Dave Manson "Blueprinting" Tooling Question

I'm going with Rustystud, I have never used the "blueprinting Taps" so I guess I can't comment harshly on them. I feel single point is the fool proof way to do it right the first time.

The only way I would change my mind is for someone to send me one of the tapped and reamed actions so I can put it in the CMM and see the proof.
 
Rustystud, you've knocked it on the head

Jim S said:
I'm going with Rustystud, I have never used the "blueprinting Taps" so I guess I can't comment harshly on them. I feel single point is the fool proof way to do it right the first time.

The only way I would change my mind is for someone to send me one of the tapped and reamed actions so I can put it in the CMM and see the proof.
Click to expand...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Me too is going with Rustystud. I don't need to read three years old post to know, that there is only one way. A single point tool. That's the right way. Everything else rates only as a 2nd best.

Shoot well
Peter
 
I have been "single point" cutting and may continue to... but after spending some time on the phone with Dave Kiff I have ordered his set up for rethreading. I am going to give it a try..

Usually a 700 thread will be oval... a "tap" on a tight mandrel is very well guided and will cut much like a single point tool... it is not the same as trying to tap a hole with a conventional tap. If you think of the "oval" thread, part of it is too close to the center of the axis of the bolt race... part of it is too far away from the axis... in "tapping" this with this tool, the thread that is too close to the axis is cut and the thread that is too far away is not (if using the standard dimension "tap" ... this will allow the barrel to center well in the "V" thread when tightened. If the 10 thou oversize "tap" on the mandrel is used new threads are cut in the center of the axis. I'll know shortly how well it works... I am looking forward to testing it...
 
Well Dennis

Dennis Sorensen said:
I have been "single point" cutting and may continue to... but after spending some time on the phone with Dave Kiff I have ordered his set up for rethreading. I am going to give it a try..

Usually a 700 thread will be oval... a "tap" on a tight mandrel is very well guided and will cut much like a single point tool... it is not the same as trying to tap a hole with a conventional tap. If you think of the "oval" thread, part of it is too close to the center of the axis of the bolt race... part of it is too far away from the axis... in "tapping" this with this tool, the thread that is too close to the axis is cut and the thread that is too far away is not (if using the standard dimension "tap" ... this will allow the barrel to center well in the "V" thread when tightened. If the 10 thou oversize "tap" on the mandrel is used new threads are cut in the center of the axis. I'll know shortly how well it works... I am looking forward to testing it...
Click to expand...
,,,,,,,,,

I'm always willing to learn something new, so keep us posted when you'll try your gadget.

Shoot well
Peter
 
Rustystud said:
I read this post with great interest. About 3 years ago the same basic post was put on BRC several times. Some of the more recent posters posted then and their post current post are almost complete reversals of what they said years ago.

The tooling has not changed or improved that much. There were clear lines between the folks who defended the Manson Action truing tools and those who said the only way to true and action was with single point tooling and a good rigid action truing jig.

I have almost found it humorus to read some of these post. I wonder is any of these posters have been politically active, because they sure sound like polititions. Hopefully some of you are having a good laugh, I have.

Rustystud
Click to expand...

Yep, it has been entertaining.........

Two factors that spoil the end result:

Clearance (there has to be some or the tools could not turn)
Deflection (of the tools and within the clearance, away from the mat'l that needs to come out in order for the cuts to be true)

If the cuts are clean, the finished job should LOOK good...just don't measure anything.

-Dave-:)
 
Dave Short said:
Yep, it has been entertaining.........

Two factors that spoil the end result:

Clearance (there has to be some or the tools could not turn)
Deflection (of the tools and within the clearance, away from the mat'l that needs to come out in order for the cuts to be true)

If the cuts are clean, the finished job should LOOK good...just don't measure anything.

-Dave-:)
Click to expand...
I just finished blueprinting an action and noticed there was one side of the threads that received very little cutting while the opposite side of the threads were new and shiny. Makes be think there was very little, if any, deflection. True, there has to be clearance or the shaft of the tap couldn't get in the bushings but how much can you flex a 1/2 inch steel shaft while cutting threads and the sides of the receiver are guiding it as well?
 
MColeman said:
I just finished blueprinting an action and noticed there was one side of the threads that received very little cutting while the opposite side of the threads were new and shiny. Makes be think there was very little, if any, deflection. True, there has to be clearance or the shaft of the tap couldn't get in the bushings but how much can you flex a 1/2 inch steel shaft while cutting threads and the sides of the receiver are guiding it as well?
Click to expand...

Hi Mickey,

With "very little cutting" on one side of the threads, are you concerned that the barrel will be positioned offcenter/offaxis and have you measured for this?

Will you single point cut the action threads if they prove to be too far off with the tap cutting?................Don
 
Don, I think the threads were off center before I blueprinted the action. I am of the opinion they are now centered since I reamed the receiver and then recut the threads.
The owner said the rifle in its original form was not accurate. Could have been the barrel, the receiver or all of the above. We'll see.

As to single pointing the threads that method still is dependent on getting the centerline of the receiver indicated in to be concentric so what point on the receiver do you accept as true or what point of the receiver becomes your point of origin? That's the question that keeps popping into my mind. I am convinced the Manson tool cuts the tops off the existing threads and then the piloted tap will cut the threads straight with the centerline. There's no way that it can't cut them straight. The fact that there were some old threads barely touched while the other side of the receiver was bright newly cut threads tells me that the old threads were not straight and/or possibly the receiver was oval to some degree. (They almost all are to some degree)

In point of fact my Manson tap had become dull and I had bought some straight bushings from Dave Kiff and I used a brand new tap from Kiff as well. It's sharper and longer threads. Cut like a dream. No binding to indicate it was being forced to one side at all.
 
Last edited:
MColeman said:
Don, I think the threads were off center before I blueprinted the action. I am of the opinion they are now centered since I reamed the receiver and then recut the threads.
The owner said the rifle in its original form was not accurate. Could have been the barrel, the receiver or all of the above. We'll see.

As to single pointing the threads that method still is dependent on getting the centerline of the receiver indicated in to be concentric so what point on the receiver do you accept as true or what point of the receiver becomes your point of origin? That's the question that keeps popping into my mind. I am convinced the Manson tool cuts the tops off the existing threads and then the piloted tap will cut the threads straight with the centerline. There's no way that it can't cut them straight. The fact that there were some old threads barely touched while the other side of the receiver was bright newly cut threads tells me that the old threads were not straight and/or possibly the receiver was oval to some degree. (They almost all are to some degree)

In point of fact my Manson tap had become dull and I had bought some straight bushings from Dave Kiff and I used a brand new tap from Kiff as well. It's sharper and longer threads. Cut like a dream. No binding to indicate it was being forced to one side at all.
Click to expand...

The logistics of it are right... I don't see an appreciable difference in centering the action on the raceway and single point cutting the thread and centering the "tap" on the raceway and having it cut like a single point - only on the threads that are "in to close"...

I am also sure there are some who will never be convinced...
 
I am also sure there are some who will never be convinced...
Click to expand...

No doubt you are right but it's nothing to me whether I convince anybody or not. ;)
I ain't selling these kits and if a person wants to choose another method that's fine by me. I doubt there is a man alive who can shoot rifles and tell any difference in the methods. Contributions to accuracy is probably one of the hardest things in the world to qualify. How on earth could you look at an errant shot and say the threads caused it?

I'll try to get some photos of the threads I mentioned and post them tomorrow. It's the first time I've been able to see such a thing in all the rifles I've done.
 
Last edited:
Mickey,

Please take no offense to my observations about the mechanics of how these tools work. I'm sure that the end result is a much-improved action, and that is what it is supposed to do.

There are limits to how accurate a result any process will produce. I'm sure that a proper lathe set-up, carried out by a competent operator will give a straighter job than any piloted tap............but I agree with you that the difference is probably insignificant, considering that the action won't be used in a full-on match rifle.

Everyone has a different way of seeing these kind of things. Some of us are just purists at heart, and believe that only the best we can do is good enough. I think that about half of the current methods we use in Benchrest are based on that premise; that is, that we may not be able to prove that XXXX is effective by itself, but we know that a dozen or so things in this category combined make the difference between a good shooting rifle and a great shooting one.

-Dave-:)
 
Dave, I understand completely and took no offense at all. I promise.

I know many believe single pointing is better and tend to eschew anything that is a departure from the way 'they've always done it' but that could just as easily be carried over to the lathe. On the early lathes in England the operator had no lead screw to engage while threading. He practiced many years until he could turn the carriage wheel at the proper speed and pace to cut the threads by hand. For single pointing to be better, if possible, the gunsmith has to get everything dead perfect but we get back to the question: what is his point of origin? What part of the Remington action is 'ground zero' and everything else will be made realtive to that and still have it dead nuts?

I think we have sat around and thought for so long on some problems we forget where we are and what we're actually trying to achieve. I made my statements because at times some have reacted as if the proponents of the Manson kit were trying to sell them. You can almost blueprint an action with one in the time it takes to set one up for single point threading and I really don't think you can see the difference on paper. Now, if a man takes comfort in believing he did it the absolute best way it could be done there's nothing wrong with that but he shouldn't get out and berate another method simply because he doesn't want to do it that way. You have not done this but I have seen it.

My best to you now and forever.
Mickey
 
I measured the bolt raceway of a Remington 700 the other day with a set of telescoping gauges. There was a measured difference between the front and rear raceway where the mandrel and or pilots would engage the receiver. Not saying that one way is far superior to another but, if there were a .001" to .0015" difference between the front and rear raceway points how would a non-tapered mandrel properly fit?? For the Remington Receivers, wouldn’t bushings of different sizes give you a custom fit between the receiver and bushings, just asking? Greg Tannel has a system using a raceway reamer, with bushings, that after the bolt raceway is reamed the receiver is dialed in while being held in truning jig in a Lathe using the reamer as the mandrel. Although all cuts on the receiver face, threads, and locking lug recess are single point cut, bushings were in the setup.

No doubt, this type of tool will never replace the Lathe or make it possible for a Remington Receiver to compete with a Stolle, Viper, Bat etc. but, it does make a Remington Receiver far better than it was. I built a 6XC for myself on a Remington 700 using Dave Kiff's tool. This is a Tact/Comp Rifle and it is shooting very well. I feel that I could recommend this tool to anyone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My question after all this forever ongoing thread, is mostly about what Mickey said earlier about how the threads on the receiver he just finished had been cut on one side and showed the original blueing on the other. Maybe it was enough, but then again maybe not. I have found some remington receivers that have exhibited runout in excess of .030"!!! How does the Manson tooling take care of this when he claims his tap is only .010 over standard?
 
Jkob,

The way I understand things is this, the valley of the receiver threads and crest of barrel tenon threads never touch. The shoulder of the barrel and the receiver face are what hold things together and insure they are as square as the tenon and receiver threads will let it be. The way this tool works with the bushings and reamer mandrel, most of the run out on one side would be cut out, the reamer cuts the crest of the threads off but not all of the thread. The reamer also cuts the receiver face and locking lugs, all in the same set up. The tap cleans up and re-thread's the receiver to 1.072". After using this tool, I've seen some original bluing left in the receiver threads on one side but not on the opposite side. One smith here I believe cuts the entire threaded portion out and starts over fresh, single point. These hand tools will not do that.

I'm still very new at this but, this forum has several persons that are willing to lend a hand and share their knowledge, they've helped me a great deal. Thanks to all.
 
I didn't mean to imply the threads were not touched on one side but they were just barely touched. If there is only a small 'patch' of the original threads left but newly cut threads everywhere else it leads me to believe a lot of difference was made.

Now, to the person who supposedly removes all of the original thread and then cuts new ones it would seem that the receiver wall should be pretty thin at that point but having never tried it or even thought about it I can't say for a certainty. I would tend to disagree that a custom action would have the potential for greater accuracy than a good Reminton. You could certainly shoot it faster and it would be easier to dump five downrange with it but can't believe it would suffer in the accuracy department all other things being equal......but that's a lot of other 'things' if you think about it.
 
Mickey,

I have threaded 700 actions (308 size cases) considerably over size with no problems in strength... The barrel diameter is large enough to contain it... the threads just hold the barrel to the action and it only takes a few of the many to do that. When you consider the outside diameter of a 700 action does not change and it has handled cases up to the 378 Weatherby case, the thread diameter does not matter that much...

Dennis
 
To cut the whole thread out and start fresh thread on a 700

One would think it would be a perfect time to find another smith.

Shoot well
Peter
 
wnroscoe said:
Jkob,

The shoulder of the barrel and the receiver face are what hold things together and insure they are as square as the tenon and receiver threads will let it be.QUOTE]

This has not been my experience with the 700's that I have trued, and I always check these to raceway and barrel stub tool mandrels to within less than .001" dial indicator movement.

Generally, receiver face truing only corrects 25% of misalignment, and thread truing corrects the remainning 75% of misalignment..............Don
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top