Got an email from Brownells yesterday that the stock shipped.
Now I have to but a torque driver to get those action screws down to 45 inch pounds.
Thank for all the info.
Got an email from Brownells yesterday that the stock shipped.
Now I have to but a torque driver to get those action screws down to 45 inch pounds.
Thank for all the info.
Do you have any auto mechanic friends? ![]()
You will also need a 5/32" hex head driver.
Torque spec on most rem700 platforms is 65in/lb.
you’ll be fine to torque anywhere between 45-65 lbs. Personally, I’d save the money on a torque wrench and buy a Borka driver. Worth every penny.
Tried the borka. For a mobile kit to keep in your pack for emergencies, it’s great. For an every day use item, it’s a pain in the ass.
Seekonk T-handle wrenches are worth their weight in gold.
I’d tend to agree if you are constantly swapping optics, and taking out your barreled actions…or if you have a DTA and are swapping barrels.
Personally, I torque down my surgeon barreled actions to AICS specs, followed by my rings and bases…once…and don’t mess with it until re - barreling or repair is necessary. The beauty of the Borka is that it’s cheaper, less to keep around, provides multiple torque values in one kit, and is small enough to stow away in a field pack and not get in the way.
I do believe the Remington spec is 45. I’d only go over 50 with better bottom metal.
I had mine at 65 and dropped it back to 45 - no difference in accuracy. In fact, my best group to date has been with the 45 setting.
If I upgrade my bottom metal I’ll go back to 65.
Mil-spec torque is 65 inch lbs. Although some run the lower, around 50, because of bottom metal quality or stock integrity. With all the research that I have done, I can not find a definite answer on the subject. What I can say is that you want at least 45 inch pounds and no more than 65 inch pounds. With the stock you are getting and in being aluminum bedded, I believe that is what you stated, the stock will handle the 65 inch pounds. As for the stock bottom metal, some are fearful to go to the 65 inlbs. But, I have read that there are stock Remington’s that are being torqued to this.
Remington stated in an early publication the they recommend no more than 45 inlbs on the “VS” and 10 -15 on the standard Rem 700.
So basically no one know for sure what the actuall standard is. Just use your best judgement.
Mine are. The only time I won’t torque to 65 is if it’s a tupperware stock. If it has pillars, chassis, or otherwise good bedding… it goes to 65. If it’s anything else, then its a junk stock and it obviously doesn’t matter.
I feel the same. On my equipment I run 65 and there are several shooters out there that are doing the same thing with no problems.
There was a thread on snipers hide on this same subject and someone having an issue with the stock bottom metal - sorry I can’t recall the details.
Mine seems happy at 45, so I’ll stick with it until it’s no longer happy or I upgrade bottom metal (or better yet, buy a AICS).
I voted trigger, 1 expense,2. dropped my grouping 1/2 an inch at 400 with out changing any thing else, Just my opinion, I could be wrong!!
Wow… you must be an amazing shooter if you can get off the rifle, make an equipment change, get down and shoot again… and record a 1/2" difference at 400yds.
Not amazing… but rather one of the best in the world.
Umm ok must of missEd something ?
Going from the SPS stock to a Manners T4 made about a 30% shrinkage in my average 100 yard groups, taking them from .75-1 MOA’ish down to much closer to a consistent 0.5-.7 MOA. The will shoot a little bit better than that, but I rarely will.
EDIT: Nevermind, I misread something.
What you are saying, is that by changing the trigger, you saw a 1/2" improvement in your groups at 400yds… right?
1/2" improvement at 400yds does not mean much unless we know how big the original groups were…
A more pertinent comparison would be a percentage of group size improvement.
The point I was getting at:
How many people you know, or heard about, that can identify a 1/2" variation at 400yds?
Seriously. And not only that, but be able to definitively attribute it to one specific part of the equation? Nope.