Facts are supported by data. More than a product advertisement or a gun writers magazine article. Actual tests like we expect for ballistics. People just accept that glass bedding is stronger when in fact it may mostly be a sales gimmick perpetuated by gunsmiths who can charge for the work. Has anyone seen any actual destructive testing or do we all accept it on faith?
Glass Bedding
- Thread starter F.G. Ford
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
The lock should not need bedded as there is no real stress there from Recoil. Lock bolts should have relief in holes to prevent stress to lock & bolts.
Bed behind the breech & tang & under the tang. Then relieve behind the end of the tang & that gives you a solid breeching area & no stress on the end of the tang from recoil.
Is it stronger ? Who knows. :idunno: Works for me. Am not going to work on one 3 mo & destroy it to test it for anyone. Have built dozens rifles with end of breeches & tangs bedded & have not had one break or crack & no complaints as to date. And have at least 5 emails a week from people wanting more, so they must be satisfied with the rifles that way.
Do it carefully & tastefully & nobody will know it is bedded as you will not see it.
Keith Lisle
Bed behind the breech & tang & under the tang. Then relieve behind the end of the tang & that gives you a solid breeching area & no stress on the end of the tang from recoil.
Is it stronger ? Who knows. :idunno: Works for me. Am not going to work on one 3 mo & destroy it to test it for anyone. Have built dozens rifles with end of breeches & tangs bedded & have not had one break or crack & no complaints as to date. And have at least 5 emails a week from people wanting more, so they must be satisfied with the rifles that way.
Do it carefully & tastefully & nobody will know it is bedded as you will not see it.
Keith Lisle
FL-Flinter
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
Rich Pierce said:
Yes, I have seen the actual destructive testing and the simple answer is "it depends" - It depends on the particular materials both substrate (wood) and product (filler/adhesive) - It depends on the mechanics of the application - It depends on the method of application - It depends upon the ambient conditions of normal use - It depends upon other extenuating circumstances such as interaction/reaction to other treatments of the substrate (IE: stain, finish, etc.)
You are correct that the vast majority of claims & comments fit into the two primary categories being sales-hype or utter nonsense. All wood is not created the same, the actual moisture content varies considerably and a mere 2% variance in moisture content can mean the difference between achieving optimum joint strength or
No worries Mark and thanks for the info. I can take a good nut-busting as well as I can dish it out, I hope!
I agree there are a lot of compromises in making muzzleloaders nowadays and I've done it all, even glass bedding my first flintlock in 1978 because I believed an article that said the wood out front on the fore-end is so thin it needs strengthening. Been there done that with precarves and machine inletted barrels. I'm just moving in another direction now. Not there yet.
But I also find it humorous that folks find any deviation from traditional methods and materials and use it to justify their choices. The question I have, is where do the scoffers and laughers draw the line? Are plastic stocks OK? Laminates? If not, why not? See, everybody has a line they don't cross, making their scoffing at others' standards a little funny too.
I agree there are a lot of compromises in making muzzleloaders nowadays and I've done it all, even glass bedding my first flintlock in 1978 because I believed an article that said the wood out front on the fore-end is so thin it needs strengthening. Been there done that with precarves and machine inletted barrels. I'm just moving in another direction now. Not there yet.
But I also find it humorous that folks find any deviation from traditional methods and materials and use it to justify their choices. The question I have, is where do the scoffers and laughers draw the line? Are plastic stocks OK? Laminates? If not, why not? See, everybody has a line they don't cross, making their scoffing at others' standards a little funny too.
In the nine years I’ve been a member here many full time gunmakers such as myself have come and gone here.We are fooled by the heading at the top of the page “Keep the Tradition Alive” and assume that the purpose of this site is to discuss “Traditional” guns and gunmaking.Most have concluded that they are wasting their time as they receive nothing but grief for their troubles and have moved on.They are labeled elitists and even called *******(yes I saw your post Longrifle78)for their trouble.A few such as Birddog 6 are able to offer dissenting opinions(which are welcome) without name calling and dragging unrelated subjects into the discussion but it would seem those able to do so are in the minority. Many of us have in addition to studying some of the finest surviving originals and have had the fortune to study under some of the Contemporary “Masters “of the last thirty years .Their generosity in sharing their knowledge have given me the opportunity to pursue my gunbuilding full time.I feel a sense of obligation to share the knowledge they have shared with me.I have no trouble with differing opinions and being challenged on my opinions but if all you can bring to the argument is name calling or to drag unrelated subjects into the discussion there is no point to it all.The original poster asked about glass bedding not barrels,cast parts or finishes etc., ect.If you have to resort to name calling to prove your point all you have done is diminish yourself and your opinion.
The OP’s question was
The answer is all original and most modern builders rely on their inletting skill rather that glass bedding.
None of the makers of the traditional rifles we seek to emulate used glass bedding and some of their work survived hundreds of years of continuous use under far tougher conditions than todays rifles .
None of the top contemporary makers of traditional rifles that I know of glass bed their guns.While there certainly may be a couple out there they are in the minority.You are welcome to survey the room at this years CLA show(the largest collection of modern builders in the world)I suspect you will find a very small percentage of builders use any kind of glass bedding in their building.
Muzzleloading rifle accuracy records shot at Creedmore NY.( some of ,which still stand) were shot with guns that weren’t glass bedded so the notion that glass bedding a muzzleloader is an improvement is suspect.
With a properly inlet barrel and tang not only is there no need to glass there is no room for glass bedding.If you have to remove extra wood to make room for the bedding which has yet to my knowledge been proven to be an improvement then why bother.
In my opinion and many others in the long rifle building business is that glass bedding is unneeded both from a traditional standpoint and from the standpoint that it is an improvement.Those who have seen my work and value my opinion can take it for what it’s worth.Birdog6 disagrees with my opinion and he stated why.We can agree to disagree and that is fine.In the end people are welcome to build their rifles using any means they wish. I personally welcome dissenting opinions, but if all you have to offer in dissent is name calling or to drag unrelated subjects into the discussion then posting here becomes a waste of time much like glass bedding a American Longrifle.
Mitch Yates
The OP’s question was
The answer is all original and most modern builders rely on their inletting skill rather that glass bedding.
None of the makers of the traditional rifles we seek to emulate used glass bedding and some of their work survived hundreds of years of continuous use under far tougher conditions than todays rifles .
None of the top contemporary makers of traditional rifles that I know of glass bed their guns.While there certainly may be a couple out there they are in the minority.You are welcome to survey the room at this years CLA show(the largest collection of modern builders in the world)I suspect you will find a very small percentage of builders use any kind of glass bedding in their building.
Muzzleloading rifle accuracy records shot at Creedmore NY.( some of ,which still stand) were shot with guns that weren’t glass bedded so the notion that glass bedding a muzzleloader is an improvement is suspect.
With a properly inlet barrel and tang not only is there no need to glass there is no room for glass bedding.If you have to remove extra wood to make room for the bedding which has yet to my knowledge been proven to be an improvement then why bother.
In my opinion and many others in the long rifle building business is that glass bedding is unneeded both from a traditional standpoint and from the standpoint that it is an improvement.Those who have seen my work and value my opinion can take it for what it’s worth.Birdog6 disagrees with my opinion and he stated why.We can agree to disagree and that is fine.In the end people are welcome to build their rifles using any means they wish. I personally welcome dissenting opinions, but if all you have to offer in dissent is name calling or to drag unrelated subjects into the discussion then posting here becomes a waste of time much like glass bedding a American Longrifle.
Mitch Yates
Last edited by a moderator:
:thumbsup:
Well said!
Thank You :bow:
Well said!
Thank You :bow:
Mitch, I didn't agree or disagree with you. He asked about bedding a lock & tang & I answered him. I stated how I have bedded some breeches & tangs, how I did so it won't show & etc., and I have not had any problems in doing it.
It is up to the individual of whether he wants to glass bed a breech/tang.
Over the years, I can say that of the 7-8 rifles that has been brought to me for repairs at a crack at the lock or tang area, the barrel was poorly breeched & the barrel moved & compressed what little wood was there supporting the barrel & that is what caused the damage. Possibly some bedding there could have saved this from happening, but who knows ? it is all a guess After the fact.....
I will say IF a rifle is breeched properly in a good dense stock & the tang relieved at the end properly, I cannot see it necessary to bed it, as the wood will support the barrel if it is Fitted Properly....
The problem is, I think about 90% of the people on here would not know a good breeching job it it hit them in the butt ! :grin: Thus if you are Unsure of it, bed it. Better than splitting a stock. IMHO.
Keith Lisle
It is up to the individual of whether he wants to glass bed a breech/tang.
Over the years, I can say that of the 7-8 rifles that has been brought to me for repairs at a crack at the lock or tang area, the barrel was poorly breeched & the barrel moved & compressed what little wood was there supporting the barrel & that is what caused the damage. Possibly some bedding there could have saved this from happening, but who knows ? it is all a guess After the fact.....
I will say IF a rifle is breeched properly in a good dense stock & the tang relieved at the end properly, I cannot see it necessary to bed it, as the wood will support the barrel if it is Fitted Properly....
The problem is, I think about 90% of the people on here would not know a good breeching job it it hit them in the butt ! :grin: Thus if you are Unsure of it, bed it. Better than splitting a stock. IMHO.
Keith Lisle
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 320
Hats off to Mitch Yates and Keith Lisle. A couple of classy guys we could all stand to emulate. :hatsoff:
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,390
- Reaction score
- 4,563
Most cracked stocks I have seen and repaired where in the toe or wrist and as stated was not from recoil but rather falling over or setting down hard on the butt.
Both of these areas can be strengthened with glass bedded or wood glued, straight grained hardwood dowels or steel bushings. Replaced a butt stock on my underhammer that would most certainly not have broken had I taken the time to install and glass bed a steel bushing. A particularly good idea in my opinion, for poor grain run in these areas.
Agra-glass with chopped flock added is stronger than cherry, walnut, ash or maple in compressive and torsional stressing. It has little in common with off the shelf epoxy glue and if you don't think it will adhere to any of these woods you are simply mistaken.
All gun makers have used glue for stock repair and lamination for the last 300 years and it doesn't seem like much of a stretch in logic to believe they would have used a product like Agra-glass, specifically designed for gun use, had it been available.
Glass bedding is impervious to oil and water. When bonded or impregnated into clean dry wood by thinning or heating it seals better than any oil, varnish or shellack finish I've ever seen or used. For this reason I think it makes a lot of sense under the lock mortice and barrel channel in the breech area.
Use it or not, I really don't care, but I will continue taking advantage of it's superior properties when applicable for strength enhancement,wood seal or repair. Mike D.
Both of these areas can be strengthened with glass bedded or wood glued, straight grained hardwood dowels or steel bushings. Replaced a butt stock on my underhammer that would most certainly not have broken had I taken the time to install and glass bed a steel bushing. A particularly good idea in my opinion, for poor grain run in these areas.
Agra-glass with chopped flock added is stronger than cherry, walnut, ash or maple in compressive and torsional stressing. It has little in common with off the shelf epoxy glue and if you don't think it will adhere to any of these woods you are simply mistaken.
All gun makers have used glue for stock repair and lamination for the last 300 years and it doesn't seem like much of a stretch in logic to believe they would have used a product like Agra-glass, specifically designed for gun use, had it been available.
Glass bedding is impervious to oil and water. When bonded or impregnated into clean dry wood by thinning or heating it seals better than any oil, varnish or shellack finish I've ever seen or used. For this reason I think it makes a lot of sense under the lock mortice and barrel channel in the breech area.
Use it or not, I really don't care, but I will continue taking advantage of it's superior properties when applicable for strength enhancement,wood seal or repair. Mike D.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,390
- Reaction score
- 4,563
Good,practical, open minded post Keith!
I will say that I have not found it necessary to relieve the back of the tang if the bottom of the breech plug is glass bedded into an anchor recess at the back.
The same technique has proven effective behind recoil lugs in modern heavy kicking center fires.
I also believe glass bedding reduces wood shrinkage where ever it is applied, sealing in the woods stablized moisture content. Granted, this is just a hunch based on limited observation. Mike D.
I will say that I have not found it necessary to relieve the back of the tang if the bottom of the breech plug is glass bedded into an anchor recess at the back.
The same technique has proven effective behind recoil lugs in modern heavy kicking center fires.
I also believe glass bedding reduces wood shrinkage where ever it is applied, sealing in the woods stablized moisture content. Granted, this is just a hunch based on limited observation. Mike D.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,390
- Reaction score
- 4,563
All most forgot another very good reason for glass bedding. When I make a boo-boo while inletting! I hate gaps of any kind and have found when I do less than stellar inletting at some point , that a bit of glass bedding and stain matching will make a virtually invisible repair. Mike D.
FL-Flinter
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
M.D. said:
I'd be real interested in seeing the test methodology and data supporting those claims.
Mark
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,390
- Reaction score
- 4,563
You can do it your self Mark, cut a sample of each type of wood mentioned, say 1 inch by .5 inch by 2 inches long.Tape a border around it with masking tape , Mix up a batch of Agra-glass according to instruction with the flock, pour it on top the wood,inside the tape dam and when set up and cured put it in a vice and compress both together.
If what is claimed about it being stronger than wood in compression,the wood should yield first.
A torsion test could be done as well in a vise to see which stands more pressure.
I think the claims I read about it are made from the perspective of applied use and not the scenario I described but it none the less would give some idea if what I stated is actually true. You got me wonder now if what I've read is correct. I'll have to give it a test when I get some more and report back about how it turned out and also see if I can think of a better test of applied use.
I have no doubt how ever about it being impervious to oil, water and most solvents. Mike D.
If what is claimed about it being stronger than wood in compression,the wood should yield first.
A torsion test could be done as well in a vise to see which stands more pressure.
I think the claims I read about it are made from the perspective of applied use and not the scenario I described but it none the less would give some idea if what I stated is actually true. You got me wonder now if what I've read is correct. I'll have to give it a test when I get some more and report back about how it turned out and also see if I can think of a better test of applied use.
I have no doubt how ever about it being impervious to oil, water and most solvents. Mike D.
Lets assume for the moment that a properly glass bedded or reinforced breech has some strength advantage. Part of the logic that is not working here for me is that some are assuming that greater strength is needed. Hundreds of thousands of military muskets designed to fire heavy loads performed quite well without glass bedding, but people getting a big bore rifle think they need it to protect their rifles from recoil damage. 
Do we see a lot of glass bedding on factory 10 ga waterfowl guns that generate more recoil than almost any rifle any of us is likely to shoot?
Do we see a lot of glass bedding on factory 10 ga waterfowl guns that generate more recoil than almost any rifle any of us is likely to shoot?
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,390
- Reaction score
- 4,563
Rich,why to we relieve tang ends in heavy recoil rifles? I have found it not necessary any more when glass bedded internal anchors are set up behind recoil lugs or breech plugs in muzzle loaders.
You can scrape fit with black out to a fair thee well and never get as close a fit as you can mold. Than the matter of wood shrinkage comes into play generally requiring some tang relief to avoid a tang end split over time. I have found if one removes some extra wood around the base of the tang and breech area, fills the anchor void with glass bedding,that tang end relief is not needed.
Just finished a high end Hagan Single shot chambered in 45-90 this last year that will be shooting 550 grain bullets to 1000 yards and gave it this treatment on both the upper and lower one piece with the action, tangs,along with a steel bushing thorough the rather delicate wrist, the tang profile required. These guns generate significant recoil especially when shooting prone. You cannot tell it has been reinforce with glass bedding viewing externally.
The stuff has been proven to work now for four decades in heavy kicking rifles and was probably the motivation for it's invention to begin with.
Why not use it in a muzzle loader instead of relieving the tang end in a heavy kicker or any other gun for that matter. Mike D.
You can scrape fit with black out to a fair thee well and never get as close a fit as you can mold. Than the matter of wood shrinkage comes into play generally requiring some tang relief to avoid a tang end split over time. I have found if one removes some extra wood around the base of the tang and breech area, fills the anchor void with glass bedding,that tang end relief is not needed.
Just finished a high end Hagan Single shot chambered in 45-90 this last year that will be shooting 550 grain bullets to 1000 yards and gave it this treatment on both the upper and lower one piece with the action, tangs,along with a steel bushing thorough the rather delicate wrist, the tang profile required. These guns generate significant recoil especially when shooting prone. You cannot tell it has been reinforce with glass bedding viewing externally.
The stuff has been proven to work now for four decades in heavy kicking rifles and was probably the motivation for it's invention to begin with.
Why not use it in a muzzle loader instead of relieving the tang end in a heavy kicker or any other gun for that matter. Mike D.
Tradition, that's why some would not do it, just like using flat mainsprings instead of coil ones. Everybody "knows" coil springs don't break but flat springs do, but many "traditionalists" choose to never use a lock with a coil mainspring. It's a matter of taste and adheerence to tradition, and though "you can't see it" (the coil mainspring), just like glass bedding, it is not and has not been necessary for centuries and some won't choose it. I guess the makers of fine London and German elephant rifles like the .500 Nitro Express somehow got by without glass bedding, so it seems optional as well as non-traditional. It's clear to me that you're transferring your centerfire stocking habits to longrifles. Glass bedding is normal for you because centerfire rifles are your reference point.
FL-Flinter
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
Rich Pierce said:Lets assume for the moment that a properly glass bedded or reinforced breech has some strength advantage. Part of the logic that is not working here for me is that some are assuming that greater strength is needed. Hundreds of thousands of military muskets designed to fire heavy loads performed quite well without glass bedding, but people getting a big bore rifle think they need it to protect their rifles from recoil damage.
Do we see a lot of glass bedding on factory 10 ga waterfowl guns that generate more recoil than almost any rifle any of us is likely to shoot?
A 10# 10ga firing 2oz payload generates around 55-60ft/lbs of recoil. Marlin added the large recoil lug on the 5510 bolt-action similar to what's seen on most rifles chambered in kill & cripple cartridges. Other guns like single-shot & pump typically have full end-grain contact at the rear of the action body which is essentially what we have in ML's. With good wood and when properly fitted the breech face alone should be more than adequate but there's addition recoil distribution provided by the tang assembly.
The issue isn't "greater strength" as far as cross-sectional area is concerned, the only "strength" issue is "prevention". A typical pre-carved and inletted stock for most modern rifles can be had for $150 or less and installed in a couple hours, compare that to how much it costs to inlet & shape a new blank to fit pre-existing ML parts. Thus it becomes an "insurance" issue rather than a "strength" issue with the hope being that the additional bonding of the end-grain and contact area assurance would prevent a problem from happening. The secondary issue is boo boo fixing ... not that anyone would ever take a little much off or have an :cursing: moment.:wink: Even if the inletting is absolutely perfect, nothing is lost by using an ultra-low viscosity penetrating adhesive (UFR, PVA, polystyrene, cyanoacrylate, epoxy, etc.) as an insurance policy on the load-bearing end-grain - caveat being that the adhesive must be ultra-low viscosity or it's not going to penetrate enough to do any good so putting a skim-coat of Acraglas or any of the other standard viscosity generic epoxy compounds on is a waste of time. Like I said before, there's no magic fits-all adhesive and any claims of such should be dismissed as the nonsense they are.
Mark
jdkerstetter
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,029
- Reaction score
- 7
I local builder friend of mine of very high international repute built a fowler around a 10ga Getz barrel for a turkey hunting aquaintence recently. No bedding, just a tight inlet with full breech face contact in a hard maple stock.
This happy customer returned the gun a couple days later....not so happy as he had busted the gun clean through the wrist.
How? He loaded what is the black powder equivelent of a modern 10ga magnum load and secured the fowler in a lead sled with sand bags on top.
The builder was none too happy but the barrel did not move at all in it's inlet even after all it was put through.
A hickory rod through the wrist and some glue and the gun is strong as ever. Prevention is the key here as all the glass in the world wouldn't have prevented that break.
Then there's the question of why hunt with flintlocks if modern magnum results is what you're after? That's not what this game is suposed to be about, is it?
Enjoy, J.D.
This happy customer returned the gun a couple days later....not so happy as he had busted the gun clean through the wrist.
How? He loaded what is the black powder equivelent of a modern 10ga magnum load and secured the fowler in a lead sled with sand bags on top.
The builder was none too happy but the barrel did not move at all in it's inlet even after all it was put through.
A hickory rod through the wrist and some glue and the gun is strong as ever. Prevention is the key here as all the glass in the world wouldn't have prevented that break.
Then there's the question of why hunt with flintlocks if modern magnum results is what you're after? That's not what this game is suposed to be about, is it?
Enjoy, J.D.
FL-Flinter
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
MD, the correct method of testing is to apply the same loading to samples of each material all being of equal dimension. When you do such you'll find that a quality hardwood will take far greater linear compression than any generic epoxy compound no matter if it has flock or not and in most cases the hardwood will also have higher torsion and bending resilience as well. Little FYI on typical epoxy compounds, their viscosity is too high which is why they cannot obtain anything more than a very shallow surface bond so no matter how tough the compound is, the weakest link is upper fiber layer of the wood substrate. For example, common adhesive epoxies with peel strengths >23 pli on prepared aluminum will only see an actual peel strength in the low single digits on good hardwood.
Mark
Mark
Similar threads
