Prototyping: I Need Opinions on Pillar Bedding for the Mosin

1
Hello,

I've been asked by several folks to make steel pillars for the Mosin. I made them a year or two back for my personal favorite Mosin, and they work really, really well. Others wanted 'em.

Now, this is what I have:

Image


That's stainless. It's tougher to work with, but if I'm going to offer pillars for the Mosin, they're going to be better than anything else out there simply because it seems everyone offers aluminum pillars, which are just OK.

One thing that's special about these is that they do not allow the screws to come into contact with the sides. The screws, therefore, are solely for clamping the receiver to the magazine body/trigger guard. All recoil goes to the recoil lug crossbolt, as is the design. Screws absorbing recoil leads to stocks cracking.

Now, here's the thing: All aluminum pillars for the Mosin, of which I'm aware anyway, have a slightly long front pillar. It extends beyond the wood.

My front pillar is the same way.

They're made like this because the area at the front screw has a bit of space between the wood and recoil lug.

The Finns filled this area with shims to shim bed the receiver.

So... I got to thinking: Would you good folks rather have a front pillar that takes up that space itself, or would you rather have a pillar that's flush with the wood, and use shims to fill/build up that area as needed?

Thank you!

Regards,

Josh
Image

Re: Prototyping: I Need Opinions on Pillar Bedding for the M

4
I'm going to support shinzen's comment also.

Obviously, costs and machining challenges are different with stainless and aluminum. I don't think the hassle and cost actually justifies stainless. So, there's that. But if there's a demand, any business would seek to satisfy it.

Secondly, my low-battery human brain ponders about distributing the recoil over the widest possible area in order, actually, to protect the stock from damage. I'd like aluminum pillar holes to be like half a gnat's eyelash bigger than the screws, maybe even needing a thin film of grease to ensure easy assembly and disassembly; I'd also like the pillars to be about 1mm over all shorter than the hole to ensure a clean fit. When coupled with a full bedding job, I'd have a really tight rifle. I have three stocks in my project queue (2 Mausers, 1 Mosin) that will require pillar bedding, as they all have the huge holes designed exactly for that. I'll do a full receiver bed on them, too.

Hope this helps.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Prototyping: I Need Opinions on Pillar Bedding for the M

5
Thank you, Gents.

Mr. CDFingers, I'm going to address your post directly, specifically
CDFingers wrote:Secondly, my low-battery human brain ponders about distributing the recoil over the widest possible area in order, actually, to protect the stock from damage. I'd like aluminum pillar holes to be like half a gnat's eyelash bigger than the screws, maybe even needing a thin film of grease to ensure easy assembly and disassembly; I'd also like the pillars to be about 1mm over all shorter than the hole to ensure a clean fit. When coupled with a full bedding job, I'd have a really tight rifle. I have three stocks in my project queue (2 Mausers, 1 Mosin) that will require pillar bedding, as they all have the huge holes designed exactly for that. I'll do a full receiver bed on them, too.

Hope this helps.

CDFingers
Your mind is far from low-battery.

You'd be right, generally speaking. However, two things:

1. A horizontally moving receiver has terrible precision.

2. The screws, when they contact the stock, are contacting at a tangent. Same with the pillars. A semi-circle is slightly wedge-shaped, and the flow of the wood grain allows it to act as a log splitter of sorts.

This became such a problem, especially on laminate stocks, that the Soviets actually began reinforcing the stocks:

Image

Courtesy thedolk.com

It is very important that the screws do not make horizontal contact, and that the area around the tang is likewise cleared. There should be a gap in stock in the area around the tang, as well, so that the tang doesn't hit the stock and dig it out.

Gents:

As for the flush vs free-floating pillar bedding, I believe I'll take Antiquus' suggestion and offer both.

Regards,

Josh
Image

Re: Prototyping: I Need Opinions on Pillar Bedding for the M

6
That is good to know. I appreciate that.

I'm thinking if the receiver is bedded correctly and the pillars are fat and are acraglased into the wood, and the screw shafts precisely contact the pillars inside, then tightness prevails and recoil is widely distributed.

The wrist through-bolt indeed prevents the stock split. I surmised that the glas of a fully bedded receiver--I drill several short holes into the wood before I glas it--would act like the wrist bolt. I also surmise that good bedding from the lug, along bottom and sides of the receiver, all the way to the tang, would be as solid or solider (word?) than the original wood. I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

We're messing here with stocks designed to be a bit loose with recoil transferred mostly to the lug. That we can improve the accuracy with shims and so on shows where their weaknesses lie. The neat thing about this hobby is there's always more stuff to find out and experiment with. The three sporter stocks I have are new wood made for these receivers, and they're some months from being done, so I want to keep studying before I do them.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest