Floating reamer holders:

Pete Wass

Pete Wass

Well-known member
I have been mulling this subject for the past couple of weeks. I am left with the following thought. When we go to all the work of dialing in a barrel to .000" we then use a disjointed device to ream a straight hole. How can that make sense? There has to be enough running clearance for the pilot bushing to rotate plus, with a ball in the back end pushing, shouldn't the running clearance be projected back to the rear of the reamer and magnified by it's length?

That said, for those who don't bore first, Why go to all the work of indicating the barrel bore in to .000? Why wouldn't, say two or three tenths be ok? If we have potential error and, from my experience, errors compound, it wouldn't seem to me that the bore would be terribly critical, within limits, of course. I realize in practical practice, things all works out in the end or we have to live with what we end up with, at least.

It's just nagging to me that we start with a dead nuts hole then use tools with slop in them.

Has anyone tried the reamer holders that are used on Screw machines and production Lathes?

Pete
 
do not use a bushing,
dial in,
drill
check dial in
pre bore,
check dial in ,
taper bore to match reamer,
insert reamer and cut chamber
 
Naah,

CMaier said:
do not use a bushing,
dial in,
drill
check dial in
pre bore,
check dial in ,
taper bore to match reamer,
insert reamer and cut chamber
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't want to spend the time you have lain out to cut a simple chamber.

Pete
 
Pete Wass said:
I have been mulling this subject for the past couple of weeks. I am left with the following thought. When we go to all the work of dialing in a barrel to .000" we then use a disjointed device to ream a straight hole. How can that make sense? There has to be enough running clearance for the pilot bushing to rotate plus, with a ball in the back end pushing, shouldn't the running clearance be projected back to the rear of the reamer and magnified by it's length?

That said, for those who don't bore first, Why go to all the work of indicating the barrel bore in to .000? Why wouldn't, say two or three tenths be ok? If we have potential error and, from my experience, errors compound, it wouldn't seem to me that the bore would be terribly critical, within limits, of course. I realize in practical practice, things all works out in the end or we have to live with what we end up with, at least.

It's just nagging to me that we start with a dead nuts hole then use tools with slop in them.

Has anyone tried the reamer holders that are used on Screw machines and production Lathes?

Pete
Click to expand...

Yes, you could make a tool holder like was (is?) used on automatic screw machines. Darned near fool proof if careful thought is given to method(s) used to make one.
 
Pete Wass said:
I have been mulling this subject for the past couple of weeks. I am left with the following thought. When we go to all the work of dialing in a barrel to .000" we then use a disjointed device to ream a straight hole. How can that make sense? There has to be enough running clearance for the pilot bushing to rotate plus, with a ball in the back end pushing, shouldn't the running clearance be projected back to the rear of the reamer and magnified by it's length?


It's just nagging to me that we start with a dead nuts hole then use tools with slop in them.


Pete
Click to expand...

Easy Pete, the purpose of the flowing holder is to allow the reamer to self align with the chamber center. Your lathe ,my lathe,or Zippy Poos lathe will have the tailstock out of alignment with the headstock.....period....in just a short time. The last lathe I was the Project Enginerr on was a Monarch 85hp, 60" swing and 228" centres. We sat it on a floating foundation that had 128 yards of concrete. We let the foundation cure the traditional 30 days plus an additional 90 days because of the actual lathe delivery.

We sat it on floating hold downs because the concrete foundation will move, probably forever. We used a laser alignment tool that we use for the large steam turbins in our 4 power generating facilities. I had the techs set the laser head in the spindle bore and the sending device in the tailstock center. Just for kicks we left this in place for a couple of weeks. Each day the techs took readings. Each day the tailstock had moved its alignment in relation with the headstock....

As to automatic screw machines tooling, that is how spark plug housings are made.

IF you ream a chamber with the reamer being held firmly in the tailstock that reamer will cut an oversized chamber body.....period!!


.
 
Thanks Jerry
Very well said and true. Give me the Floating style reamer holder and a taper bore.

Thanks Chet
 
Last edited:
JerrySharrett said:
Easy Pete, the purpose of the flowing holder is to allow the reamer to self align with the chamber center. Your lathe ,my lathe,or Zippy Poos lathe will have the tailstock out of alignment with the headstock.....period....in just a short time. The last lathe I was the Project Enginerr on was a Monarch 85hp, 60" swing and 228" centres. We sat it on a floating foundation that had 128 yards of concrete. We let the foundation cure the traditional 30 days plus an additional 90 days because of the actual lathe delivery.

We sat it on floating hold downs because the concrete foundation will move, probably forever. We used a laser alignment tool that we use for the large steam turbins in our 4 power generating facilities. I had the techs set the laser head in the spindle bore and the sending device in the tailstock center. Just for kicks we left this in place for a couple of weeks. Each day the techs took readings. Each day the tailstock had moved its alignment in relation with the headstock....

As to automatic screw machines tooling, that is how spark plug housings are made.

IF you ream a chamber with the reamer being held firmly in the tailstock that reamer will cut an oversized chamber body.....period!!


.
Click to expand...

Yeh, Yeah, Yeah,

It seems absurd to me to spend all the time to indicate something to .000 and then use something other than absolute precision for the final step. The reamer holder thing; a friend of mine has a Harding Chucker and he showed me a reamer holder that came with it. Looked pretty dern foolproof to me. It resembled the same kind of floating reamer holder I have seen on Ebay for screw machine tooling.

I have seen someone use their tailstock with a reamer held fast in it. The barrels coming out of it always seem to shoot well. I just wondered who's reamer holder and bushing can hold .000 is all.

Pete
 
Last edited:
Pete Wass said:
Yeh, Yeah, Yeah,

It seems absurd to me to spend all the time to indicate something to .000 and then use something other than absolute precision for the final step. The reamer holder thing; a friend of mine has a Harding Chucker and he showed me a realer holder that came with it. Looked pretty dern foolproof to me. It resembled the same kind of floating reamer holder I have seen on Ebay for screw machine tooling.

I have seen someone use their tailstock with a reamer held fast in it. The barrels coming out of it always seem to shoot well.

Pete
Click to expand...

Well, why did you ask if you have the answers?



.
 
There are also folks who believe that having a "stiff, straight reloading press" will help produce straight reloads and that "dropping the ram softly, then do a half turn and bring it down hard" (or some variant thereof....all involving twisting the case in the shellholder) will "make straighter cases"........

There are also tools made for "straightening reloaded rounds" and there are people who use them.

And believe in them.

It's impossible to argue with this sort of logic.

In absolute cold reality adding SLOP and PLAY into the system results in the best sized cases. In reality, if your reloaded rounds ARE NOT COMING OUT DEAD TRUE.....you're doing something wrong. And a "stiffer" or "straighter" press won't "fix it."

In reality, whether you're sizing brass or reaming a chamber you must MAKE stuff straight and true and KEEP it straight and true through the final sizing/reaming step.

I consider brass to be modeling clay and equipment to be as flexible as rubber......

And I cain't measure nuttin' so I gener'ly gage it....


makes life easier.


That, and I can't afford Jerry's or Jackie's million dollar/million pound lathes that are "heavy, stiff and straight," ;) and all they'd do is make it more costly to make stuff crookedy....

But I absolutely CAN make straight cases, and I absolutely CAN chamber a line of barrels to shoot them.....50-100 times each if I want to....on cheepo chicom equipment. I can even make the dies which are the critical component to maintain the tolerances.....


SO, I'll say it again.


The REAL TEST of your setup is not "does it shoot"......... it is "can you do it over and over, day in and day out, barrel after barrel and can you wear out a barrel with only 20 cases?"

And then use these same 20 cases in your next barrel if need be??

And never trim them?

And never anneal (unless you want to...)???
 
i cannot comply with pete's spec...'cause i do not use bushings
 
CMaier said:
i cannot comply with pete's spec...'cause i do not use bushings
Click to expand...

Why?
Is it because running a pilot will damage the lands?
Or that the lands run out relative to the grooves?

Nothing snarky, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

Regards,
Ron
 
Go read the upper post.
Taper bored, reamer follows it
No need to have a bushing trying to move
the reamer from the path i cut.
Bores are not straight.
 
Discussion

JerrySharrett said:
Well, why did you ask if you have the answers?



.
Click to expand...

Discussion is something that is tough to achieve on these forums. Lots of people have THE answer but very few will enter into an open discussion with discussion in mind. What I was looking for here was something to change my mind and I have yet to see it. Probably I should simply stay off here considering the situation. I'm never offended when someone does not agree with me or questions what I think to be true. I don't see much of that here. What I was looking for is for someone to explain away the potential for error in the question I asked. What I got was several methods of doing the job yet we are left with the bushing and the pusher, which I think many folks use solely.

Pete
 
Without the bushing, you are going to have more reamer flex. If your sure your set up is nice and true, why not use it??? Ill keep on using mine!! Actually its silly not to. Lee
 
imho,
just the opposite.
the reamer is following the taper bore. straight true no stress.
the bushing will try to follow the bore..which is not straight, creating stress and
attempting to pull the reamer off the intended path.

skeetlee said:
Without the bushing, you are going to have more reamer flex. If your sure your set up is nice and true, why not use it??? Ill keep on using mine!! Actually its silly not to. Lee
Click to expand...
 
What I like about chambering thru the head stock using the cats head:
And why I fill most comfortable using a fitted bushing after indicating two points in the bore then taper bore indicated off the reamer using the tailstock and compound to the nearest .0001.
(How do I know for sure the reamer chucked up in the tail stock is square to the spline bore?)
P.S. I have checked my tail stock every way possible that I know of to be true to the spline bore, but then there is the mores taper and chuck that can be off.

No matter if I chuck the reamer up tight in tailstock or use a pusher or floater holder. I want the reamer to start straight with the two points that I indicated. Without the use of a bushing how do I KNOW FOR SURE the reamer is going to start straight if it only has one contact point ( that being a the very base of the chamber.) I know the reamer SHOULD FOLLOW the tapered bore. But then is my tail stock 100% true to the spline bore is the pusher 100% square the floater is just going to follow how it is started. I fill that starting the reamer with the same two contact points that I had indicated in early is the most surest way of staring the reamer straight and then it will follow the taper bored chamber with the fitted bushing help. What happens between the two indicated points is removed by the prebore. That’s why I personally like the floater and using the fitted busting. Tried quite a few other ways and this is what give’s me the best results, so myself I am staying with the floater and fitted bushing.

Chet
 
But your second "point" is just that..a single point.
Once you advance the reamer, the bushing is trying to follow the bore,
which we all know is not straight.
The bushing tries to follow the worm hole we call a bore, putting stress on the tapered portion .

Again just my 2 cents worth, spend it well.


If you start with the bushing for 1/4" or so, then go reamer fit in the
taper, it might be better/less stress.
As Pete says, it a conversation of ideas and opinions.

coyotechet said:
What I like about chambering thru the head stock using the cats head:
And why I fill most comfortable using a fitted bushing after indicating two points in the bore then taper bore indicated off the reamer using the tailstock and compound to the nearest .0001.
(How do I know for sure the reamer chucked up in the tail stock is square to the spline bore?)
P.S. I have checked my tail stock every way possible that I know of to be true to the spline bore, but then there is the mores taper and chuck that can be off.

No matter if I chuck the reamer up tight in tailstock or use a pusher or floater holder. I want the reamer to start straight with the two points that I indicated. Without the use of a bushing how do I KNOW FOR SURE the reamer is going to start straight if it only has one contact point ( that being a the very base of the chamber.) I know the reamer SHOULD FOLLOW the tapered bore. But then is my tail stock 100% true to the spline bore is the pusher 100% square the floater is just going to follow how it is started. I fill that starting the reamer with the same two contact points that I had indicated in early is the most surest way of staring the reamer straight and then it will follow the taper bored chamber with the fitted bushing help. What happens between the two indicated points is removed by the prebore. That’s why I personally like the floater and using the fitted busting. Tried quite a few other ways and this is what give’s me the best results, so myself I am staying with the floater and fitted bushing.

Chet
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One plus

to no bushing is if you use oil through the bbl. Alot more oil goes by the reamer and keeps the chips flushed out.
I can finish the chamber in two "passes" with the reamer doing it this way. If every thing is dialed in perfectly I have seen no difference between bushing vs no bushing. Looking through the the bore scope both methods work equally well.

Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top