I'm the last guy to speak for Gordon but I'd bet plenty he'd be the first one to tell you not so. You can't make a big one small and you can't fix one too small with a lap. You have to have a pretty good starting point.
Technical series?
- Thread starter edgerat
- Start date
I'm the last guy to speak for Gordon but I'd bet plenty he'd be the first one to tell you not so. You can't make a big one small and you can't fix one too small with a lap. You have to have a pretty good starting point.
Do you think the burnishing effect of the button leaves a surface that takes less work to get "correct" and that is why BC likes button barrels? He was all about tight contour barrels from Lilja and then he went MI with the later stuff and seems to be sticking with that, for the time being. Not know about , it would seem to me that the more invasive the barrel, within reason, the more you could stabilize that projectile before it exits. I picture the button barrels as more of smooth-bore.
You are correct Tim, Gordon said that the barrels that Paul, James and Dan are sending out are some of the best yet, right from the "factory". One thing Gordon did mention to me was that you needed a straight barrel, seems obvious but, it stands to reason that with the amount of stress these tubes are being subjected to you could put a kink in them. We know that too much torque on the tenon can restrict the chamber. I'd love to fly back to Rock Creek and watch the guys make some barrels, just to see how it is done. I have Benchmark here locally, not sure how much they would enjoy having some dude stand there watching though
You are correct Tim, Gordon said that the barrels that Paul, James and Dan are sending out are some of the best yet, right from the "factory". One thing Gordon did mention to me was that you needed a straight barrel, seems obvious but, it stands to reason that with the amount of stress these tubes are being subjected to you could put a kink in them. We know that too much torque on the tenon can restrict the chamber. I'd love to fly back to Rock Creek and watch the guys make some barrels, just to see how it is done. I have Benchmark here locally, not sure how much they would enjoy having some dude stand there watching though
D
Douglas
Guest
I went to Rock Creek's shop about a year ago, spent a good part of the day there and watched them make .22 barrels. Thay got some old (prolly older than me) Pratt & Whitney lathes to do their cut rifling, pretty neat process. The day I was there, James L. was doing the hand lapping, and from what I could tell, lapping takes an experienced "hand", measurements are taken, chamber end and muzzle end, and so on 'til James was satisfied. No short cuts were taken. Thanks, Douglas
You're right damn it it does in fact appear to be Wally. Low is low but lordy is there nothing the guy won't stoop to.
Do you think the burnishing effect of the button leaves a surface that takes less work to get "correct" and that is why BC likes button barrels? He was all about tight contour barrels from Lilja and then he went MI with the later stuff and seems to be sticking with that, for the time being. Not know about , it would seem to me that the more invasive the barrel, within reason, the more you could stabilize that projectile before it exits. I picture the button barrels as more of smooth-bore.
You are correct Tim, Gordon said that the barrels that Paul, James and Dan are sending out are some of the best yet, right from the "factory". One thing Gordon did mention to me was that you needed a straight barrel, seems obvious but, it stands to reason that with the amount of stress these tubes are being subjected to you could put a kink in them. We know that too much torque on the tenon can restrict the chamber. I'd love to fly back to Rock Creek and watch the guys make some barrels, just to see how it is done. I have Benchmark here locally, not sure how much they would enjoy having some dude stand there watching though
No, probably just the opposite, button barrels probably are lapped more, requiring corse, sometimes medium, and finish lap, most cut barrels lap to just clean up cutter marks unless some choke is required.
D
dksac2
Guest
Not all really good smiths have big ego's, I know several that don't, they just don't like putting up with a lot of the BS that goes on, on some of the boards.
John
John
rather than starting another thread I wanted to see if we could keep this going.
RE: Ignition
Why are momentum dependent ignition systems the best for rimfire accuracy? I know that Turbo is the best followed by, Hall, 40x, Anschutz and I haven't heard a definitive answer on where Falcon falls in there. My main question is it the consistency in the ignition that we are after? Is there no other way to insure this with an Anschutz-style action? Ignorance would tell me that as long as you are getting ignition that is all that matters, the big dogs say otherwise
DISCUSS.
RE: Ignition
Why are momentum dependent ignition systems the best for rimfire accuracy? I know that Turbo is the best followed by, Hall, 40x, Anschutz and I haven't heard a definitive answer on where Falcon falls in there. My main question is it the consistency in the ignition that we are after? Is there no other way to insure this with an Anschutz-style action? Ignorance would tell me that as long as you are getting ignition that is all that matters, the big dogs say otherwise
DISCUSS.
I can tell you that having had the firing pin spring on my Turbo replaced a couple times that ignition does make a difference. When all of a sudden my groups open up and I'm missing lots of shots, if cleaning the barrel really well doesn't fix it, I first start thinking about weak ignition. It doesn't have to lead to misfires. I don't know all the whys, I just know that consistant ignition force is important. The heavy momentum dependent ignition systems just seem to have the most consistant ignition. It's the most important thing the action has to perform.
I assume that even with the momentum dependent systems, the lock-time is not long enough to have the recoil of the rifle effect accuracy, versus the faster lock-time system like Anschutz? I don't disagree that the Turbo is the king, I am just asking to stimulate conversation
D
DonMatzeder
Guest
I wouldn't make that assumption. We'll let the math guys work out how long it takes to clear the barrel but I am sure that if you don't allow the gun to recoil exactly the same each shot, the POI will be very different shot to shot.
T
tuna921
Guest
There was a thread on here a while back where Vibe had a theory or fact about how far the rifle came back before the bullet left the barrel maybe he can chime in ....
I think it;s important to set up the same way for each shot like Don said
Jim
PS I had a talk with Bill Pippin today and told him he is hammering it this year ......His answer to me was I take the full 30 minutes and I wait for my conditions ,so be patient. You can learn a lot from the gunsmith's but shooters also have a vast knowledge and wisdom that works.....You may have the best of everything but the shooters job is different from the gunsmith's .....
I think it;s important to set up the same way for each shot like Don said
Jim
PS I had a talk with Bill Pippin today and told him he is hammering it this year ......His answer to me was I take the full 30 minutes and I wait for my conditions ,so be patient. You can learn a lot from the gunsmith's but shooters also have a vast knowledge and wisdom that works.....You may have the best of everything but the shooters job is different from the gunsmith's .....
Last edited by a moderator:
T
tuna921
Guest
Look at it this way does Remington and the USMC RTE lab tell the snipers how to shoot ....No but they build the best they can...The USMC Scouts are trained by other scouts...
Pete Wass
Well-known member
This may be so. I wrote on the other forum that some of the Gunsmiths I have encountered seem to have personalities like some Accountants I have been exposed to; not easy to engage into conversation, among other traits.
It seems there aren't many Smith who actually Tune rifles the way our Friend BC does. I wonder why that is? It seems to me that being able to Tune what they have fitted would be as, if not more, important than the actual fitting.
Having a good gun is a huge component. I think that all shooting disciplines have that mental aspect that plays a bigger role than anything in success. With that being said, if the gun doesn't inspire confidence in my abilities, I don't care how good you are you are going to have troubles. Rimfire smiths are unlike any other in that I think for them to have a large amount of notoriety they have to build and tune their guns for their customers. Gordon Eck won't ship a sporter unless it shoots to his satisfaction. I would hope that the other big name smiths do the same. As far as the USMC and the PWS, they build rifles to a standard, a standard that the the students at the schools can rely on their weapon to be the same as the weapons the instructor's trained them on. No special deals for certain people, everything to a standard that they know works. That standard happens to be the best so, it works out
Because of cost. It does seem that Calfee takes the time to develop a rifle more, so that when he turns this over to a customer, it is probably ready to compete at a high level. And time, as they say, is money. It appears to be a good business model, as it seems he has a backlog of customers.
What makes Calfee controversial is, in order to better control the time he has to spend, he limits the components he works with. But instead of saying something like "I know how to make XYZ work," with his teasing prose, he comes close to saying "only XYZ work." He never quite makes the blanket statement, because that would open him up to entirely deserved criticism.
This whole matter of ignition is a laugh for me. We have the same problems in CF. There are 3 basic mechanical ways to improve ignition: (1) increase the spring tension, (2) increase the mass of the firing pin, or (3) increase the length of travel of the firing pin. Each involves compromises. Most effective, it seems is to increase the travel a bit and increase the mass a bit, maintaining good spring tension. Long, long discussion of all this on the 1,000 yard forum a while back. Something like this is what Calfee means by "momentum." But since Calfee seems to be a cult figure, the science gets taken out and the words he uses become things in themselves.
I'm just starting to shoot rimfire. There is no help for beginners on this forum -- or for that matter, most any forum I've seen -- without wading through a ton of junk put out by the pro/anti Calfee people. Hard to talk science when so many want to talk religion.
Boyd Allen
Active member
Charles,
These rimfire forum discussions can be very entertaining, as long as one is not the one being discussed. As to your remarks about improving ignition, in addition to the points that you mentioned, a lot of work has been done in the area of how the striker assembly is guided and interacts with the bolt, and shroud. Bolt interior clearance and finish, shroud mocifications that address friction and bind, and firing pin bushing that provides additional guidance are examples that come to mind. In your recent area of interest, rimfire, I believe Mr Calfee has written extensively about the importance of firing pin tip configuration. On the original subject of this thread, I always enjoy learning, and there is so much that I don't know.
Boyd
These rimfire forum discussions can be very entertaining, as long as one is not the one being discussed. As to your remarks about improving ignition, in addition to the points that you mentioned, a lot of work has been done in the area of how the striker assembly is guided and interacts with the bolt, and shroud. Bolt interior clearance and finish, shroud mocifications that address friction and bind, and firing pin bushing that provides additional guidance are examples that come to mind. In your recent area of interest, rimfire, I believe Mr Calfee has written extensively about the importance of firing pin tip configuration. On the original subject of this thread, I always enjoy learning, and there is so much that I don't know.
Boyd
I would disagree with much of that. BC has used several actions while generally leaning towards turbos. Many barrels have and are used. What makes him most controversial is the fact that nothing, nothing is ever more important than huberous and money, nothing.
I think you're overreaching. I'm no Bill Calfee fan, but I imagine the track record of his rifles is more important to him -- without that, he'd have neither praise nor money.
Now some of the things Calfee says are just wrong. Not "I think they're wrong", they're just wrong. And many of the things he complains about we have also addressed in CF. It took work and investigation to learn the true causes of problems, and I don't see him willing to put in that effort. Nor do I particularly blame him for that; any of us who earn our living by our handwork can deliver something better if we are allowed to use the materials of our choice, and work as we want.
I was amazed when Jerry Simison (A fine midwest benchrest gunsmith) would allow his customers to tell him he had to chamber a barrel through the headstock, when he preferred a system where he did some operations between centers. I'm always mad a hell when a customer tries to tell me how to do something, rather than critique the final result.
But for my purpose, yours is a fine post. We managed to disagree without calling each other $hit for brains.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
The reason I brought up many Smiths not Tuning; a friend called a number of RF Smiths a few weeks ago and he determined that almost none of them did anything in the way of tuning, certainly not anything like BC seems to do. Some only made sure the rifle functioned when they were finished. I think there is a place and need for "tuners" if Smiths aren't going to do it. I believe there are some Tuners out there. I , for one, would spend the money to assure that I have a rifle capable of competing at the highest level. I am soon to be 67. I know my limitations and the limitation of TIME. Time IS money and we don't get to take any of either with us when we go. IF one thinks about this a bit, wasting time and money testing ammo and every new tuning enhancement device that comes along doesn't make much sense. Why not simply pay someone who can deliver a service one needs? IF could be assured that someone can tune up my rifle and make it more user friendly, less ammo lot sensative, I will happily drive there and pay them for that service. I will make time for it. If I have a "Teaser Barrel" I want to know it and move on if necessary. I don't have time for Teasers any longer. I also don't have the time or the inclination to learn to become a Tuner. I am sure there is someone or more then one person who can cut through the crap and make things happen without needing to be the Biggest Toad on the Lawn.
Last edited: