff in TX posts:
FWIW, the factory demands <1moa for the T3… or they don't ship it. In closing, I have a BOX STOCK Tikka Master Sporter 595 (pre-cursor to the T3) in 7-08 with the "floating lug." It will shoot sub MOA, all day, any day.
Seems to soundly contradict "…sell it an get an accurate rifle." As always, YMMV.
Last edited:
So tell us from personal experience dead, I've only messed with 6 of them so I'm no expert but the design has too many flaws to list here....... that said, lissen to dead or lissen to chad or lissen to the hombers over on Snipers Heide telling about "all day if I do my part," but in the end PLEASE tell us all what you're actually getting for accuracy. You show us all a target paper or 5 with 5-shot groups under an inch and I'll gladly bow down to all these exspurts who are "achieving EXCELLENT results" and even TUNING the beasts!!!
Be honest with us all here, no fourth-hand heresy but tell us about your results. Show pixstures.......
Then sell it and buy an accurate rifle.
al
N
NesikaChad
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
You know, this is probably another spot to remind everyone of bell-shaped curves. Conceptually, it's the shape, not an actual curve that matters. Wikipedia has some nice examples under "Gaussian function."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function
You can skip all the math if you want, except to note that the axis going up and down is the Y axis, the one going left & right is the X axis.
OK, leave the conceptual & get down to cases. Plot the output of any manufacture's product (could be "rifles," "barrels," "bullets," "powder," whatever). Shoot an appropriate number of these items, and plot the results where the X-axis "5-shot groups in MOA" and the Y-axis "number of groups."
Any single instance of the item (i.e., this rifle, this lot of bullets, whatever) will fall somewhere on the curve -- could be great, could be terrible.
In purchasing something, what we as accuracy customers are really after is manufacturers where the X-axis is short. We're not too concerned whether or not there is one really good one. There will be, but likely it won't wind up being ours. We're just as apt to get the bad one.
So the question here isn't "is alinwa right" or "is Mr. Dixon right" -- they could both be right. The question is how much the techniques used by Mr. Dixon will shorten up that X axis for any particular Tikka rifle. To get an answer to that question requires a number of rifles.
What Mr. Dixon has perhaps shown us is the design differences in the Tikka aren't as big a factor as one might have thought. But as always, no firm conclusion is warranted until a number of rifles have been tested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function
You can skip all the math if you want, except to note that the axis going up and down is the Y axis, the one going left & right is the X axis.
OK, leave the conceptual & get down to cases. Plot the output of any manufacture's product (could be "rifles," "barrels," "bullets," "powder," whatever). Shoot an appropriate number of these items, and plot the results where the X-axis "5-shot groups in MOA" and the Y-axis "number of groups."
Any single instance of the item (i.e., this rifle, this lot of bullets, whatever) will fall somewhere on the curve -- could be great, could be terrible.
In purchasing something, what we as accuracy customers are really after is manufacturers where the X-axis is short. We're not too concerned whether or not there is one really good one. There will be, but likely it won't wind up being ours. We're just as apt to get the bad one.
So the question here isn't "is alinwa right" or "is Mr. Dixon right" -- they could both be right. The question is how much the techniques used by Mr. Dixon will shorten up that X axis for any particular Tikka rifle. To get an answer to that question requires a number of rifles.
What Mr. Dixon has perhaps shown us is the design differences in the Tikka aren't as big a factor as one might have thought. But as always, no firm conclusion is warranted until a number of rifles have been tested.
N
NesikaChad
Guest
Overall, I whole heatedly agree. A single test module is a poor place to start drawing conclusions. That being said though I'd offer this:
I have (over time) settled down into a certain way of doing things. Whether or not they are right is left to those that ultimately judge the product. It's right for me though and business has flourished so I have to think I'm on the right path.
Through this experience I've settled into some "cardinal rules" that I try hard to stick to. One is recoil lugs. A long time ago I was handed a CG Millenium Palma rifle built by a marquee level smith. The gun was a "minute of 8 ring turd" at best. I spent a great deal of time and effort on that rifle and there were times that it shot exceptionally well. By and large though it was a dud. The owner was on the Palma team and he's a close friend. The experience left such a sour taste in his mouth that he left the palma game after the Worlds in Bisley back in 2003. He's not touched it since. In fact its still a sore subject for him.
The ultimate culprit was the lug modification done by the original smith. The CG was intended as a chassis type setup with polymer bushings holding things together in the stock. It doesn't use a tombstone style. Rather than do that, the smith decided it was better to bolt a contoured piece of AL to the bottom of the receiver by a single 6mm screw retained by 2 revolutions of thread. It was then pillar bedded to a Robertson H/H prone stock. The bedding was nice. Very nice in fact.
Regardless, in hindsight neither the gun nor David ever stood a chance. FWIW a matched pair of these guns were built and neither performed to standard for either shooter. I know both on a personal level and they are close friends.
I should have followed my gut, but I was young in the game back then and who the hell was I to argue with a guy universally recognized as a GOD in the palma game? (and he's certainly earned that title. He is a god, but gods make bad choices too now and then)
-Experience is never cheap.
Lessons from this are the firm beleive that unless the lug is intergrated into the receiver design or squashed between the action/barrel its flawed. It should NEVER be a bolt on part. The forces at play against this component are real and substantial. In order for it to do its job it must have a large purchase area against the receiver and/or barrel. That's my opinion based on personal experiences. I've seen it in other rifles and when I do what I do they have a habit of working to standard.
Tombstone lugs are proven to do a good job of transmitting recoil which is why I went this way on this gun. In all instances (over a broad spectrum of action designs) it's proven to work. You have a large surface patch firmly squashed between two big pieces of metal. It's not likely to start moving around on its own from repeated shot cycles.
So, while I get what your saying regarding bell curves and the need for further research my point here is to illustrate that rather than trying to reinvent a wheel and pursue the limits of the design as the designers designed it I've chosen a different route and just bulldozed my way towards making the design behave more akin to how the masses of other action manufacturers make their stuff. Bandwagons exist for a reason sometimes.
Based on that reasoning, I have literally thousands of examples to reflect and fall back on. The action is ultimately a dumb piece of steel. Sure, there are important features that go a long way towards making things behave nice, but I struggle with the concept that one particular design clearly outshines another when in practice they are all strikingly similar.. (CRF Winchester P64's being the noteworthy exception of course only because they are bad ass and my personal favorite for anything cool)
Better to be lucky than good.
C.
Last edited by a moderator: