blueprinting

[Hal D.]

I haven't blueprinted all that many actions in the short time that I've been doing this stuff, but I use the methods that I've found here as well as some other great sites. I set the action in my own spider, and get it indicated at two points on a raceway mandrel so that its running within .0001" or less at both indicators. I then take a cut of .001" off the receiver face and check to see how much it cleans up. From there it's usually only a touch more to clean the whole thing up. I then do the same for the locking lug recesses until they are cleaned up 100%. Then I set up to re-cut the threads up with a single point tool as this is the only way to get them true with the bolt raceway. Most of the time I use Dave Kiff's bolts and find that they give me 100% contact or damned close to it without any modification. I'm truly grateful to have this site as a resource for this kind of info, and to its contributors for that info. OK, now to why I've taken the time to write this up. I just pulled yet another barrel off a "blueprinted" action that wasn't blueprinted at all in my eyes, the lugs had been lapped in, and the face of the receiver is cleaned up, but that is all. I doubt the face of the receiver is true with the raceway anyway. I have pulled off quite a few barrels from these already worked over actions in the last couple years, and I must say that this seems like a trend. Almost all of these actions have received the same type of treatment, from big name to smaller name smiths as well as barrel makers. Now I don't care if these smiths don't make any cuts at all on the action when they do a rebarrel job, but it sure seems dishonest to claim that the action has been "blueprinted" when it really hasn't. I just got off the phone with a guy who wanted to know if his action had been blueprinted when he originally had it re-barreled, and he didn't like hearing that it hadn't, after all he paid for it. I have already satisfied my curiosity that a blueprinting job done right does make a big difference in the potential of the action, and that simply lapping the lugs does very little to help anything. I do question if I am being too picky about this, if its really necessary to go to these extremes for a hunting or varmint rifle, but I don't think its right for a gunsmith to call lapping the lugs and chasing the threads with a tap, a "blueprinting" job. Am I off base here?

Hal

 

[PPP MMM]

Hal yourn't picky

For a hunting rifle (blueprinting) is not that important, as virtually any rifle is capable, or rather have the potential to shoot 1MOA.
For a precision shooting, there is a call for all rifle/ammo components to be as precise as possible. The blueprinting is just one of those components.

If I order a job to be done I want that job to be done exactly as I've ordered. Unfortunately there is not many of those who understand what a "specific order" means and they always will try to put their 2c in to avoid and/or make an excuse for/why that a perfect job wasn't done. Unfortunatelly they never have an excuse why they can't take all the money.

Lapping bolt lugs in doesn't solve anything if the lapped surfaces aren't square at least with the receiver face. Even that is a slopy job and should be free of charge as it takes about 3 minutes and its rather cosmetic.

Shoot well
Peter

 

[Dennis Sorensen]

I don't use the word "blueprint" as it is really meaningless word when it come to actions... engines - that's a different story...

I discuss exactly what I will do with an action... if I true the action face and lug recesses and bolt face and bolt lugs... I state that and how I do it ... I rarely re-thread (unless really out of whack) or bump bolts as super accurate varmint/hunting rigs don't need it....

But what ever has been done and charged for should be described as such... not hidden in a word...

That's only fair...

 

[Hal D.]

I don't use the word "blueprint" as it is really meaningless word when it come to actions... engines - that's a different story...

I discuss exactly what I will do with an action... if I true the action face and lug recesses and bolt face and bolt lugs... I state that and how I do it ... I rarely re-thread (unless really out of whack) or bump bolts as super accurate varmint/hunting rigs don't need it....

But what ever has been done and charged for should be described as such... not hidden in a word...

That's only fair...

I agree completely Dennis. If a customer is OK with simple lug lapping or just doesn't want to pay for a full truing job, thats up to them. I think a gunsmith has an obligation to tell his customers what he is going to do to the action to true it up. I didn't label the truing of an action as blueprinting, its just a term thats used by many smiths as well as shooters. My real problem is that there are a whole slew of smiths out there that use the term very loosely when referring to what they are going to do to true up an action. I would think that 90% of the shooters out there don't even have a clue what it is to true up and action, and they are being duped by many smiths that are gonna "blueprint" their action.

 

[koginam]

Call it what ever you want truing, blue printing, accurizing, as long as the smith and the customer agree on the work to be done thats all thats important. The smith should explain what he does in a blue printing job if the customer feel he wants more then fine put it on the list to do.