New grizzly "south bend heavy ten"

Boyd,

I believe these other examples sound good to talk about but are ultimately confusing without a deeper knowledge of harmonics in materials. The roller coaster frame harmonic issue was further complicated by the restrictions to added weight to the structure. Compromises had to be made since they couldn't fill the tubes with concrete or some other optimal material.

Particle dampening has its place but its not in an application that has no weight restrictions. In a wing tip maybe, in a fancy barrel tuner maybe as well. From the studies I have read on particle dampening it seems to shine in an application where the particles are changing directions with the frequency. The particles carry a kinetic energy and impart that onto the part of the structure reversing direction in the wave, damping its motion. That's how I understood it anyway.

Someplace a while back I saw you posted a link to acoustic foam as a means of reducing the sound transmitted through a wall. This is the same sort of thing. The foam will prevent an erratic deflection of the sound waves but the waves will pass right through it without reducing it much at all. On the inside of the room we would have the perception that the sound has been reduced or absorbed but in fact it has not.

You are correct that adding oil and sand to a tube will reduce the "ting" to a thud. Filling it with concrete or lead will make for a duller thud.
 
Boyd Allen said:
A number of years back, I suggested that Sims Vibration Laboratory offer their Deresonators (rifle barrel vibration dampers) with IDs large enough so that they could be used on larger diameter barrels. They did, and sent me a couple for evaluation. The effect that they have on the ringing of a free floated barrel is remarkable, reducing a "ting" to a thud.
Click to expand...

Boyd,

I had to look up Sims Vibration Laboratory since I wasn't familiar. http://www.limbsaver.com/product/limbsaver-barrel-de-resonator/ They have some pretty TALL claims on the product. Since you have some, have you, or could you, replace the "deresonator" with a tightly fixed object of equal weight in the same location and see if you can detect a change in the ting or the thud? Pretty please?:D

Had i only known I could have made those 2-3" factory guns less than 1 MOA guns for $11.99... :rolleyes:
 
I may not get around to finding something suitable for some time, but you may note that Jackie and Gene have rubber built into their tuners. Also I have played with all metal tuners and they did not damp the ring like the soft rubber. Of course I am not saying that Sims' claims are to be taken at face value, but friends that have tried them on various rifles have seen two things, either no effect, or a definite improvement, this with some fiddling with position on the barrel. One fellow that I met at the range had bought himself (if I remember correctly) a nice looking Browning short magnum sporter, and since he was so impressed with it, bought an identical one for his son. Unlike the first, he went through a couple of hundred dollars of different components in an unsuccessful attempt to get it to shoot to as well as the first one, at which point he came across an ad for the deresonator, bought one, mounted it on his barrel just in front of the stock, and found that his problem was solved. I think that the main issues with these things are that they are cheap, and very ugly. People generally don't tend to believe that cheap things are worth anything, and no one wants to ugly up his rifle. Additionally benchrest shooters, and shooters in general (come to think of it all of humanity) are not prone to trying things that they are not familiar with, no matter how inexpensive they are. Rubber sound damping materials are everywhere. They work.
 
A sample of one I know, but I tried a Deresonator on a BR rifle at a match and it was a disaster. I wanted to give it a good chance, but the drop in accuracy was so obvious that I took it off before the second match of the day.

YMMV,
Keith
 
Generally speaking I do not recommend trying anything new at a match. Also, any weight that you hang on a barrel is very likely to require retuning. My friend Joe has used one, mid barrel, in conjunction with a tuner at the muzzle, on a rimfire rifle that is amazingly accurate. When he sets one up, he makes marks on the barrel about a half inch apart, moves the tuner, and shoots test groups until he likes what he sees. When I used one with a tuner (6PPC), over a match weekend, I had tuned up the rifle with both in place, and tried more than one configuration. Luckily, I found a good combination that shot better than a bare barrel.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Generally speaking I do not recommend trying anything new at a match. ...
Click to expand...

Hah! I have made that mistake more than once! :eek: But the bad result with the Deresonator was the biggest surprise, thinking that added mass and damping at the muzzle couldn't make things worse. I can't think of a repeatable way to move it 0.001" at a time, so it doesn't seem like something that can be used as the primary tuner. Mid-barrel seems like a better place for it.
 
For the deresonator, I think that the best approach for CF is to do some load tuning with it at various locations. Mine was 2" back from the muzzle.
 
How does Grizzly's G4003 lathe compare to the heavy 10?
The heavy 10 is a very good looking lathe but I can not spend that much money for a lathe.

Thanks

Glenn
 
glenn
I cant help you there. I haven't ever been around that model of grizzly lathe. I have the big Gun smithing grizzly lathe and that machine would eat this much smaller heavy 10. 3500 pounds compared to 600 pounds. I like owning both, and I will use both probably equally. Lee

I am no machinist by any means. I just have a passion for accurate rifles, and I love playing with my machines. However if someone were to ask me what lathe they should buy for starting out? I would have to say a belt drive jet 13x40. that's the machine I started out with and I really wish I hadn't sold it. A friend of mine has one and he is thinking of retiring soon. When the new shop is finished and if I have the room and the cash I may have to own it. The belt drive spindle makes for some really nice finishes. Lee
 
Last edited:
skeetlee
I know what you mean. I have a Colchester 15 x 60" but it is to big to do barrel work like I want to do it. I wouldn't worry about a gear driven lathe, the gears don't appear to cause roughness. The main thing is the spindle bearings. I had a 20 X 80 Chinese lathe that would cut good tolerances but I never did like it, it just didn't feel smooth.

Glenn
 
An interesting thing about lathes

is the accuracy some of those old, big lathes seem to yield. I watch a lot of Youtube Machining vids and those old Monarchs, etc. turn out some pretty good results. I would love to have a lathe that has a brake, for instance and or be able to change directions readily and have an easier time selecting speeds. ( I have a Heavy 10) Also, the Harding line of lathes seems to be just divine to use. Tom's Techniques features a Harding Toolroom Lathe. If I had it to do over and know what I know now - - - :)

Pete
 
On the subject of the workability of lathes that are long through the headstock, I think that building one of the mid-bed half headstocks would solve any problem as long as the bed is long enough.
 
Boyd Allen said:
On the subject of the workability of lathes that are long through the headstock, I think that building one of the mid-bed half headstocks would solve any problem as long as the bed is long enough.
Click to expand...

Since I've never seen or heard of one how, functionally, how would a mid-bed half headstock differ from a steadyrest?
 
Last edited:
Its just a rock solid steadyrest jerry. Like having a 2 piece spindle with precision bearings like a headstock in the steadyrest
 
Dusty Stevens said:
Its just a rock solid steadyrest jerry. Like having a 2 piece spindle with precision bearings like a headstock in the steadyrest
Click to expand...

Thanks Dusty, but have you seen one? Who makes them? I've searched this beloved internet and ya'lltube and can't find one??

I still pose the question, functionally how does it differ from a steadyrest?


(LIBMR rabbits??)
 
JerrySharrett said:
I still pose the question, functionally how does it differ from a steadyrest?


(LIBMR rabbits??)
Click to expand...


Since it is like a headstock with a spindle riding on bearings, one could use a 4 jaw, set-tru or spider chuck on it and be able to adjust both ends any way they want.
 
Last edited:
I am only going to speak for myself about the mid-bed half headstock that I made.
I can adjust the bore T.I.R. to .0001 or darn close with a Brown & Sharpe .0001 Indicator (7023-3). And do it each and every time I try. Which is something that ( I ) cannot do with a good steady rest. That’s why I do all my barrel work thru the head stock also.

Chet
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top