D
DonMatzeder
Guest
Chamber first.
Meyers Spec Rifle Story
- Thread starter Joe Friedrich
- Start date
One benefit
On the Suhl action, the coned breach allows for the HS to be set closer than .044 without causing problems on some actions. One of mine, I can't get to shoot accurately with the HS set at .042 because it seems to put the sear lever in a bind. On the cone breach action allow for this problem to be corrected. Also as one stated, you don't get the same wax build up on the face of the bolt and causing the bolt to close harder. I've used it rifles with adjustable HS, for 10 years, and that why I like it, especially on my switch-barrel setup.
On the Suhl action, the coned breach allows for the HS to be set closer than .044 without causing problems on some actions. One of mine, I can't get to shoot accurately with the HS set at .042 because it seems to put the sear lever in a bind. On the cone breach action allow for this problem to be corrected. Also as one stated, you don't get the same wax build up on the face of the bolt and causing the bolt to close harder. I've used it rifles with adjustable HS, for 10 years, and that why I like it, especially on my switch-barrel setup.
S
steve b.
Guest
In an Anschutz 2013, it's only logical. Allows you to index easily. Also necessary to clear the little tab on the loading ramp.
s.
s.
Joe Friedrich
Member
Beau, it is related if one can think outside the box even with the threaded actions we use today. Can't be done with extractor slots. IMHO I believe indexing would help some barrels improve their accuracy.
Joe
T
TangoTwo
Guest
Sold at private silent auction, results confidential. Not available in California, New Jersey, Mass. or Delaware. 
Call Bill and talk to him. I had him do a Suhl for me last winter. While not cheap, he is in line with other smiths. I'm happy with my rifle. His turn around time is better than most other smiths. Money well spent.
Ken
Call Bill and talk to him. I had him do a Suhl for me last winter. While not cheap, he is in line with other smiths. I'm happy with my rifle. His turn around time is better than most other smiths. Money well spent.
Ken
It's not the box I have a problem with. I'm having a problem thinking outside the headspace.
D
DonMatzeder
Guest
Speaking of headspace, if you were to lap a bolt or some such, with a coned breach, you can adjust the headspace with a light trim of the shoulder.
Don,
You keep bringing that up, but that kinda appears to be shadetree gunsmithing. If you accept the barrel indexing theory and assume the technique is valid, the best rotational postion of the barrel is always the same. There's no reason to change it, but if you did, you would still want the barrel in the same postion. Thus, one full turn. You've changed headspace. That's pretty obvious. Now, you trim a little off, you've changed the chamber and, as you mentioned, you have to adjust the bolt. Talk about a good way to bugger up a precision rifle, there it is.
You keep bringing that up, but that kinda appears to be shadetree gunsmithing. If you accept the barrel indexing theory and assume the technique is valid, the best rotational postion of the barrel is always the same. There's no reason to change it, but if you did, you would still want the barrel in the same postion. Thus, one full turn. You've changed headspace. That's pretty obvious. Now, you trim a little off, you've changed the chamber and, as you mentioned, you have to adjust the bolt. Talk about a good way to bugger up a precision rifle, there it is.
Don't know what the ones already sold went for but Dan Killough's has two built by Bill Myers listed on his site, one for $3800 and the other $5000. I've seen the one shown in the article and have to say it's a very handsome looking rifle.
The wood has to be some of the nicest I've seen and given it some very deep thought about going for one but like many, the current economical scene has me in a wait and watch mode.
Update right after I posted this I went over to Dan's site and the 5000 one is sold.
Last edited:
Joe Friedrich
Member
Beau, that's the beauty of it, there is no cutting or trimming for correcting headspace.
Joe,
Let me explain the original question to you. The question was what was the purpose of a coned breech with a threaded action. I think that question has been answered. There is none. I had made an assumption that the discussion of indexing was related to the coned breech on the rifle in the story. It apparently was not. A coned breech will be worthless to you in adjusting headspace on a rifle with a threaded action. I suppose you could do something with shims and then it may work, but that doesn't jive with the purpose of barrel indexing. Now if you have a split receiver like that of a 2013 and you want to play with indexing, there would be a purpose for the cone.
Let me explain the original question to you. The question was what was the purpose of a coned breech with a threaded action. I think that question has been answered. There is none. I had made an assumption that the discussion of indexing was related to the coned breech on the rifle in the story. It apparently was not. A coned breech will be worthless to you in adjusting headspace on a rifle with a threaded action. I suppose you could do something with shims and then it may work, but that doesn't jive with the purpose of barrel indexing. Now if you have a split receiver like that of a 2013 and you want to play with indexing, there would be a purpose for the cone.
S
steve b.
Guest
This is how I see it about coned breech faces:
1. It makes the gunsmiths job easier to just cone the breech face. It saves the seperate operation of cutting extractor slots. That's all there is to it (barrel is already in the lathe)- it makes the gunsmiths job easier - does nothing for the shooter, nothing for accuracy (same reason why we won't ever see a factory threaded Anschutz action).
2. If one does want to index, Beau is correct that you still have to rechamber and reset the headspace no matter what when dealing with a threaded action. Even if the breech face is coned, you still have to bump that back as well - there is no way around it. You're rotating the barrel at least 270 degrees, and depending on the thread of the action, how many thou' of depth change is that? More than what a few shims can fix.
Also, you are going to have to repeat that process at least four times to find the proper indexing point, so you could have up to eight different extractor slots in the breech face (dual extractor rifle)- yikes! So to heck with that, just cone it - again making the job easier.
Further, shimming to adjust headspace is not going to influence indexing - the barrel is not rotating enough.
As for this:"If you accept the barrel indexing theory and assume the technique is valid, the best rotational postion of the barrel is always the same. There's no reason to change it."
True, but you have to find the right index point first, and unless you have a big rail to clamp the barreled action to, and then rotate around it's axis (and rotating the position of the firing pin as well, making some gunsmiths go crazy), you are going to have to perform the machining operations 4 times. You have to test to find the indexing point.
3. It looks nicer, more refined that basic extractor slots. Lipstick on the pig.
Now I think that indexing is a very real thing (I ain't the only one), and if the results continue to impress shooters, we may see a change in how rimfire actions are designed. But indexing with a threaded action is going to result in alot of extra machining, and a coned breech face is not going to make all the other technical problems go away, but it will make things easier. Again, love my 2013.
But I may just be a complete idiot as well.
1. It makes the gunsmiths job easier to just cone the breech face. It saves the seperate operation of cutting extractor slots. That's all there is to it (barrel is already in the lathe)- it makes the gunsmiths job easier - does nothing for the shooter, nothing for accuracy (same reason why we won't ever see a factory threaded Anschutz action).
2. If one does want to index, Beau is correct that you still have to rechamber and reset the headspace no matter what when dealing with a threaded action. Even if the breech face is coned, you still have to bump that back as well - there is no way around it. You're rotating the barrel at least 270 degrees, and depending on the thread of the action, how many thou' of depth change is that? More than what a few shims can fix.
Also, you are going to have to repeat that process at least four times to find the proper indexing point, so you could have up to eight different extractor slots in the breech face (dual extractor rifle)- yikes! So to heck with that, just cone it - again making the job easier.
Further, shimming to adjust headspace is not going to influence indexing - the barrel is not rotating enough.
As for this:"If you accept the barrel indexing theory and assume the technique is valid, the best rotational postion of the barrel is always the same. There's no reason to change it."
True, but you have to find the right index point first, and unless you have a big rail to clamp the barreled action to, and then rotate around it's axis (and rotating the position of the firing pin as well, making some gunsmiths go crazy), you are going to have to perform the machining operations 4 times. You have to test to find the indexing point.
3. It looks nicer, more refined that basic extractor slots. Lipstick on the pig.
Now I think that indexing is a very real thing (I ain't the only one), and if the results continue to impress shooters, we may see a change in how rimfire actions are designed. But indexing with a threaded action is going to result in alot of extra machining, and a coned breech face is not going to make all the other technical problems go away, but it will make things easier. Again, love my 2013.
But I may just be a complete idiot as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Friedrich
Member
Beau, you are right and I am wrong thinking that there is a threaded action that we use today that would allow one to test a barrel using a cone breech to index a barrel without changing the headspace. Time will tell.
I understood your question but appears I approached it in the wrong way, I do apologize. I'm not one to explain long drawn out explanations.
Take Care,
Joe
I understood your question but appears I approached it in the wrong way, I do apologize. I'm not one to explain long drawn out explanations.
Take Care,
Joe
Steve,
No argument about a 2013 if you want to index. However, if you look at this original story, indexing is accomplished by rotating the entire barreled action, not the barrel. Again, no reason for the cone, but that ship has sailed anyway.
As far as indexing goes. If I understand it correctly it seems a bit arbitrary. You install the barrel, shoot a group, move 90 degrees, shoot another group, move 90 degrees, shoot another group, move 90 degrees, shoot another group until you have the best position for the barrel. Why not 45 degrees, 22.5, or a degree at a time? Making the assumption that the best potential for accuracy is going to be at one of those 4 postions is a fairly big assumption.
S
steve b.
Guest
Beau,
1. There may be a way to index with the barrel still in the lathe, but I don't know how.
2. There may also be some "widget" to help this when using a threaded action. But again, I don't know any details.
For indexing, I mark 4 positions on the barrel, 12, 3, 6, 9 o'clock. Then i shoot all 4. Which ever one shows promise, I then test on each side, 22.5 degrees off. I have found that I can get to the right spot pretty quick. It's just like dialing in a tuner. Sure the first 4 spots are random, but from there on you can dial it in. At least that's how I do it on my 2013.
As for this: "Again, no reason for the cone, but that ship has sailed anyway."
Yes there is. It saves you from taking the extra steps to mill in the slots. The barrel is already in the lathe. Change your tool on the tool post, then cut the cone. The barrel is already setup.
1. There may be a way to index with the barrel still in the lathe, but I don't know how.
2. There may also be some "widget" to help this when using a threaded action. But again, I don't know any details.
For indexing, I mark 4 positions on the barrel, 12, 3, 6, 9 o'clock. Then i shoot all 4. Which ever one shows promise, I then test on each side, 22.5 degrees off. I have found that I can get to the right spot pretty quick. It's just like dialing in a tuner. Sure the first 4 spots are random, but from there on you can dial it in. At least that's how I do it on my 2013.
As for this: "Again, no reason for the cone, but that ship has sailed anyway."
Yes there is. It saves you from taking the extra steps to mill in the slots. The barrel is already in the lathe. Change your tool on the tool post, then cut the cone. The barrel is already setup.
Okay, no real reason other than to save the gunsmith time. If you like a cone, go for it; I'll stick to extractor slots.
At any rate, it appears that indexing requires a lot of testing, which seems to limit it to rimfire if it works. CF guys would wear out much of the usable life of the barrel just testing.
At any rate, it appears that indexing requires a lot of testing, which seems to limit it to rimfire if it works. CF guys would wear out much of the usable life of the barrel just testing.
D
Don Stith
Guest
Beau
You might want to read the article again and more closely. The article specifically states the barrel is rotated relative to the action. No where does it say the barrelled action is rotated to different positions in the test
You might want to read the article again and more closely. The article specifically states the barrel is rotated relative to the action. No where does it say the barrelled action is rotated to different positions in the test