Glass Bedding

[M. De Land]

Mark, have you not been reading what I've said. I'm not advocating a thin layer of glass bedding for recoil resistance. I remove a cavity of wood larger than the rear of the breech plug and fill it with glass bedding, force the tang or breech into it while liquid and force out all the air bubbles. This creates a much larger foot print for the rear of the barrel to abut and it perfectly form fits the underside of the tang and rear of the barrel. I refer to it as and anchor because that is just what it does. It is exactly the same principle used in reinforced recoil lugs in heavy kicking center fire rifles and to say it does not work is ridiculous.
I see stocks all the time fit tightly against the cheeks of single shot actions on the end grain of the wood and they give way over time as the wood shrinks, or gets oil soaked. I know for a fact, from experience that glass bedding stops this from happening and you don't have to relieve the tang to compensate for wood compression.
The cheeks of most single shot actions generally have as much surface area to abut recoil as does the breech plug of a muzzle loader barrel and they usually have both an upper and lower tang affixed to the action to help as well.
I'm all for tradition unless it compromises quality and feel some traditions have gotten in the way of more modern technique and product developments that can improve muzzle loading arms. One mans opinion, just different than yours. Mike D.

 

[necchi]

and feel some traditions have gotten in the way of more modern technique

:shocked2:

I use the stuff, and the first response to the OP was a link to the last thread.
But this get's :dead:

 

[FL-Flinter]

JD, I would question the load first because no matter what a "modern magnum" load is limited to 11,000 psi unless one exceeds the SAAMI maximum allowable operating pressure. That said, the majority of "modern magnum" loads have much lower performance both on paper and in the field than "standard" loads developed way back in the ML days. That's besides the point in this case because the failure more than likely resulted from the improper use of the gun than anything else - had it been fired from the shoulder as is appropriate, failure is doubtful unless there was a structural flaw in the wood but such would have been evident upon inspection of the break.
Mark

 

[jdkerstetter]

....That's besides the point in this case because the failure more than likely resulted from the improper use of the gun than anything else....

Exactlly Mark! By magnum load I was referring more to dram equivilance than pressure.....he maxxed out both shot and powder. I could call him up and get the exact load but, as you indicate, that point is mute....there was no flaws in the wood when examined and your right, if fired from the shoulder it probably wouldn't have broken. Likely he wouldn't have done it twice either. :wink:

He was counseled on the error in his ways. There is no muzzleloader only turkey season here so he "chose" to a flintlock. If he chooses to use magnum loads in the future he was informed to use his Browning....not a nice trim American fowler.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[FL-Flinter]

MD,
I didn't comment on the way you bed a breech but if you want to go there we can. Removing wood to allegedly increase the load bearing area of the breech is only worth while if you're also installing a larger steel recoil lug, otherwise you're wasting your time. I say that because the facts are not in agreement with the sales-hype. Even if you go to a premium rigid-set epoxy compound reinforced with cloth, mesh or fiber the amount of cross-sectional thickness required to overcome the impact shock-loading forces is well in excess of any sane consideration ... we're talking roughly an inch of thickness on a fully reinforced rigid resin matrix that is vacuum-formed to meet the minimum shear force requirement for an impact shock-load of 50 ft/lbs. If you want to argue the point of strengthening the end-grain, revert back to my reply #1284622 where I clearly stated that anything other than an ultra-low viscosity (thinner than water) product will not afford sufficient end-grain penetration to be of any worth. Consider that under a linear increase load test typical gunstock hardwoods have a compression strength around 7.5 ksi and typical epoxy compounds come in the range of 10-15 ksi but on gun applications we have impact shock-loading, not linear loading which is a difference of night as to day. The higher the compression strength of an epoxy compound, the more brittle it becomes so while it make take 15 ksi on a linear load application, it'll do well to reach 7% of that under an impact shock-load whereas a good hardwood will take 25% or better. Thus consideration must be given to balancing the differential between the impact shock-loading resilience of the materials involved so as not to nullify any perceived gains. Think of it this way, a common chicken egg as-laid can typically handle linear end loading of 50-55 pounds yet fail with a shock-load of less than 1 pound.

Please take this as FYI not an insult or argument.

 

[FL-Flinter]

JD, you can really bust his bubble if you show him that a standard load with the same size pellets in a 16 or 20 bore delivers more per-pellet energy than the so-called "magnum" loads in a larger bore. :wink: That's bad enough so don't even try explaining why steel shot loads need to be constructed using pellet volume as opposed to mass.
Mark

 

[jdkerstetter]

Believe me Mark.....he got an ear full.....especially considering the circumstances that resulted in the build in the first place. This builder went to great lengths for his customer just to deliver this gun before turkey season only to have it returned in that state....he was none too happy when his customer showed up at his door with the gun initially appeared and was indifferent as he had no idea that the cause of the failure was his....you know the routine.....that "it wasn't anything I did" sort of attitude.

This builder was still red in the face mad days later and likely will never jump through hoops for this guy again. :shake: Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Not taking sides on this issue. Personally, I would not want glass bedding on an ml rifle. I'm not an hc/pc snob but this just goes too far for my sensibilities.

All gun makers have used glue for stock repair and lamination for the last 300 years

I will agree with that and believe glues from the day could be very effective for repairs and bedding.
When I was a kid, really child of about seven, I made a couple knives. Somehow I made holes in the end of some antler scrap and jammed in a couple blades I had ground to shape on a grinding wheel. I set them in with hot hide glue. I still have those knives and to this day the glue is stable and holding those blades well. You couldn't get t hose blades out with an act of congress. I believe today's craftsmen do not use hide glue simply because it is messy and stinky and we have other stuff that comes in nice plastic or metal containers.

 

[Stophel]

I need to learn how to use hide glue. Its only practical disadvantage is that it is not waterproof... however, guns that are hundreds of years old seem to have been able to retain their repairs, wood splices, and horn nose caps just fine. All attached with hide glue, which, by all accounts, is amazingly strong.

 

[M. De Land]

Just think of glass bedding, dowel and steel bushing reinforcement as pre, repair enhancement.
I notice no hesitation to employ they're use after tragedy strikes, traditional or not! Mike D.

 

[FL-Flinter]

"it wasn't anything I did" sort of attitude.

Oh do I know that one all too well!
Mark

 

[vulture]

What I build is for me, not for resale, some day they will pass on to my children and what they do with them, well that's us to them. If I goof up and remove too much wood in any area then out comes the bedding, and not being an expert I'm prone to make those kids of mistakes, I just don't have the quality tools and skills not to. I know a builder, well known idividual who has build these rifles, all styles, for years, and bedding compound is a part of his work bench suplies, not because he makes mistakes, but on some projects it just saves time and the project is not to be sold, especially at the prices he can command. I don't build to make other people happy, only myself, therefore my guns are not HC, and they contain materials that probably shouldn't be there. No I draw the line on inline muzzleloaders, in my opinion they simply have no place in my gun safe. This is off the subject, but years ago the muzzleloader season for deer was opened here in Utah, and in the bigging every one was using a side lock rifle of some manufacture or another, then the inlines started to creep in, not only here but all across the county until now they are the only muzzleloaders being produced by some companies that used to make only sidelocks and made some good quality ones if not HC in design. I hold the line on some things, but on others I guess it's pretty much do what ever it takes to get the job done, just don't expect your finished product to be worth more than the sum of it's parts, in fact some of mine are woth less now, but they are mine and I love them. Stew.

 

[Doug Lykins]

Respectfully, I'm not sure what the big deal is here. I read somewhere that the old gun makers often used a form of "pitch" or resin, to seal the interior surfaces on stocks. Sealing the inletting on a stock sounds like a fine idea to me. Keeps oil or water from penetrating, pitch hardens after a time and would be a crude form of modern epoxy bedding.
Epoxy bedding is a good way to seal the interior surfaces and enhance the strength of a wood stock. I don't care for epoxy bedding if it is used to cover up poor inletting, and that is true whether it is a Kentucky rifle, a Hawken , or a 700 Remington. My $.02 :stir:

 

[galamb]

This argument drives me nuts -

So it’s not historically correct?

Let’s do a “scratch test”.

Most use a stock that was cut out using a 5 axis CNC router or the blank came from a board that was grown in a managed forest, harvested with modern machinery and then dried in a kiln to the correct moisture level.

The furniture was either stamped or cast using the most modern methods available from metals mined using the most advanced mining technology.

The breech plug was probably X-rayed to check for flaws.

The barrel isn’t hand formed iron, it’s modern 11XX or 12XX steel that was cut and shaped on a lathe and button rifled.

It’s assembled with screws and pins that were made with modern machine tools, from modern metals.

Most of the stains and finishes were developed in labs with vigorous QC and tested in every conceivable way to ensure they don’t hurt humans, animals or the environment.

All assembly was with modern tools, many electrically powered or made in a modern machine shop.

Then further, modern chemicals were sometimes applied to artificially age the rifle.

Then comes time to shoot it.

Balls are mic’d and weighed for consistency.

Patch material is meticulously checked with calipers and micrometers and then numerous concoctions, some of which were developed in labs are used to lubricate said patches.

Notes are kept on the brands and batch number of powders so that a few grains can be tweaked up or down. Many use substitutes.

And then it’s all rammed down the bore with a fibreglass or delrin ramrod which has a CNC machined jag on the end.

But hang on now boys and girls, the line has finally been drawn.

If you put some epoxy in the barrel channel, especially in a location that can’t be seen without some level of disassembly, it’s not HC.

You have ruined an otherwise level of correctness almost indiscernible from an original.

Seriously?????

 

[Patocazador]

:thumbsup: :hatsoff: :grin:

After all, we're just old boys playing games. Our toys only have to satisfy ourselves.

 

[Stophel]

This argument drives me nuts -

So it’s not historically correct?

Let’s do a “scratch test”.

Most use a stock that was cut out using a 5 axis CNC router or the blank came from a board that was grown in a managed forest, harvested with modern machinery and then dried in a kiln to the correct moisture level.

The furniture was either stamped or cast using the most modern methods available from metals mined using the most advanced mining technology.

The breech plug was probably X-rayed to check for flaws.

The barrel isn’t hand formed iron, it’s modern 11XX or 12XX steel that was cut and shaped on a lathe and button rifled.

It’s assembled with screws and pins that were made with modern machine tools, from modern metals.

Most of the stains and finishes were developed in labs with vigorous QC and tested in every conceivable way to ensure they don’t hurt humans, animals or the environment.

All assembly was with modern tools, many electrically powered or made in a modern machine shop.

Then further, modern chemicals were sometimes applied to artificially age the rifle.

Then comes time to shoot it.

Balls are mic’d and weighed for consistency.

Patch material is meticulously checked with calipers and micrometers and then numerous concoctions, some of which were developed in labs are used to lubricate said patches.

Notes are kept on the brands and batch number of powders so that a few grains can be tweaked up or down. Many use substitutes.

And then it’s all rammed down the bore with a fibreglass or delrin ramrod which has a CNC machined jag on the end.

But hang on now boys and girls, the line has finally been drawn.

If you put some epoxy in the barrel channel, especially in a location that can’t be seen without some level of disassembly, it’s not HC.

You have ruined an otherwise level of correctness almost indiscernible from an original.

Seriously?????

THAT "argument" is the one that drives me nuts. :shake:

 

[Doug Lykins]

I could not agree with you more! Beside all you mention in the "scratch test", we are communicating and learning how to build 18th-19th century guns through cyberspace. Now how HC / PC is that? :rotf: