It wasn't with my 300 PRC.If primary extraction is fine with say a .25-06 will it still be fine with a heavier hitter like a .300 Weatherby?
It wasn't with my 300 PRC.If primary extraction is fine with say a .25-06 will it still be fine with a heavier hitter like a .300 Weatherby?
Agreed. Just pointing out 6hat it often means different things to different people and must be defined.To me "blueprinting" means that you adjust it to the exact same dimensions given in the blueprint. A dimension of 1.385 +/- .005 inch is machined to be 1.385 inch exactly. Not sure how you could adjust a dimension under 1.385 since you couldn't put metal back on. Mostly truing should be done if the action needs it. Front of receiver square, recoil lug of uniform thickness, locking lugs lapped and threads recut and cleaned up.
I believe that Remington has a jig setup for welding on the bolt handle. Supposedly this was set up wrong way back when and never corrected. At least that's what someone elsewhere has said. With a good CNC setup and an operator watching for worn tooling, etc. no reason why mass produced actions can't be pretty dang good.
Agreed. Just pointing out 6hat it often means different things to different people and must be defined.
Interesting. In my experience people use the terms interchangeably and mean the same thing regardless of which one they're saying. I don't think anyone actually cares about the original R700 blueprint, no one I've ever met anyways, they just want their action to be more true regardless of how much or how little material has to be removed to make it so. I have seen at least one smith talk about a blueprinted R700 as one that has had the tenon area enlarged, which certainly wouldn't meet your definition of getting it to the original dimensions on the blueprint.Apparently, it's pretty easy for many to confuse blueprinting with truing, i.e. squaring the receiver face with the centerline of the bore is not blueprinting. I think that it would be very expensive and not worth the $$ to "print" an action.
Blueprinting is the term used by many for accurate machining of any part that Is less than true. The term blueprinting as many think is impossible because first they would have to have the factory design drawing and the factory tolerance limit Plus or minus. So in effect there is no such dimension of .000 dimensions only a desirable dimension plus or minus the maximum tolerance set by the designer.
Every part of an action has these tolerances and as long as they are within these tolerances they are factory specification, even though they are not exactly the same Truing Or Blueprinting is a process to minimize the tolerances between these parts so they are considered the minimum required tolerances for fit and function.
So if someone could tell me how they could make a factory or custom action to the exact design requirements with minimum tolerances without replacing some of the parts I would like to hear how.
Call it what you want, but it is an effort to minimize all clearances and have everything on the same "Exact" centerline. I call It Gunsmithing Craftsmanship.
J E CUSTOM
Lol. Oh how far we've come from post#1.
Because the point of the OPs post is to get opinions on what is his best bang for the buck. I don't think he's concerned too much about a argument of what the definition of "blueprint" is. It has a definition for sure but it's used loosely when describing action work. Here is another loose definition from NRA-SSUSA.What's wrong with clarifying what you mean when you use certain terminology?
Nothing at all. Just found it a bit humorous how far we all got from the original posters question. I always learn alot from these discussions.What's wrong with clarifying what you mean when you use certain terminology?
Nothing at all. Just found it a bit humorous how far we all got from the original posters question. I always learn alot from these discussions.