tonykharper
Well-known member
I copied these posts from another thread that has gotten off course and put it here so this subject can be further discussed.
This post is from Kevin N
Good morning Tony:
All of this happened in the first few years of my sponsorship (around 2011 I think), so to answer your question - no, I did not run any testing with Eley (or any other manufacturers ammunition). I have to believe that it would make a difference though, just based on what I saw initially and in all the barrels / seasons since.
From memory, I ran the initial testing with two older Hart barrels I horded (that were six groove .2170 / .2220 barrels). Since I have retested with everything I had - Benchmarks, Kriegers, Shilens (Octagons and Ratchets) and a very few Muller 8 groove blanks. Although the engagement depth preferences varied slightly, there has always been a "sweet spot" where group size and vertical dispersion leveled out, and that accuracy was maintained through 200+ rounds without cleaning (I don't like cleaning between individual matches at our events).
And I have never tried to establish a dimension from the datum (the .660" you mentioned) - when chambering, I use a number of live rounds, cleaned of lubrication, very gently seated against the leade until you can feel them make a hard stop. I then measure what Jerry calls the "stickout", or the distance from the back of the cartridge to the tennon datum face. That dimension minus headspace gives you engagement depth. I currently use the same setup found in the initial testing I ran of .0780 (minus .0430 HS) for an engagement depth of .0350 approx. Lapua ammunition is amazingly consistent round to round, and you would be amazed how repeatable this dimension is between rounds. Lead is soft, so I don't use the same round twice during verification (just in case there is a small amount of deformity). You can definitely feel a hard stop as the round seats against the leade.
Although I have never run this testing with Eley, I do have a "standard" Eley chamber I use (I shot Eley in competition my entire career prior to 2008, and was doing my own smithing at that time too). The chamber setup I use for Eley engraves with a "stickout" dimension of approximately .1360 (approx. .0930 engraving). I say approximately because I have found Eley far less repeatable round to round regarding the distance to the driving band. That's not a knock on Eley (we all know it shoots exceptionally well), it just doesn't allow measurement in this way without some bracketing. Just wanted to share what I was doing for Eley on the rare occasion I do a barrel for it. BTW.....Lapua in the same chamber engraves to a "stickout" depth of .1170 (Lapua's driving band position is shorter / smaller than that of EPS, about .0190).
I have tried a million chamber finishing methods - mandrels, lapping compounds, you name it. In the end (and please, this is only my opinion) I just couldn't justify putting anything even mildly abrasive in a chamber I have tried so hard through the machining process to be dimensionally perfect and concentric. So I have concentrated on speeds / feeds and lubrication to try to machine the most clean / smooth and burr free chambers I can - and let the round count do the rest. 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).
I hope I answered your questions, thanks for the reply,
kev
Quote Originally Posted by tonykharper View Post
Kevin,
Thanks again for sharing this information. I'm sure it has been eye opening for many people reading it here.
These forums are to expand and improve our sport and your post has helped that.
I have read you plan to retire soon. Congratulations! Be careful or you will be busier retired than you were when you worked full-time.
Even better news was you plan to offer gunsmithing services to the general public.
I believe in the adage if you build it, they will come. Your services will allow more shooters to enjoy our sport.
I would be less than honest if I allowed readers to think I agreed with your chambering techniques for RFBR rifles.
That is not to say you are wrong. It only says my experience has been considerably different from yours.
I will not pick your post apart or try to convince you there are better ways. That would be tacky.
Thanks again for your post. I hope you make many more sharing your experience. Differing points of view can only benefit us all.
TKH
Tony:
I understand, and would never propose I am doing it correctly (just the best way I have found).
I am very interested in what you do, please let me know - I really want to learn, and your techniques would really help me do so (disagree or not).
Please contribute, that's what this forum (and all forums) should be about.
kev
To continue this discussion I would like to add the following.
I think Lee kind of hit the nail on the head when he said he advocated using what is commonly called the "Nevius" style of chamber for rifles not chasing National titles. He went on to say many great targets have been shot with this style chamber. As I mentioned the late Bill Myers used this style of chamber many years ago and he and many of his customers shot really well with them.
But there was a difference with how Bill Meyers used this style of reamer. Bill had a process he used to finish his chambers.
Now I would like to go back even further in my shooting days.
The Winchester 52 was a fine target rifle. But many people that shot them in the early days of BR 50 were not happy.
The same could be said about many factory barreled rifles and many customs as well. After a season or two the shooter would give up on the rifle. He would sell the rifle on. He would then move on to full custom equipment. As often as not his shooting didnt improve very much.
Then someone would show up with his first rifle and precede to win a lot of matches. By this time the rifle had a lots of rounds down the barrel.
This led to much confusion. Why did the old rifle start shooting? Was it the new owner, was it the ammo, no one knew for sure but it happened a lot.
Another thing that was noticed position shooters seemed to do better than previous centerfire Benchrest shooters when they first started in RFBR.
These shooters seem to do well right off the bat. Why? Did their skills just transfer better than centerfire shooters?
Many of the position shooters just adapted their position rifles by changing the stocks while centerfire shooters started with new rifles.
In some circles many thought this was because their rifles were well seasoned. Many today still dont expect a RFBR rifle to really shoot until it is fully seasoned.
This process could take many bricks or maybe a case or more.
What I'm saying is very few, if any, barrels will shoot to their full capability if the chamber isn't properly finished. A chamber can finish itself with enough shooting but not all barrels will.
Finishing a chamber can be done many ways. I have process I learned from a friend that I use, but I am not at liberty to reveal it. I did not discover this process I just watched and learned. This is a process if done incorrectly can destroy a perfectly good barrel. I know I've done it.
I do not consider myself a gunsmith and I'm certainly not a machinist although I've been lucky to know many of both. I have taken most of what I think I know from them.
When I started in RFBR I jumped from factory rifles, a Anshutz 54, and a Russian target rifle straight into Time Precision custom rifles. The Time Precision action allows for adjustable headspace. I spent many hours measuring and sorting ammo. I sorted for many things one of which was headspace. I would do my sorting, then I could adjust my headspace to shoot my sorted pile with the same exact headspace even though the rim thickness was different. I learned from this headspace can be too tight and will cause fliers. If it is too lose you will eventually get to poor ignition and fail to fires (FTFs). The good thing is there is about a 2-3 thou sweet spot where it is really hard to tell if it affects accuracy.
In the early days .042 was the preferred headspace for most ammo. Then it grew to .043. Currently many are using .044 and even .045. In my opinion the ammo we shoot today isn't as consistence as it once was.
I was offered a sponsorship from a major ammo manufacturer. I was honored, but I turned it down. I have seen the preferred ammo for RFBR change several times over the years. Where am I going with this? It goes back to chambering barrels. I try to find the best, most consistent ammo I can find, buy as much of it I can afford, then use that ammo to set up my chambers for the rifles I plan to shoot the ammo in.
Others have stated they find their ammo all the same so they have cookie cutter chamber specs they can use. That is not my experience.
When I first run a reamer in a barrel to form the chamber, I run it in slightly deeper than the depth I want to end up with. Then I use a tool with a dial indicator on it to measure the "stick out" from the barrel face. The indicator has a spring behind the probe. As I push the tool up against the barrel face this spring probe pushes the bullet into the lands. If find this spring action allows me to get more accurate readings than I can by pushing the bullet in with my fumble fingers. Here again I see ammo inconsistences. As I try different rounds, I get different numbers. There was a time my best lots would be more consistent. I would only use a 5-round average. Now I'm using 25-30 round averages to find my depth. I adjust the depth to my number by cutting the barrel face. I'm using .044 for headspace.
Reamers, I have several but my go to reamers are .225 straight sided with no stop. I have one marked 1.5-degree, another 2.0, and another 3.0. If they weren't marked, I couldn't tell them apart. They are all spiral cut reamers.
When I took a machinist course at a local college the instructor told us when using a reamer to go in about .100 then back out clean off and blow out the chips then go back in another .100. repeat the process until you get to your depth. I used that method for a while.
Then I had a conversation with Dan Muller, the Dan Muller of Muller barrels. He told me he dialed straight to his number. No going in and backing out. He said try it. I did and I like it. I find this method doesn't leave nearly as many marks in the chamber. I have only done this with spiral cut reamers. I don't know if it would work with others.
I would like to remind the reader everything I've said here is my opinion, and it applies to single shot actions used for RFBR only.
TKH
This post is from Kevin N
Good morning Tony:
All of this happened in the first few years of my sponsorship (around 2011 I think), so to answer your question - no, I did not run any testing with Eley (or any other manufacturers ammunition). I have to believe that it would make a difference though, just based on what I saw initially and in all the barrels / seasons since.
From memory, I ran the initial testing with two older Hart barrels I horded (that were six groove .2170 / .2220 barrels). Since I have retested with everything I had - Benchmarks, Kriegers, Shilens (Octagons and Ratchets) and a very few Muller 8 groove blanks. Although the engagement depth preferences varied slightly, there has always been a "sweet spot" where group size and vertical dispersion leveled out, and that accuracy was maintained through 200+ rounds without cleaning (I don't like cleaning between individual matches at our events).
And I have never tried to establish a dimension from the datum (the .660" you mentioned) - when chambering, I use a number of live rounds, cleaned of lubrication, very gently seated against the leade until you can feel them make a hard stop. I then measure what Jerry calls the "stickout", or the distance from the back of the cartridge to the tennon datum face. That dimension minus headspace gives you engagement depth. I currently use the same setup found in the initial testing I ran of .0780 (minus .0430 HS) for an engagement depth of .0350 approx. Lapua ammunition is amazingly consistent round to round, and you would be amazed how repeatable this dimension is between rounds. Lead is soft, so I don't use the same round twice during verification (just in case there is a small amount of deformity). You can definitely feel a hard stop as the round seats against the leade.
Although I have never run this testing with Eley, I do have a "standard" Eley chamber I use (I shot Eley in competition my entire career prior to 2008, and was doing my own smithing at that time too). The chamber setup I use for Eley engraves with a "stickout" dimension of approximately .1360 (approx. .0930 engraving). I say approximately because I have found Eley far less repeatable round to round regarding the distance to the driving band. That's not a knock on Eley (we all know it shoots exceptionally well), it just doesn't allow measurement in this way without some bracketing. Just wanted to share what I was doing for Eley on the rare occasion I do a barrel for it. BTW.....Lapua in the same chamber engraves to a "stickout" depth of .1170 (Lapua's driving band position is shorter / smaller than that of EPS, about .0190).
I have tried a million chamber finishing methods - mandrels, lapping compounds, you name it. In the end (and please, this is only my opinion) I just couldn't justify putting anything even mildly abrasive in a chamber I have tried so hard through the machining process to be dimensionally perfect and concentric. So I have concentrated on speeds / feeds and lubrication to try to machine the most clean / smooth and burr free chambers I can - and let the round count do the rest. 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).
I hope I answered your questions, thanks for the reply,
kev
Quote Originally Posted by tonykharper View Post
Kevin,
Thanks again for sharing this information. I'm sure it has been eye opening for many people reading it here.
These forums are to expand and improve our sport and your post has helped that.
I have read you plan to retire soon. Congratulations! Be careful or you will be busier retired than you were when you worked full-time.
Even better news was you plan to offer gunsmithing services to the general public.
I believe in the adage if you build it, they will come. Your services will allow more shooters to enjoy our sport.
I would be less than honest if I allowed readers to think I agreed with your chambering techniques for RFBR rifles.
That is not to say you are wrong. It only says my experience has been considerably different from yours.
I will not pick your post apart or try to convince you there are better ways. That would be tacky.
Thanks again for your post. I hope you make many more sharing your experience. Differing points of view can only benefit us all.
TKH
Tony:
I understand, and would never propose I am doing it correctly (just the best way I have found).
I am very interested in what you do, please let me know - I really want to learn, and your techniques would really help me do so (disagree or not).
Please contribute, that's what this forum (and all forums) should be about.
kev
To continue this discussion I would like to add the following.
I think Lee kind of hit the nail on the head when he said he advocated using what is commonly called the "Nevius" style of chamber for rifles not chasing National titles. He went on to say many great targets have been shot with this style chamber. As I mentioned the late Bill Myers used this style of chamber many years ago and he and many of his customers shot really well with them.
But there was a difference with how Bill Meyers used this style of reamer. Bill had a process he used to finish his chambers.
Now I would like to go back even further in my shooting days.
The Winchester 52 was a fine target rifle. But many people that shot them in the early days of BR 50 were not happy.
The same could be said about many factory barreled rifles and many customs as well. After a season or two the shooter would give up on the rifle. He would sell the rifle on. He would then move on to full custom equipment. As often as not his shooting didnt improve very much.
Then someone would show up with his first rifle and precede to win a lot of matches. By this time the rifle had a lots of rounds down the barrel.
This led to much confusion. Why did the old rifle start shooting? Was it the new owner, was it the ammo, no one knew for sure but it happened a lot.
Another thing that was noticed position shooters seemed to do better than previous centerfire Benchrest shooters when they first started in RFBR.
These shooters seem to do well right off the bat. Why? Did their skills just transfer better than centerfire shooters?
Many of the position shooters just adapted their position rifles by changing the stocks while centerfire shooters started with new rifles.
In some circles many thought this was because their rifles were well seasoned. Many today still dont expect a RFBR rifle to really shoot until it is fully seasoned.
This process could take many bricks or maybe a case or more.
What I'm saying is very few, if any, barrels will shoot to their full capability if the chamber isn't properly finished. A chamber can finish itself with enough shooting but not all barrels will.
Finishing a chamber can be done many ways. I have process I learned from a friend that I use, but I am not at liberty to reveal it. I did not discover this process I just watched and learned. This is a process if done incorrectly can destroy a perfectly good barrel. I know I've done it.
I do not consider myself a gunsmith and I'm certainly not a machinist although I've been lucky to know many of both. I have taken most of what I think I know from them.
When I started in RFBR I jumped from factory rifles, a Anshutz 54, and a Russian target rifle straight into Time Precision custom rifles. The Time Precision action allows for adjustable headspace. I spent many hours measuring and sorting ammo. I sorted for many things one of which was headspace. I would do my sorting, then I could adjust my headspace to shoot my sorted pile with the same exact headspace even though the rim thickness was different. I learned from this headspace can be too tight and will cause fliers. If it is too lose you will eventually get to poor ignition and fail to fires (FTFs). The good thing is there is about a 2-3 thou sweet spot where it is really hard to tell if it affects accuracy.
In the early days .042 was the preferred headspace for most ammo. Then it grew to .043. Currently many are using .044 and even .045. In my opinion the ammo we shoot today isn't as consistence as it once was.
I was offered a sponsorship from a major ammo manufacturer. I was honored, but I turned it down. I have seen the preferred ammo for RFBR change several times over the years. Where am I going with this? It goes back to chambering barrels. I try to find the best, most consistent ammo I can find, buy as much of it I can afford, then use that ammo to set up my chambers for the rifles I plan to shoot the ammo in.
Others have stated they find their ammo all the same so they have cookie cutter chamber specs they can use. That is not my experience.
When I first run a reamer in a barrel to form the chamber, I run it in slightly deeper than the depth I want to end up with. Then I use a tool with a dial indicator on it to measure the "stick out" from the barrel face. The indicator has a spring behind the probe. As I push the tool up against the barrel face this spring probe pushes the bullet into the lands. If find this spring action allows me to get more accurate readings than I can by pushing the bullet in with my fumble fingers. Here again I see ammo inconsistences. As I try different rounds, I get different numbers. There was a time my best lots would be more consistent. I would only use a 5-round average. Now I'm using 25-30 round averages to find my depth. I adjust the depth to my number by cutting the barrel face. I'm using .044 for headspace.
Reamers, I have several but my go to reamers are .225 straight sided with no stop. I have one marked 1.5-degree, another 2.0, and another 3.0. If they weren't marked, I couldn't tell them apart. They are all spiral cut reamers.
When I took a machinist course at a local college the instructor told us when using a reamer to go in about .100 then back out clean off and blow out the chips then go back in another .100. repeat the process until you get to your depth. I used that method for a while.
Then I had a conversation with Dan Muller, the Dan Muller of Muller barrels. He told me he dialed straight to his number. No going in and backing out. He said try it. I did and I like it. I find this method doesn't leave nearly as many marks in the chamber. I have only done this with spiral cut reamers. I don't know if it would work with others.
I would like to remind the reader everything I've said here is my opinion, and it applies to single shot actions used for RFBR only.
TKH
Last edited:
