Grizzly Rod upgrade

Boyd Allen said:
In rereading my question to Jerry, One thing that I was trying to bring up, but completely failed to communicate, was that for certain applications, such as the one that AL has mentioned in his last post, that simply extending the rod would improve the ratio of outside to inside the barrel measurements. Perhaps an old automotive push rod could be pressed into service, with suitable adapters. In any case, I think that the longer the rod, the less difference there will be between outside and inside measurements, particularly at the throat.
Click to expand...
Boyd, it really doesn't matter to the point I make just how long the rod thingy is. The point is the dial indicator being used is 1)displaying a reading OUTSIDE the barrel and away from the important area of the to-be chambered area, the chamber throat, and, 2) that dial indicator is displaying an amount of runout that is LESS than the ACTUAL runout at the chamber neck.

A friend of mine, knowing that al-in-wa-wa-wa is on my ignore list and has been for a few years, wrote to tell me that this same "al" has somewhere recently made some not so nice comments about one of my posts. From what this friend wrote me, I see no need to remove said "al" from my IGNORE list!!!
 
Last edited:
JerrySharrett said:
Boyd, it really doesn't matter to the point I make just how long the rod thingy is. The point is the dial indicator being used is 1)displaying a reading OUTSIDE the barrel and away from the important area of the to-be chambered area, the chamber throat, and, 2) that dial indicator is displaying an amount of runout that is LESS than the ACTUAL runout at the chamber neck.


In Gordy's video, after using the rod, he does indicate INSIDE the barrel at the throat with a long stem indicator before reaming and so do I. You could make some tiny adjustments at that point if you found any rounout. The only goal of the rod is to ensure that the portion of the barrel in front of the throat ahead of where an indicator will reach is in line with the entire chamber.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bingo

Sean Kinley said:
JerrySharrett said:
Boyd, it really doesn't matter to the point I make just how long the rod thingy is. The point is the dial indicator being used is 1)displaying a reading OUTSIDE the barrel and away from the important area of the to-be chambered area, the chamber throat, and, 2) that dial indicator is displaying an amount of runout that is LESS than the ACTUAL runout at the chamber neck.


In Gordy's video, after using the rod, he does indicate INSIDE the barrel at the throat with a long stem indicator before reaming and so do I. You could make some tiny adjustments at that point if you found any rounout. The only goal of the rod is to ensure that the portion of the barrel in front of the throat ahead of where an indicator will reach is in line with the entire chamber.
Click to expand...

Bingo Sean! You got it right. The Gritters rod only allows you to get the first part of the bore, where the chamber and throat meets the bore, to be "parallel" with the bore of the lathe. After doing that, you can reach in with an indicator and dial in the bore "concentric" with the bore of the lathe. You can do this either with a long stylus or you can drill out the chamber and use a short stylus to indicate where the throat meets the bore.
Its really pretty plain and I wonder why the same nay sayers keep jumping on these threads with the same "it won't work statements."

Joe
Click to expand...
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a given spindle has a runout of say .0002, measured direct. and this corresponds to an indirect measurement of say .00015. as long as one is aware of the difference, a barrel should be able to dialed in to the limits of spindle runout, right? Benchrest gunsmiths, all of high reputation use quite different methods to chamber. Some dial in both ends of the barrel through the headstock. Others concentrate on the alignment at the chamber end, and let the muzzle go where it must to accomplish that. Still others may use a steady rest. Some push their reamers with tools that allow float. others do good work with a center. Some cut the tenon first, others the chamber. Evidently there are more than one way to skin these particular cats. Perhaps the same can be said about what measuring setup is chosen to indicate a barrel.
 
Boyd, I mostly agree with you because you see gunsmiths do all the above and turn out good work.
I do believe there are some meaningful differences between point blank barrels and long range barrels just because of the lengths involved. Most point blank barrels are in the neighborhood of 20 to 21 inches long while long range barrels are more typically 28 to 30 inches long. That means the long rangers are dealing with 50% more length. They also tend to chamber cartridges about twice as long (roughly) as the ppc. So, alignment becomes a little different. If you assume a 30 inch barrel with total indicated runout of .070, this would translate to about .001 runout per inch. That would assume an even curvature in the barrel which is a bad assumption but illustrates the point. If you had dialed in both ends of the barrel thru the headstock, then the throat of a 2" long cartridge would be out of alignment by .002 at the neck. I can't tell you how much difference that might or might not make but if you can eliminate it, why not.

As an aside, .070" TIR is not uncommon on 30" blanks. It is somewhat uncommon to find one that has a nice smooth bannana shaped curve. It is fairly common to find them to have a helix because the muzzle runout is in a different plane than the chamber runout. We did find one with almost no runout. It did not seem to shoot any better than its more crooked brethren.

Joe
 
JerrySharrett said:
Boyd, it really doesn't matter to the point I make just how long the rod thingy is. The point is the dial indicator being used is 1)displaying a reading OUTSIDE the barrel and away from the important area of the to-be chambered area, the chamber throat, and, 2) that dial indicator is displaying an amount of runout that is LESS than the ACTUAL runout at the chamber neck.

A friend of mine, knowing that al-in-wa-wa-wa is on my ignore list and has been for a few years, wrote to tell me that this same "al" has somewhere recently made some not so nice comments about one of my posts. From what this friend wrote me, I see no need to remove said "al" from my IGNORE list!!!
Click to expand...


Sorry you feel this way Jerry, you've got a lot to offer. And no I'm not blowing smoke up yer butt, I don't give a rat's (insert appropriate ACRONYM here) whether we "get along" or not, you've got experience to share and I value that, thank you for sharing it in a format that can be printed out. I'll try (A'gain) to stay out of your private rooms...

(Jerry's friend, pass it on....)

"al" in wa-wa-wa-wa
 
Boyd Allen said:
In rereading my question to Jerry, One thing that I was trying to bring up, but completely failed to communicate, was that for certain applications, such as the one that AL has mentioned in his last post, that simply extending the rod would improve the ratio of outside to inside the barrel measurements. Perhaps an old automotive push rod could be pressed into service, with suitable adapters. In any case, I think that the longer the rod, the less difference there will be between outside and inside measurements, particularly at the throat.
Click to expand...

Dude... this is REALLY not stupid!!! You've just saved me a ton of grief (wiping egg off face) because you've gently pointed out that "you've got a lathe....."

I mean how hard is it to make an extension?? and just use the Griz at the opening ........... I can chuck from acros't the room if I want. Hang a crowbar from the freakin' rafters....

Thanks Boyd for showing me that there's an entire world outside my pertickler rut...

Sometimes I scare myself.

wheewwww

:(


al
 
Ahh, but Jerry, you miss one thing in your contention, by reading outside the barrel, you can then rest the stylus on the rod HALFWAY from the ball on the end, which then increases the sensetivity of your indicator TWO-FOLD, thereby becoming MORE accurate than reading in the barrel!!!! ;)

Really I hope you read this right, I'm just being a light-hearted smart a.. I've enjoyed reading the back and forth on the different methods very much and I've done them both ways and then some. I usually chamber large caliber rounds so tend to use the gritters rod thingy more often, but I do like the directness of reading right where you need to with the stylus ball riding the lands and grooves.
 
Al.
I laughed out loud when I read your post. Perhaps we can create an award for the longest grizzly rod. Let me see now, if we start with a carbon fiber arrow shaft with internal adapter bushings, and enough overlap to keep the stress down...
Boyd
 
hi all

1 if jerry dial's up at the throat with a long stem ind then bores it out and recheck's it and it is still reading .000000000

2 then alinwa uses the rod thingy to set up the bore's it out and recheck's it and it is still reading .000000000

then who is right and who is wrong .?????????????:rolleyes:
 
I sure dont claim to know a lot about any of this, as i have only chambered 5 barrels. What i do know is that a good friend of mine was the 100 or 200 yard shooter of the year in St Louis last year using Gordys method of chambering. This same friend has chambered a couple barrels for me using the gordy method, and those barrels shot extremely well. If the gordy method isnt any good, then maybe we have just been lucky?
Like Nat would say, find a method that your comfortable with and stick with it. When i did my first barrel, i didnt have the tooling to chamber a barrel like some of the other good fellas here do. I had the tools to do it like Gordy does his, so thats what i did. Not to mention thats the only way i had ever seen it done, so i felt most comfortable doing so.
Tom Haverkamp chambered a barrel for me one time in a 6BR. Tom makes his own ground del-tronic type rods, and uses those to indicate the bore in. He makes them in .0001 increments so he always finds the best fit. That particular Brux barrel had a lot of run out, and tom didnt even clock the muzzle up or down. That particular barrel was the very best 6br barrel i had ever owned. That barrel flat out shot. When i saw the run out flopping around i was a little more than concerned. LOL!! Come to find out it was just fine! All i know about any of this is my personal experience. Its a limited experience at that. Lee
 
tasy_ted said:
hi all

1 if jerry dial's up at the throat with a long stem ind then bores it out and recheck's it and it is still reading .000000000

2 then alinwa uses the rod thingy to set up the bore's it out and recheck's it and it is still reading .000000000

then who is right and who is wrong .?????????????:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ted you have apparently not done a lot of workpiece alignment in a lathe using a dial indicator if you can get a reading on it out to 9 decimal places (what it that? blue trillion, quad zillion???)
 
Boyd Allen said:
Lee,
Good post
Click to expand...

Brilliant observation, Boyd. Why don't you detail to us how you would chamber these crooked barrels?

Your contribution to this forum and especially this thread is almost as useful as your Gimmicks and Gadgets observations in the Gammuto Gazette!!
 
I don't understand the great difference if you indicate an area 3 or 4 inches in the bore using an indicator tip and dialing it as close to zero movement as you can, or using a weighted piloted rod held by the tail stock chuck with the pilot 3 or 4 inches in and an indicator just out of the bore on the rod, dialing it as close to zero movement as you can... I am not interested in measuring the actual amount of movement, I just want as little movement as I can get. And yes - measuring with an indicator tip on the actual bore measures the actual amount of movement more accurately, but when it gets down to barely moving, what does it actually matter?

Both methods obtain excellent results.

It's do what ever pleases you. I can't reach in 4 inches with any indicators without a lot work and time. It's why I use a rod for long chambers and it works well, quickly.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Jerry,
It seem that your avitar was well chosen.
Boyd
Click to expand...
Boyd, thats why I picked it. BTW, I'm still waiting for your "best method" of chambering.

Snyder, I don't recall Gene Buckys ever posting his method for chambering, besides, ever how he does it certainly works doesn't it.
As to the wrong, wrong, wrong part you mention, find the word "wrong" in my posts. Best you stay out of this anyway if you have nothing to offer.
 
Jerry,
Please cite the post number where I wrote of you being wrong. I can't seem to locate it. Perhaps you have confused someone else's post with one of mine. As to my posting on this thread, If this was your thread, I could possibly see where you might have some sort of territorial prerogative...but it is not...so you don't. As to my answering questions that have been asked so rudely, don't hold your breath. The entire point of my posts is that fellows that have good reputations for the quality of their work, do that work using different methods, evidently with good results. Perhaps that simple point evaded you. I got what you were saying, the first time that you posted it. Again, I don't believe that I have ever said that you were doing something wrong, if that was what has upset you, you might want to do some investigation as to who it really was.
Boyd
 
Boyd Allen said:
Jerry,
Please cite the post number where I wrote of you being wrong. I can't seem to locate it. ............ I don't believe that I have ever said that you were doing something wrong, if that was what has upset you, you might want to do some investigation as to who it really was.
Boyd
Click to expand...

Boyd, reread my post above again (#38). The wrong, wrong, wrong comment was to Snyder. He's the one who brought up that statement (his is just above my #38).

As to who is wrong or right on this subject, there appear to be several methods over the years that worked with at least some success. I do strongly feel though that the methods used by gunsmiths where the "through the headstock" setup and an alignment of both the chamber throat and the muzzle bore coaxial to the spindle rotational axis will produce a greater percentage of competitive shooting barrels.

Granted there are several lathes out there that have headstocks too long to allow simultaneous dialing in of the muzzle bore and the chamber throat. On those longer headstocked lathes, the gunsmiths I am familiar with, make an extra effort to have the muzzle bore running true with the chamber neck by using an in-the-spindle bushing system to hold the muzzle true to the spindle rotational axis even though they must make several of these bushings to accommodate different barrel tapers.

Hey, lets quit this little spat since I'm sure we both have the same end desire, that being to present information we have gleaned over the years and make it available to users of this forum.

I'm still waiting, though for you to comment on my Gammuto Gazette remark!!
 
Man, I never knew three little 5/16ths ball bearings would cause this much static.....I liked the fix and thought somebody may be able to use it.

Thanks for the input and Trig calculation WSnyder, it's not the first time I have gotten some real value from one of your posts/contributions.

I think this cat has been skinned enough to call it dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top