round-bottom Rem receiver and other questions...

[Kaylee]

Why do folks say a squarish bottom (say, as on a Tikka) is more stable/accurate than the Remington round-bottom receivers? Wouldn't those two big bolts keep the action from torqueing in the stock at least as well as a square body?

Secondly.. why are so many of the Uber-Tactical S***** rifles built on these actions? One feller was trying to tell me it was something in the receiver harmonics? Or was he just snowing me, and it's mostly just gov't procurement inertia? Or for that matter, ARE they that common anymore, as the super-fancy AI railbody type thigies come out?

Thank you!

-K

 

[Gewehr98]

If it's properly bedded...

I can't really see what the difference between round-bottom and flat-bottom receivers on rifles would be. For ease of manufacture, Remington's round-profile receivers get the nod, requiring fewer steps to forge/cast/extrude/roll and machine. The system works, witness how well the 700 variants do in their various incarnations when it comes to measuring group sizes, for example, the 700 Varmint, 700 PSS, 700 LTR, and of course, the 40-X series. But they still have to have a good receiver/stock interface, either with the aluminum block provided by H-S Precision, or pillar bedding, or good old-fashioned glass/epoxy bedding.

The flat-bottoms work just as well, with a stable platform for proper bedding. Obviously, it takes more work to make a good rifle receiver with that contour, which is why you don't see them for sale at WalMart, etc. It's also the reason modern day (2002 manufacture) Mauser 98 actions and rifles aren't common on the market, most folks couldn't afford them. They're out there, Mauser even re-introduced the venerable 98, to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the gun, but hoo-boy, they're spendy!

In this day and age, there's enough folks with a personal interest in accurizing a given action that you could choose either one and find somebody who will deliver sub-MOA from the package. Even 1/4 MOA or better is obtainable with enough cash influx, witness the benchrest gang.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I prefer round bottom receivers.

They're easier to bed.

They're easier to true.

They're cheaper to manufacture.

They're arguably stronger.

It's easier to inlet a stock for one.

What's not to love?