Chambers for RFBR rifles

[tonykharper]

Here's the link (for the second time), in case you missed it.

https://www.rimfireaccuracy.com/Forum/index.php?threads/testing-chambers-for-lapua-use.23372/

Kevin,

Thank you for clearing up this Meyer vs Nevius chamber thing up.

It appears from your tone you are still angry. So, this may not be the best time to ask but I'll risk it anyway.

Is this the way you and Jerry intend to test the deep vs shallow engraved chambers.

"Jerry is going to cut his normal engraving chamber then test the set up. Establish a base line.
Then cut this chamber deeper (meaning less engraving) (your current method) and test this setup, then compare a. vs b.

Have I got that right?

TKH

 

[kevinnevius]

Kevin,

Thank you for clearing up this Meyer vs Nevius chamber thing up.

It appears from your tone you are still angry. So, this may not be the best time to ask but I'll risk it anyway.

Is this the way you and Jerry intend to test the deep vs shallow engraved chambers.

"Jerry is going to cut his normal engraving chamber then test the set up. Establish a base line.
Then cut this chamber deeper (meaning less engraving) (your current method) and test this setup, then compare a. vs b.

Have I got that right?

TKH

Tony:

I'm not angry, I'm really not - more disappointed I guess.

All I ever tried to do was share some testing, and have some conversation about it. I enjoy people, and I love to hear of others experiences - these forums can be amazing places for learning new things (or validating ideas, which is the case here).

This is probably just my perception, but it feels like you are coming after me with these posts. It's probably a me problem, but it is making me very sorry I ever posted any information in the first place.

But to answer your question, I contacted Jerry, and he emailed me this afternoon. He has some ideas on collaboration, but was going to be busy for a week or two - he said he would call me when things calmed down a bit.

Based on how this thread has gone though, I must admit I am very tentative sharing anything else. Being continually on defense is tiring.

My apologies if you found any of my posts negative or short tempered. Writing like this always lacks context.

Thanks,

kev

 

[linekin]

Keith,


On another note, what do you think of the chambering test Kevin and Jerry are planning?

TKH

I think it would be pretty cool if it comes to fruition. I think we would all gain from it. I'm happy both are willing to share their findings.
I'm not exactly sure what is being tested though. Finished vs unfinished chambers, or chamber length. I guess both.

Keith

 

[linekin]

Tony:

I'm not angry, I'm really not - more disappointed I guess.

All I ever tried to do was share some testing, and have some conversation about it. I enjoy people, and I love to hear of others experiences - these forums can be amazing places for learning new things (or validating ideas, which is the case here).

This is probably just my perception, but it feels like you are coming after me with these posts. It's probably a me problem, but it is making me very sorry I ever posted any information in the first place.

But to answer your question, I contacted Jerry, and he emailed me this afternoon. He has some ideas on collaboration, but was going to be busy for a week or two - he said he would call me when things calmed down a bit.

Based on how this thread has gone though, I must admit I am very tentative sharing anything else. Being continually on defense is tiring.

My apologies if you found any of my posts negative or short tempered. Writing like this always lacks context.

Thanks,

kev

Kevin, please don't be sorry for sharing info or tentative on sharing in the future. Its what I've always appreciated about you. Your being forthright in you findings.
Your credentials speak for themselves & just proves to me at least that its not a one way street..

Keith

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Kevin, please don't be sorry for sharing info or tentative on sharing in the future. Its what I've always appreciated about you. Your being forthright in you findings.
Your credentials speak for themselves & just proves to me at least that its not a one way street..

Keith

I want to echo what Keith is saying, I think I been very vocal since 2016 about using your chambering information and have had many shooters reach out to me to ask questions. I have not had a single one come back and tell me it didn't work for them.

your help has been invaluable to me and many others. please provide what your collaboration between Jerry and you will disclose.

Lee

 

[Kent Owens]

Very interesting reading, gentlemen. rimfire rifles, lead bullets, and barrels, and their nature makes it extremely difficult to compare test data from one to another. But, I always noticed that Mr. Calfee seemed to do it very well back when I was shooting. His method seemed to get results consistently.

 

[tim]

Very interesting reading, gentlemen. rimfire rifles, lead bullets, and barrels, and their nature makes it extremely difficult to compare test data from one to another. But, I always noticed that Mr. Calfee seemed to do it very well back when I was shooting. His method seemed to get results consistently.

Well you say that, and Ibhave pondered that objectively and would ask a question.
Given how many guns BC built and given that he sort of cherry picked most of his buyers, that’s a lot of guns.
There are a handful of guys that are regular winners, Tony is a fine example, but how many out of that total number of guns?
I would tend to suspect his “ batting average “ if you will, is not as high as many suspect but this is only a guess.
I wonder how many guns, total, got turned out, even excluding the early ones often based on Annie 54’s and 40X’s.
Many Tony would venture a guess?

 

[George Atkins]

Kent, good to hear from you again. You may want to read this.

Tim,
I would say, that most of the rifles that Mr.Calfee built were in fact good to go when they left his hands. A lot of why they don't always do well out in the field, has to do with the new owner, not knowing how lot test ammo, how to properly setup a rest and especially how to just leave it as built and tuned. I can testify to that. Kent built a Falcon for a man in Ohio back in 2015 I think, well he had it less than a month and put it up for sale. I bought it. Here is a picture of the first time I shot it after putting a scope on it, ( I did not have the proper rings so I improvised) . A ammo test. I fouled 10 rounds off target, changed lots 4 times, no fouling between lots.


Now at this time I did not have a rest and I had not made the bi-pods that I used on yet. So, I shot that target off a 6x6 block. Full 54 yards outdoors.


I had never shot a rifle as accurate this one was. Kent delivered a rifle capable of winning anywhere. It won exactly one match, the meters portion of the 2016 IR50/50 Indoor Nationals and finished 2nd overall. It always did well in what few matches I took it to, winning a target once in awhile, but never achieved its full potential. Why? I would not leave it alone, simple as that. Now I am sure a dud gets out the door once in awhile, but usually its something simple, trigger hanger moved, FP spring collapsed or broke......... I would think a good rimfire smith would feel certain, that when he sends the rifle to the new owner, he has done his best to insure a good rifle. What happens after that, is out of his hands. .

 

[tim]

Yes, I quite understand that’s a part of it as well as more than a few killed with a cleaning rod but that still leaves a big number. Remember, they’ve been coming for 30+years, more or less.

 

[Kent Owens]

Nice to see George! A fella can only do so much, the rest is up to the shooter to test ammo and practice, and hopefully don't choke LOL I never sent a rifle out that I didn't think I could win a match with myself. Some folks got better results than others, because as you mentioned, there are a lot of variables at play.

 

[linekin]

Setup

I've copied this from the Tony's initial post about how Kevin chambers. Not sure if this was from an initial post 10 years ago or a more recent one. The only reason I bring this up is there really isn't much out there on rimfire chambering as there is centerfire. There are plenty of threads devoted to cf chambering.
"Quote" from Kev
If you are interested, I use JGS carbide reamers, at 180rpm, fed exceptionally slow (cleaning chips every .100, and .030 on the last pass) with the older (non EPA compliant) tap magic fluid. Not sure what is in that stuff, but it cuts exceptionally clean chambers with sharp tools. I chamber in a steady rest from the tailstock. There are a million ways to do it, and again, not saying this is the best way (it's just the best way I've found, for my equipment). "Quote"

Kev, are you still using this method? I'm guessing that if you're in a steady then you're between centers?
I tried this initially years ago & wasn't happy with what I'd done. I don't machine between centers at work very often, ( could be years between doing so), so had some vibration.
Anyhow, I have been machining thru the spindle in either a 4 jaw, or most recently set-tru 3 jaw. I made a spider for the back of the spindle but have all but abandoned that to & have just been using delrin bushings that are a slight interference fit.
I've got a Heavy 10 at home so it has a short spindle. The lathe's at work spindles are to long for a spider & our barrels so was where I initially went with this method.
I also use a PTG floating holder after much deliberation years ago reading all the cf threads. Most everyone prefers a pusher feeling that any other way has the potential to muck up concentricity. I hoped that our rf chambers being considerably shorter that wouldn't show up. I haven't seen it to this point.
Anyhow just curious how others prefer doing them.
Keith

 

[kevinnevius]

I've copied this from the Tony's initial post about how Kevin chambers. Not sure if this was from an initial post 10 years ago or a more recent one. The only reason I bring this up is there really isn't much out there on rimfire chambering as there is centerfire. There are plenty of threads devoted to cf chambering.
"Quote" from Kev
If you are interested, I use JGS carbide reamers, at 180rpm, fed exceptionally slow (cleaning chips every .100, and .030 on the last pass) with the older (non EPA compliant) tap magic fluid. Not sure what is in that stuff, but it cuts exceptionally clean chambers with sharp tools. I chamber in a steady rest from the tailstock. There are a million ways to do it, and again, not saying this is the best way (it's just the best way I've found, for my equipment). "Quote"

Kev, are you still using this method? I'm guessing that if you're in a steady then you're between centers?
I tried this initially years ago & wasn't happy with what I'd done. I don't machine between centers at work very often, ( could be years between doing so), so had some vibration.
Anyhow, I have been machining thru the spindle in either a 4 jaw, or most recently set-tru 3 jaw. I made a spider for the back of the spindle but have all but abandoned that to & have just been using delrin bushings that are a slight interference fit.
I've got a Heavy 10 at home so it has a short spindle. The lathe's at work spindles are to long for a spider & our barrels so was where I initially went with this method.
I also use a PTG floating holder after much deliberation years ago reading all the cf threads. Most everyone prefers a pusher feeling that any other way has the potential to muck up concentricity. I hoped that our rf chambers being considerably shorter that wouldn't show up. I haven't seen it to this point.
Anyhow just curious how others prefer doing them.
Keith

Good morning Keith:

Yes, I am still doing it this way, after trying a lot of other configurations.

My lathe is a Clausing Colshester (fairly new as lathes go!). Most lathes have a tailstock that is several indicates several thousandths above spindle CL, probably to compensate for wear as the years pass. I used to chamber in the headstock with a spider (after truing OD / ID concentricity), using a JGS floating reamer holder - nothing wrong with that either.

I just like truing concentricity with the tailstock, then setting up the steady rest on the trued surface. When done properly, I get basically zero runout and can push the reamer with the tailstock by hand (using a small torque arm) with it running on the tailstock CL. FYI I use a JGS live pilot tapered pin to check runout at the datum face and at 1.000 (our chambers as you mentioned are so short that runout at these distances is basically zero).

I love the JGS floating reamer holder - I use it for all of my HP / LR chambering, but for RF, I just don't like the small amount of side loading it applies inherently through its design. It's probably just me being OCD, but I like pushing the reamer with the tailstock by hand. You can feel it cutting, and there's a certain way it feels when you get the speeds / feeds just right.

There are a million ways to do it - this is just mine. And I am self-taught, so I am positive better ways are out there!

Thanks for the reply, all the best,

kev

 

[linekin]

Good morning Keith:

Yes, I am still doing it this way, after trying a lot of other configurations.

My lathe is a Clausing Colshester (fairly new as lathes go!). Most lathes have a tailstock that is several indicates several thousandths above spindle CL, probably to compensate for wear as the years pass. I used to chamber in the headstock with a spider (after truing OD / ID concentricity), using a JGS floating reamer holder - nothing wrong with that either.

I just like truing concentricity with the tailstock, then setting up the steady rest on the trued surface. When done properly, I get basically zero runout and can push the reamer with the tailstock by hand (using a small torque arm) with it running on the tailstock CL. FYI I use a JGS live pilot tapered pin to check runout at the datum face and at 1.000 (our chambers as you mentioned are so short that runout at these distances is basically zero).

I love the JGS floating reamer holder - I use it for all of my HP / LR chambering, but for RF, I just don't like the small amount of side loading it applies inherently through its design. It's probably just me being OCD, but I like pushing the reamer with the tailstock by hand. You can feel it cutting, and there's a certain way it feels when you get the speeds / feeds just right.

There are a million ways to do it - this is just mine. And I am self-taught, so I am positive better ways are out there!

Thanks for the reply, all the best,

kev

Thanks for the response Kev.
As to not finishing chamber I feel as you do in that I don't want to muck up what I've done. I don't have the sample size that you or other gunsmiths have but from what I've seen with most barrels is I question the need to. Not that I don't feel its important or beneficial. Done right I'm sure it can be. Done wrong & its a disaster. Always want to avoid those.
I have noticed for what I believe is the barrel steel that the Benchmarks I've done have always looked better than others. Having said that they've all shot better right out of the gate too. I guess thats kinda telling me somethingas to finishing chambers.
Thankfully my inexpensive borescopes s--t the bed a couple years ago & the barrels I've done since have all shot well from the start. Around that time I also acquired the JGS Nevius reamer to which is head & shoulder above what I'd previously used.
Not knowing can't hurt. LOL!!
Again, thanks for sharing & good luck with you're future retirement!
Keith