A
ab_bentley
Guest
Is firing pin energy as important on a rimfire as it is on a center fire?
tonykharper
Well-known member
Much more so. Ignition is one of the weaknesses of rimfires. Firing pin strike, energy, foot print, shape, and placement can absolutely make or break accuracy in a rimfire.
TKH
Firing pin strike could possibly be the difference between a great shooting rifle and a poor shooting rifle. By that I mean a rifle that has shot well versus a rifle that has never shot well. If you build two rifles, identical in every measurable sense...one of the rifles will shoot better than the other.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Stiller did a lot of research
on this subject. Perhaps you can find it in a search but what he learned went into the bolts he has made for the several actions he has sold over time. It's pretty hard to argue with the results the 2500's have produced. It's also pretty hard to argue the results the one lug Anschutz 54's have produced over time as well.
To paraphrase Alan Hall, " Did the damn thing go Bang?"
Pete
on this subject. Perhaps you can find it in a search but what he learned went into the bolts he has made for the several actions he has sold over time. It's pretty hard to argue with the results the 2500's have produced. It's also pretty hard to argue the results the one lug Anschutz 54's have produced over time as well.
To paraphrase Alan Hall, " Did the damn thing go Bang?"
Pete
Last edited:
mwezell
Mike Ezell
on this subject. Perhaps you can find it in a search but what he learned went into the bolts he has made for the several actions he has sold over time. It's pretty hard to argue with the results the 2500's have produced. It's also pretty hard to argue the results the one lug Anschutz 54's have produced over time as well.
To paraphrase Alan Hall, " Did the damn thing go Bang?"
Pete
I'm not sure how comparable rf and cf are in regard to ignition but suspect and have reason to believe that they are very similar in this regard.
Alan made some very light firing pins that struck the case very fast. The idea being that speed shattered the priming compound and worked with as little as .002" rim indentation. I have my opinions on this subject but can't conclusively say that that's enough indentation or not but, we've all seen slower pins fail to ignite the priming compound with much greater indentation, so, I think he is at least partially right...speed does matter. I also don't think it's as simple as equalizing firing pin striking force and expecting the same results with a compromise of speed and weight.
That said, I've experienced accuracy improvement by simply changing firing pin springs on both rf and cf rifles, so I don't believe that the rifle simply going bang is proof of ideal ignition taking place. If ignition is borderline insufficient, simply replacing the spring or correcting the pin fall can be like screwing on a new barrel.
I wish I could claim to have all of the right answers on this subject but I can't. But, I have seen enough repeatable results to feel very confident in saying that proper ignition does involve more than a loud bang with cf and rf. The speed with which the pin hits the case does appear to me to be of more value than depth of penetration or some over simplified so called 10 round penetration test results will show.
Pete, you're right about Alan and Jerry Stiller both having done a fair amount of testing on this subject. It'd be nice if one or both of them would share their findings here. I don't know how much either is willing to share with BC claiming ignition issues with basically all but his own ignition systems. I tend to rely on more scientific methodology than what BC either can or will do. I don't put much value in his "art work" when it comes to these things. Too often, his art is in conflict with physics. Jerry, being an engineer, is quite the opposite and should be able to show and explain whatever findings he has made, much more definitively, if he's willing to share. Other action makers like Jim Borden may well be able to enlighten us a lot on this subject, too.
B
blackhole
Guest
firing pin energy in motion, kinetic energy
It can be measured by speed and or force. Faster and lighter could deliver the same force as slower and heavier. There are so many probable variables it would take a bunch of experimenting and some very astute record keeping. The Time Precision rifle I had was equipped with 2 strike points. When discussing it with Art, he explained it as just less chance of having a misfire. I can't help but think 2 ignition points could make for a turbulent explosion, in effect 2 side burning to the middle, perhaps happens too quick to make a difference. Most match shooters I know want the hardest hit possible. I would imagine that since the rifle is essentially a "tuning fork" that there would be a most effective strike force point. It would make for an interesting study or research paper. And then there is the Federal Ultra match series with the dimpled case in the center of the primer. Again it makes an interesting theory but then they have not ever completely dominated any rimfire sport. More variables. lol goodnight all
It can be measured by speed and or force. Faster and lighter could deliver the same force as slower and heavier. There are so many probable variables it would take a bunch of experimenting and some very astute record keeping. The Time Precision rifle I had was equipped with 2 strike points. When discussing it with Art, he explained it as just less chance of having a misfire. I can't help but think 2 ignition points could make for a turbulent explosion, in effect 2 side burning to the middle, perhaps happens too quick to make a difference. Most match shooters I know want the hardest hit possible. I would imagine that since the rifle is essentially a "tuning fork" that there would be a most effective strike force point. It would make for an interesting study or research paper. And then there is the Federal Ultra match series with the dimpled case in the center of the primer. Again it makes an interesting theory but then they have not ever completely dominated any rimfire sport. More variables. lol goodnight all
Pete Wass
Well-known member
I'm quite sure
Stiller put a bit O science into his studies, being qualified to do that. I don't remember now which forum he reported on but, as I said, his actions have proven themselves. I would also say Alan's actions shoot well enough also. A fellow shooter has two rifles Alan converted to his light pins in Turbos and he does his share of winning with them. Likes the conversion better than the original Turbo pins. Alan got a raw deal from the community way back, IMHO. I have had one of his actions for a few years and it has won a few matches just the way he made it. My only complaint with the Hall Rimfire Action is a slight lag in bolt timing but it hasn't been a problem with accuracy, just annoying.
Pete
Stiller put a bit O science into his studies, being qualified to do that. I don't remember now which forum he reported on but, as I said, his actions have proven themselves. I would also say Alan's actions shoot well enough also. A fellow shooter has two rifles Alan converted to his light pins in Turbos and he does his share of winning with them. Likes the conversion better than the original Turbo pins. Alan got a raw deal from the community way back, IMHO. I have had one of his actions for a few years and it has won a few matches just the way he made it. My only complaint with the Hall Rimfire Action is a slight lag in bolt timing but it hasn't been a problem with accuracy, just annoying.
Pete
Given that, why do you suspect that you rarely ever see one on the line and virtually never at major events???
FWIW, many of the ones that hung on and did reasonably well, in point of fact, had pins altered to slow them down and add more mass.
Last edited:
mwezell
Mike Ezell
Probably 3/4 of what people do in this sport is because, that's how others are doing it. While a very good argument can be made for that approach to most anything, to me, it only means that it might be worth testing for myself. There are numerous examples where this approach can be proven both right and wrong. Often it means that the person stating it as reason enough to do what everyone else does, either can't or won't think and test for themselves and has nothing better to offer to the discussion. I'm not saying this is you, Tim, but no one's opinion or way of doing things is more meaningful than the target.
I admit it...I am a non conformist and a hard headed one at that. This is afterall, a COMPETITION! It pays to think outside of the "that's what everyone else does" box at times. For some, it is best to stay with what works for others. Better yet, they should defer to the results of those that have actually tested both ways extensively. Alan did offer a light and a heavy pin, and he tested both. It's my understanding from talking with him, that he felt like the light pin is best, after extensive testing of both. While it may not be best for everyone, deferring to the action maker who has tested both and can explain the pro's and con's, seems more logical than doing something else...because that's what others do....maybe with a completely different rifle altogether. I just feel like the action maker in this case, testing side by side, before and after, with numerous possible improvements along the way, of a product of his own design and in his own action..is likely the best source of feedback short of doing your own testing similarly. In short, the maker is often the best place to find out the low down on something. From that, you can decide to test it for yourself or not.
The fact that .002" indentation is sufficient to make a gun go bang, when we've all seen cases smashed that didn't, should make us stop and think for a minute. I'm not saying that Alan's light pin is best or not, but that it setting off the case at all defies much of the logic used by many of the "inside the box" crowd. You can barely see that much indentation!
Tuners are a good example...Can you or anyone tell me where the notion came from to move them a full turn at a time....or 10 marks, or 1/4 turn...or any other random amount?
I tested all those methods and several more that I was told to try. What I found was that none of them worked reliably. What does work is being very methodical and only move the tuner a mark at a time. On my tuners, that's .001" per mark on the tuner. Like this, I found that most of the problems people have with setting a tuner was that they skipped over sweet spots, randomly and without cause for moving them as much as they did, except..mostly it was because that's what somebody told them they should do. Ask 10 people and you might get a dozen answers to this, so, what is the basis for how far to move it?
Last edited:
Mike, I always enjoy your posts and our quasi internet conversations. Unfortunately, most of your response is factually lacking.
First off as to so much of the testing.....ah, not so much.
Alan offered a light pin and a lighter pin, the work around was driven by a top smith with alot of bench time and made some lackluster guns come alive.....for a time.
Other issues are involved, it would be impractical to discuss here, if you wish I would be happy to share with you.
Trust me things I tend to believe and/or use tend to be vetted by me or some that put in serious time, I could care less about what the cool kids support.
Lastly I still believe much of your tuning mindset results from less than ideal barrel sampling because to own, use, see, the really less than common great barrels disprove some of your thoughts.
As far as all the major dialing, never really did it. I’ve been fortunate, never really found it tough todial in a good barrel, and quickly realized, the best tuner in the world won’t make marginal barrel a big match winner.
Come on up for a visit, we’ll shoot, you can try some stuff and prove it to yourself on my dime....no BS.
First off as to so much of the testing.....ah, not so much.
Alan offered a light pin and a lighter pin, the work around was driven by a top smith with alot of bench time and made some lackluster guns come alive.....for a time.
Other issues are involved, it would be impractical to discuss here, if you wish I would be happy to share with you.
Trust me things I tend to believe and/or use tend to be vetted by me or some that put in serious time, I could care less about what the cool kids support.
Lastly I still believe much of your tuning mindset results from less than ideal barrel sampling because to own, use, see, the really less than common great barrels disprove some of your thoughts.
As far as all the major dialing, never really did it. I’ve been fortunate, never really found it tough todial in a good barrel, and quickly realized, the best tuner in the world won’t make marginal barrel a big match winner.
Come on up for a visit, we’ll shoot, you can try some stuff and prove it to yourself on my dime....no BS.
Last edited:
mwezell
Mike Ezell
Sounds like we agree more than not but to be clear, my comments relative to Alan came from discussing it with him, face to face and holding the pins in my hands.
As for tuners, Im not sure if there is anyone who has spent more time testing and developing tuners than I have. Even if there is someone, my experience with them laps most of the field several times over so I'm not sure where you get the idea that I may have not tested them with really good barrels...You're just not aware of how much and for how long, as well as what means of testing I've done with all sorts of tuners and an unknown number of barrels as I lost count of that sort of thing long ago.
I believe using a tuner to be very easy. I've literally taken rifles that I've never fired and had them at a competitive tune in two minutes. Yes, that was multiple rifles on multiple occasions and have won lots of matches with my method. That said, there is a misconception about tuners that you seem to possibly have. That being, tuners don't make a perfectly tuned rifle and make it more than perfectly tuned. What they do is allow you to extract every ounce of potential that a gun has with a given load in that condition, then also maintain that peak level of tune.
I have a pretty nice place to do testing. Not a tunnel, but very good.
Id absolutely be willing to hear your thoughts but be forewarned...when it comes to tuners, I've probably done it. I've read about, heard about, talked about and tested so many "expert" tuning methods that it's crazy. I do test them though, as if I'm missing out on anything, I want to know it. It's amazing how many "expert" methods there are! Why is that? Why can't all those experts agree instead of there being so many variations?
I've been consistent in how I tune and in how I recommend tuners be used. Because it doesn't change with the color of my socks and my method is backed by real science instead of art. Powder combustion is affected by temperature. Until the laws of physics change, this will remain true and this does affect tune.. just as there is no one setting for all Temps and there are no stopped muzzles in the world of physics.
Last edited:
And yet we live in a world where some of the best .22's made have tuners that never move....ever including all those IR sporters, the best of which shoot good all the time in everything. Splain that.
The reality is there are far more gold level HOF guys that never twist a tuner than not, what could they and the WLM possibly be missing???
The reality is there are far more gold level HOF guys that never twist a tuner than not, what could they and the WLM possibly be missing???
Pete Wass
Well-known member
I still remember
Alan throwing those dumb brass weights down range @ Fairchance. Sorry I don't remember his comment as he was doing it and likely I wouldn't want to white it here.
I am quite sure my old Hall Sporeter has been competitive with most of the Turbos that were ever made. It has shot some pretty good x counts over time. I just haven't been good enough a shooter to make it look better. It has the round pin tip, which has been finding some new life in testing done lately in the lab of an internationally known lab so Alan wasn't all wrong.
The whole weighted pin thing was BS, from what I have experienced.
Pete
P.S.
Didn't I notice you shooting an Anschutz Sporter @ Salem?
Alan throwing those dumb brass weights down range @ Fairchance. Sorry I don't remember his comment as he was doing it and likely I wouldn't want to white it here.
I am quite sure my old Hall Sporeter has been competitive with most of the Turbos that were ever made. It has shot some pretty good x counts over time. I just haven't been good enough a shooter to make it look better. It has the round pin tip, which has been finding some new life in testing done lately in the lab of an internationally known lab so Alan wasn't all wrong.
The whole weighted pin thing was BS, from what I have experienced.
Pete
P.S.
Didn't I notice you shooting an Anschutz Sporter @ Salem?
Correct, however while considered a lighter/faster pin, that’s where the comparison ends.
A little factoid for ya Pete. I got one of the first “flated” sporter actions for a sporter Bill Myers built for me and when I noticed the rounded pin tip I called Alan to inquire. Got told time was short, did’nt get around to shaping, and now guys could either leave’em or shape’em the way they wanted.
As to thowing away the weights....that was Alan.
Call Bob Collins, ask him how his fairly good shooting sporter was improved to the point of winning the sporter nationals, he only did one thing.
Last edited:
Thanks but that was a rhetorical question.
mwezell
Mike Ezell
Lol! That's kinda what I thought anyway.
Listen, if you have a method that works for you, I'm happy to hear that. There are a whole lot of people that are happy to know that there is more than one way to skin a cat and are glad they tried something different. Centerfire shooters have loaded ammo at the range for years, to keep up with changes in tune as the day progresses. A lot of them are discovering that tuners do essentially the same thing and that it's very easy.
I'm not currently shooting rimfire and am focusing my limited free time on centerfire. There are a ton of really fine people in rimfire and I enjoy shooting with them and there are also some people that are just bad for the sport involved in it. It's comical listening to or reading some of the tales that are largely due to their antics. The sad part is, it keeps some people away. I was just talking with someone yesterday, before your and my posts on here, that told me about at least one top notch barrel maker that refuses to make rf barrels at all until a later date because of this very thing. I can't say that I blame them either. I don't see how any of that is good for RFBR or the search for better accuracy.
It is what it is, though.
Mike....when you’re right you’re right.
Since I shoot CF I have followed all the tuner development and have a basic grasp, this has been a big year.
I suspect, however, that the belief that it translates directly to rimfire is lacking given the nature of those harmonics and sub-sonic speeds. Understand science is science but my stated examples seem to fly in the face of that.
Best,
Tim
Since I shoot CF I have followed all the tuner development and have a basic grasp, this has been a big year.
I suspect, however, that the belief that it translates directly to rimfire is lacking given the nature of those harmonics and sub-sonic speeds. Understand science is science but my stated examples seem to fly in the face of that.
Best,
Tim
mwezell
Mike Ezell
You too..
You're right about the ammo being slower, of course, and the natural frequency of a typical rf barrel is lower due to being smaller and not as stiff as a typical cf br barrel. Those two factors do affect how a rf tunes vs a cf..but not by much. The difference is that the sweet spots are a little further apart...still a least one in every revolution of my tuner, sometimes two.
Otherwise, it's not at all like some people say....The gun simply doesn't know its firing a rf or a cf round. If you take the same gun and could chamber it for a rf and a cf, everything else dead nuts the same, they will both vibrate at exactly the same natural frequency!! The amplitude changes but the frequency would not, and frequency is the dominant factor, as what tuners do, is they allow us to adjust where the muzzle is when bullet exit happens, in time. They allow us to time bullet exit to happen when the muzzle is in the same place, so to speak. That's the gist of what every tuner does and how they work...on every gun. Not coincidentally, that's also what we're doing when we change powder charge and/or seating depth. Or when we test different lots of rf ammo but not move the tuner. We've all seen ammo that would shoot in a gun with no tuner at all, both rf and cf.
You're right about the ammo being slower, of course, and the natural frequency of a typical rf barrel is lower due to being smaller and not as stiff as a typical cf br barrel. Those two factors do affect how a rf tunes vs a cf..but not by much. The difference is that the sweet spots are a little further apart...still a least one in every revolution of my tuner, sometimes two.
Otherwise, it's not at all like some people say....The gun simply doesn't know its firing a rf or a cf round. If you take the same gun and could chamber it for a rf and a cf, everything else dead nuts the same, they will both vibrate at exactly the same natural frequency!! The amplitude changes but the frequency would not, and frequency is the dominant factor, as what tuners do, is they allow us to adjust where the muzzle is when bullet exit happens, in time. They allow us to time bullet exit to happen when the muzzle is in the same place, so to speak. That's the gist of what every tuner does and how they work...on every gun. Not coincidentally, that's also what we're doing when we change powder charge and/or seating depth. Or when we test different lots of rf ammo but not move the tuner. We've all seen ammo that would shoot in a gun with no tuner at all, both rf and cf.
Last edited:
Mike, you have hit on the essential difference between rimfire ammo and centerfire ammo.
With a centrefire, one has the luxury of adjusting powder type, load and projectile, primer and seating depth, so a tuner is not mandatory.
With a rimfire many of these options are beyond control of the operator so we compensate with a tuner.
That might be why more rimfire shooters use tuners. It's to compensate for the vagaries of factory ammo.
* Doggie *
With a centrefire, one has the luxury of adjusting powder type, load and projectile, primer and seating depth, so a tuner is not mandatory.
With a rimfire many of these options are beyond control of the operator so we compensate with a tuner.
That might be why more rimfire shooters use tuners. It's to compensate for the vagaries of factory ammo.
* Doggie *