How Good?

[Curious]

Ive read many times that many a good shooting rifle has been chambered using the steady rest method and without an indicator in sight. Ive also read many times the more logical theory (to me at least) about setting the barrel up in the headstock and dialing in the throat along with another part, either the muzzle or the back of the chamber. Then there is the debate about pre-boring, roughing reamers or just straight in with the finisher and relying on the pilot to follow the bore.

Next we come onto measuring our work at the end which makes a lot of sense but then again if we dont achieve the tolerances hoped for do we cut the chamber off and start again? or shoot the rifle and get a surprise at just how well it shoots?

I was taught to chamber and thread/crown by someone who quite frankly in hindsight I now feel cuts corners, the fact is though that his rifles still shoot really well, not just for me but many others I know who he has built for.

For example he dials in using a range rod at the approximate throat (where Ive proven to myself many times now that they just dont repeat well), how can you trust something that gives different readings when removed and re-inserted? he then dials the muzzle end on the outside to within 0.003" (thousandths here not tenths) and is most likely just bending the barrel into this position as the front is already held very securely in a 4 jaw. To add more insult to this he crowns the muzzle in a 3 jaw (which he says is accurate when most aren't) without indicating anything and puts the threads on using a die in a tailstock die holder! He built a rifle for me this way which shot 0.5" groups at 300yds more than once.

Since Ive started building my own rifles I have followed this forum and much of the good advice. I indicate the throat and muzzle, pre-bore and chamber to within 0.0005" (often less in many areas) and then dial in the muzzle for single point threading and crowning. Im very happy with my rifles and their accuracy, all shoot 0.25" groups on a good day and sub 1" or better at 300yds but it really has made me wonder just how accurately we need to work to build a good rifle and possibly how much more important good load development is?

Im not looking to cut corners, Im quite happy to work the way I am and strive for as close to machining perfection as I can get but it still irks me when I see friends targets I would be happy my rifle shot from rifles built in this less that ideal way.

Im curious as to just how critical tight matching tolerances are to accuracy, as I said, Im not looking to cut corners, rather Im curious!

 

[Mozella]

...... snip...............

Im curious as to just how critical tight matching tolerances are to accuracy, as I said, Im not looking to cut corners, rather Im curious!

SHORT ANSWER: I have to believe that your approach to machining is a good one. If you have the capability to work to tight tolerances and assuming you can finish the set-up and machine work in this life time, why not do it? What is the alternative?

LONG ANSWER: I'm not a gunsmith; I just pretend to be one in my garage. I'm sure you'll get plenty of answers to your question, but I suspect most of them will be guesses. Here is my guess.

I think most of us believe that good practices and consistency are keys to success. For many of us, measuring success means shooting small groups. The problem with evaluating the zillion different parameters which can effect the final group size is obvious to anyone who has given this some thought. Rating their importance is even more difficult. Is the way you pull the trigger more or less important to the way you adjust neck tension? You get the idea.

Then there are things which are not only difficult to test but also tedious and/or expensive to test. There is a current thread started by someone claiming to be testing possible changes in group size based on gas annealing vs induction annealing........... give me a break.

Take load development for example. It's a challenge for most shooters because it takes time, it's tedious, and it's not inexpensive. In real life, most shooters stop when they find a "good enough" recipe.

Testing barrel machining tolerances and how they effect group size (assuming you're looking for scientific proof) is worse....... much worse. Is any normal person going to actually test barrels built to different standards in an attempt to find out which of the many steps in making a barrel deserves close attention to detail and which don't matter so much? And then do the test again to improve his confidence level? It's just WAY too expensive and time consuming.

But you gotta' believe that "near perfect" is better than "just OK", or at least it seems that way to me. For instance, Bryan Litz, in his latest book, couldn't find that annealing improves group size, but I anneal every time anyway 'cause I'm a believer. If nothing else, my brass lasts a long time.

Until someone does some genuine scientific testing, I like your approach to barrel machining; do the best job you reasonably can.

 

[B.Larson]

Perfect Chambers.......

So....this fella who took the time to train you...the one who you now feel cut corners... but "his rifles shot good".... How much did you pay him.......?????...... are you sure you understood what and why he was doing something....?????...
seems to me like you`d be better off doing it the way you were taught.... until you chamber good chambers.....then employ your better methods...???.......
there are lotsa ways to skin cats....... the end result is what counts.........
Good thing you didn't sign your real name as your teacher,if he read your post would have felt he didn't get paid enough to teach you...and you didn't appreciate his time spent.....
bill larson

 

[alinwa]

Ive read many times that many a good shooting rifle has been chambered using the steady rest method and without an indicator in sight. Ive also read many times the more logical theory (to me at least) about setting the barrel up in the headstock and dialing in the throat along with another part, either the muzzle or the back of the chamber. Then there is the debate about pre-boring, roughing reamers or just straight in with the finisher and relying on the pilot to follow the bore.

Next we come onto measuring our work at the end which makes a lot of sense but then again if we dont achieve the tolerances hoped for do we cut the chamber off and start again? or shoot the rifle and get a surprise at just how well it shoots?

I was taught to chamber and thread/crown by someone who quite frankly in hindsight I now feel cuts corners, the fact is though that his rifles still shoot really well, not just for me but many others I know who he has built for.

For example he dials in using a range rod at the approximate throat (where Ive proven to myself many times now that they just dont repeat well), how can you trust something that gives different readings when removed and re-inserted? he then dials the muzzle end on the outside to within 0.003" (thousandths here not tenths) and is most likely just bending the barrel into this position as the front is already held very securely in a 4 jaw. To add more insult to this he crowns the muzzle in a 3 jaw (which he says is accurate when most aren't) without indicating anything and puts the threads on using a die in a tailstock die holder! He built a rifle for me this way which shot 0.5" groups at 300yds more than once.

Since Ive started building my own rifles I have followed this forum and much of the good advice. I indicate the throat and muzzle, pre-bore and chamber to within 0.0005" (often less in many areas) and then dial in the muzzle for single point threading and crowning. Im very happy with my rifles and their accuracy, all shoot 0.25" groups on a good day and sub 1" or better at 300yds but it really has made me wonder just how accurately we need to work to build a good rifle and possibly how much more important good load development is?

Im not looking to cut corners, Im quite happy to work the way I am and strive for as close to machining perfection as I can get but it still irks me when I see friends targets I would be happy my rifle shot from rifles built in this less that ideal way.

Im curious as to just how critical tight matching tolerances are to accuracy, as I said, Im not looking to cut corners, rather Im curious!

It's perty easy to get a gun to "shoot good."

Especially if 1/4moa is "good."

A 1/4moa rifle won't win anything, anywhere these days unless't one is standing on his hindfeet in the grass shooting at fake peeple or huge black circles.

BUT!!

That ain't the issue here..... to make a gun shoot GOOD one must have a good sizing die. A good sizing die will run from 100.00 for a decent one (in limited chamberings) to 350.00 for a good one (and even 1000.00++ for a certain one)

To keep this gun shooting GOOD one must have the ability to chamber to this die over and over and over, 10-20-50 times.

IMO when a chambering-person can make identical chambers 9 times out of 10, chambers which will interchange brass and die settings AND THE CASES LAST.........then whatever the method that person has, his ducks in order...

 

[Curious]

So....this fella who took the time to train you...the one who you now feel cut corners... but "his rifles shot good".... How much did you pay him.......?????...... are you sure you understood what and why he was doing something....?????...
seems to me like you`d be better off doing it the way you were taught.... until you chamber good chambers.....then employ your better methods...???.......
there are lotsa ways to skin cats....... the end result is what counts.........
Good thing you didn't sign your real name as your teacher,if he read your post would have felt he didn't get paid enough to teach you...and you didn't appreciate his time spent.....
bill larson

I think you have picked this situation up wrongly Bill, if Ive portrayed it in such a way to make you think the way you do then its my fault.

The guy who showed me his chambering method is a friend, he didn't take any time to train me as such, I stood with him while he chambered and threaded a barrel and we discussed his method and he gave his reasons for doing what he did, I full understood his reasoning for everything. I know with 100% certainty that this gentleman will never read this thread, nor will he ever know I had this discussion or my true feelings towards his work. In the end I also gave him some food for thought on some of his machining practises as I have been machining for just over 30yrs now which I know he took on board and was grateful for.

Thanks to the good information shared here I have a method which I now work to which is in my opinion much better than the one I was shown, it has delivered measurable results in terms of concentricity and the rifles have been accurate to the standards I mentioned earlier which makes me happy, I build varminting rifles which are shot from makeshift shooting positions rather than properly rested on a bench.

As I said in the beginning, the whole thing just leaves me curious.

 

[Curious]

SHORT ANSWER: I have to believe that your approach to machining is a good one. If you have the capability to work to tight tolerances and assuming you can finish the set-up and machine work in this life time, why not do it? What is the alternative?

LONG ANSWER: I'm not a gunsmith; I just pretend to be one in my garage. I'm sure you'll get plenty of answers to your question, but I suspect most of them will be guesses. Here is my guess.

I think most of us believe that good practices and consistency are keys to success. For many of us, measuring success means shooting small groups. The problem with evaluating the zillion different parameters which can effect the final group size is obvious to anyone who has given this some thought. Rating their importance is even more difficult. Is the way you pull the trigger more or less important to the way you adjust neck tension? You get the idea.

Then there are things which are not only difficult to test but also tedious and/or expensive to test. There is a current thread started by someone claiming to be testing possible changes in group size based on gas annealing vs induction annealing........... give me a break.

Take load development for example. It's a challenge for most shooters because it takes time, it's tedious, and it's not inexpensive. In real life, most shooters stop when they find a "good enough" recipe.

Testing barrel machining tolerances and how they effect group size (assuming you're looking for scientific proof) is worse....... much worse. Is any normal person going to actually test barrels built to different standards in an attempt to find out which of the many steps in making a barrel deserves close attention to detail and which don't matter so much? And then do the test again to improve his confidence level? It's just WAY too expensive and time consuming.

But you gotta' believe that "near perfect" is better than "just OK", or at least it seems that way to me. For instance, Bryan Litz, in his latest book, couldn't find that annealing improves group size, but I anneal every time anyway 'cause I'm a believer. If nothing else, my brass lasts a long time.

Until someone does some genuine scientific testing, I like your approach to barrel machining; do the best job you reasonably can.

Thanks for your thoughts Mozella, thats pretty much how Ive resolved things to this point.

 

[alinwa]

Seems to me 'curious' that you're not "curious in search of truths" but moreso "curious to discuss/compare unfounded opinions, and find people who think like me."

Read Harold Vaughn or Jim Borden, do some real testing to eliminate a bunch of these "I don't know if they matter" variables..... in short, look for ANSWERS if you're going to post on this forum.

You tend to make unfounded assumptions re the work of others, for instance

......and relying on the pilot to follow the bore.

and

do we cut the chamber off and start again? or shoot the rifle and get a surprise at just how well it shoots?

And on and on, assumption after assumption.

-you reference range rods as "not repeatable" .....true....but also NOT USED by very many precision gunsmiths as anyone who's ever tested them knows them to be unreliable. I wouldn't use a range rod in a pistol bore yet you assume they're widely used.

regarding this whole paragraph,

Next we come onto measuring our work at the end which makes a lot of sense but then again if we dont achieve the tolerances hoped for do we cut the chamber off and start again? or shoot the rifle and get a surprise at just how well it shoots?

My answer is "NO, some of us set that barrel aside and start over with a new blank." The blank currently in my lathe is one of these..... I SCREWED UP, so the barrel gets set aside and a NEW ONE started for my client....And TRULY, it's just NOT ABOUT "how well it shoots" to all of us. It really is easy to luck into a "barrel that shoots".... in my case it's about "can I do this again and again, barrel after barrel, while maintaining this standard"


There are other ways of looking at the entire picture.... for instance you state

Im curious as to just how critical tight matching tolerances are to accuracy, as I said, Im not looking to cut corners, rather Im curious!

when perhaps another way to look at it would be "I wonder WHICH tolerances are critical"

And "WHY??"

In the end, "The Man Who Learns HOW To Do The Work Will Always Have A Job, The Man Who Learns WHY Will Always Be His Boss"

Please, if you're truly "curious" listen to others and stop putting forth these assumptions as to how others think and approach problems.....

Meantime, if you're just looking for a few people to agree with your opinion set, change your name to "looking for people with whom to share my assumptions"