Driving the reamer.

C

Curious

New member
The guy who showed me how to chamber used the tailstock centre to begin with then with about .200" to go would switch to a floating pusher. In both instances he would use a double sided tap handle which he held by hand to create the resistance for the reamer to cut. His reasoning was that he could feel the reamer cutting and if the reamer grabbed at any time he could let go before it broke. He cut the whole chamber with a piloted finish reamer and an oil feed, personally I really didn't like it and felt it was both tiring, dangerous and most likely ineffective as by the time he thought the reamer was grabbing it would have - I really dont like the idea of my hand being so near the action, especially when you get down to full chamber depth. The reason he also used a double sided handle was that he felt that a single sided one would encourage the reamer to cut on one side more although one of the most common types (bald eagle) does exactly that. I read recently that some guys rest the single sided tap handle onto the tool post or something solid to create the drive, that seems a far safer method to me.

May I ask what your thoughts on this are guys?
 
The first stickie on the forum is about chamber reaming.

Start by reading it
 
CMaier said:
The first stickie on the forum is about chamber reaming.

Start by reading it
Click to expand...

No thank you.

I would much rather discuss/interact with people via a series of posts in a thread that I have started, that is the essence of any forum.

If my question bores you then dont feel obliged to contribute further. :)
 
Curious said:
No thank you.

I would much rather discuss/interact with people via a series of posts in a thread that I have started, that is the essence of any forum.

If my question bores you then dont feel obliged to contribute further. :)
Click to expand...

Good attitude to have when asking for help !
 
I never did like the idea of holding the reamer holder by hand. I did use a Bald Eagle holder in the infancy of my barrel work with good results though. I quickly switched to the JGS holder for my manual machine because I knew I could not get the tailstock perfect. I really like that holder on my manual machine. On my turning center, I have a dedicated ER32 collet chuck that I spent a lot of time getting aligned with the spindle bore. That tool holder never gets removed from that station. I am fully rigid with this setup.
 
karls42 said:
Good attitude to have when asking for help !
Click to expand...

With respect, forums are about discussion not referencing to long winded compilations of posts that might take hours to read and still not give me the answer in the way I want it.

CMaier said:
The first stickie on the forum is about chamber reaming.

Start by reading it
Click to expand...

All the above post shows me is a user with no patience and a reluctance to cover old ground with someone who wants to. Forums live and die based on up-to-date information exchange, often in real time and in a way where unanswered questions can be raised again until the information is digested and understood. A forum sticky is like a DVD, you can't engage with it when your not sure you understand something. If every forum newbie was greeted with a 'read the sticky' answer then it would be a sorry excuse for a forum.

So far Ive benefitted from reading previous threads and Ive also had some nice discussions with helpful guys. All I have received from CMaier is 4 PMs either bad mouthing other forum members and their methods and/or telling me how I should do things 'his way' because he is a national champion who builds his own rifles :confused:

I signed up here to share information with like minded others, not to be privately hassled and preached to.

I would be grateful to anyone else who would like to continue the discussion relating to my original post.
 
Last edited:
I have used a floating reamer holder on the last few 22 rimfire chambers I've done. I had some problem with the 1st one I did as I felt like it cut a bit too much off the wall of the chamber. So I wondered if it "floated" too much?
Each one I'd done since I've since I've kept an indicator on the holder & haven't seen more than .001 movement in it.
Is .001 too much? I don't know. The chambers all look concentric too me & have equal engraving on the bullets. I haven't liked some of the finishes just before the leade on a couple I'd done but being green at this I'm not sure its the holders fault. More likely a speed/feed , material, or reamer grind thing.


Let me add I'm no gunsmith or master machinist so take it for what its worth. About what you paid for it. :)

Keith
 
I deal only with results.....


While many people are content with "concentricity" or "only a half a willionth of runout" or "it really looks good in the borescope" or blahhh blahhhblahhh in my world only one thing is important, "are all the chambers identical size and identically centered/aligned on the bore?" Will different barrels interchange ammo? GOOD ammo?

Unless you can easily interchange fired/sized/reloaded ammunition between chambers using the same resizing die and settings, and fire the cases over-and-over-and-over without them wearing out....... the chambers are different!


Sooo, if you really can make identical chambers over and over using "your" chosen method..... YOU'RE DIALED! :)

If your method allows 50 reloads per case and interchangeability barrel after barrel..... YOU'RE DIALED! :)

BTW, IME no "floating reamer holder" can do this.

For Me.

YMMV

Now the next issue is where to point the muzzle...... a good workman with proper methods should be able to predict within inches where a seriously bent barrel (they're mostly ALL bent. And the straight ones don't shoot) will impact at 100yds....and opinions vary as per WHERE to place and point it. But in all seriousness there ain't but a few barrel-chamberers in the world who KNOW where their barrel's pointing. I've paid some of the bestest and most winningest barrel fitters on God's Earth to find this out.

Currently I find it to be important TO ME that not only are the chambers identical, but that the barrels be predictably pointed where I like them. (It's a tracking thing.....)

again

YMMV

opinions vary

and all of this is my opinion

al
 
As to predictability and interchangability, I have 6 Panda actions. I can interchange the brass and the bolts between all 6 randomly. I can expect them to all to land the first shot within 2" of the barrel I just took off.

With my standard loads and within the same lots of either I can load VV133, T322, 8208 or RL-10x and expect 3-shot groups in not over 0,3" at 100 yards. For them to do less I would be concerned as to my chambering process. Hellsbells, it might even cause me to accuse my old 1942 American Made South Bend Heavy 10 lathe.


.
 
alinwa said:
I deal only with results.....

While many people are content with "concentricity" or "only a half a willionth of runout" or "it really looks good in the borescope" or blahhh blahhhblahhh in my world only one thing is important, "are all the chambers identical size and identically centered/aligned on the bore?" Will different barrels interchange ammo? GOOD ammo?

Unless you can easily interchange fired/sized/reloaded ammunition between chambers using the same resizing die and settings, and fire the cases over-and-over-and-over without them wearing out....... the chambers are different!


Sooo, if you really can make identical chambers over and over using "your" chosen method..... YOU'RE DIALED! :)

If your method allows 50 reloads per case and interchangeability barrel after barrel..... YOU'RE DIALED! :)

BTW, IME no "floating reamer holder" can do this.

For Me.

YMMV

Now the next issue is where to point the muzzle...... a good workman with proper methods should be able to predict within inches where a seriously bent barrel (they're mostly ALL bent. And the straight ones don't shoot) will impact at 100yds....and opinions vary as per WHERE to place and point it. But in all seriousness there ain't but a few barrel-chamberers in the world who KNOW where their barrel's pointing. I've paid some of the bestest and most winningest barrel fitters on God's Earth to find this out.

Currently I find it to be important TO ME that not only are the chambers identical, but that the barrels be predictably pointed where I like them. (It's a tracking thing.....)

again

YMMV

opinions vary

and all of this is my opinion

al
Click to expand...

Al,

You're using a floating reamer pusher type of set-up, correct?

Justin
 
float like a butterfly chamber like me

Dear curious, When I started chambering I asked about driving the reamer and was told not to use a floating reamer holder. I tried driving it with the tailstock, dead center and a wrench holding the reamer from turning. After some thought I abandoned this method and went to a floating reamer holder. It saved me from holding the reamer with a wrench, turning the tailstock wheel and not dropping the reamer in the pan when I backed it out to clear chips. Most of all it kept my fingers away from the reamer, chuck and wrench. I haven't seen any difference in my chambers between the two methods. Many in this forum are very experienced machinists and would do well with any method to chamber. Some are very didactic about which method is best. In the end you need to decide which method works for you. If you decide to use a floating reamer holder I recommend JGS . They seem to be well constructed. Good luck. Soon you will be an expert and can advise others thus keeping up a great gun smithing tradition. Tim
 
Tim Oltersdorf said:
Dear curious, When I started chambering I asked about driving the reamer and was told not to use a floating reamer holder. I tried driving it with the tailstock, dead center and a wrench holding the reamer from turning. After some thought I abandoned this method and went to a floating reamer holder. It saved me from holding the reamer with a wrench, turning the tailstock wheel and not dropping the reamer in the pan when I backed it out to clear chips. Most of all it kept my fingers away from the reamer, chuck and wrench. I haven't seen any difference in my chambers between the two methods. Many in this forum are very experienced machinists and would do well with any method to chamber. Some are very didactic about which method is best. In the end you need to decide which method works for you. If you decide to use a floating reamer holder I recommend JGS . They seem to be well constructed. Good luck. Soon you will be an expert and can advise others thus keeping up a great gun smithing tradition. Tim
Click to expand...

Dr Tim, who told you to NOT use a floating reamer holder?

.
 
Zebra13 said:
Al,

You're using a floating reamer pusher type of set-up, correct?

Justin
Click to expand...

I do use a pusher yes, but the function of what I call a pusher and that of a floating reamer holder are no more similar than the act of riding a unicycle VS riding the bus
 
alinwa said:
I do use a pusher yes, but the function of what I call a pusher and that of a floating reamer holder are no more similar than the act of riding a unicycle VS riding the bus
Click to expand...

Al,

I feel you. I thought you used a Bryant-type of pusher...just wanted to make sure, as if you had changed, I wanted to know why and what you were using.

Thanks,
Justin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top