As an analyst, I do statistics for a leaving ... and we all know what they say about statistics. 
Why dial a rifle bore within .0001"
- Thread starter Canadian Bushman
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Thanks for sharing Ryan. The reason I appreciate the posts from gunsmiths is that I only get first hand experience and feedback with a very limited number of rifles/barrels I own, or that close acquaintances own, as a hunter. Gunsmiths continue to accrue experiences over time and my only hope of benefiting from that knowledge is if it's shared. Forums only have value if members are allowed to express their experiences and opinions. In the old days, the primary source of information available to hunters/shooters was from gun writers who received economic payback and fringe benefits from the gun manufacturers for their positive reviews. Gun writers' articles were clearly biased to pat the backs of the firearms manufacturers, as one could NEVER or hardly ever, find a negative rifle review. Every Ruger rifle examined, shot, and reported on my Elmer Keith reportedly shot 1" groups or better @ 100yds. None of the Ruger rifles I purchased in those days shot 1" groups at 100 yards. Such luck!
If all one finds is positive commentary, then that's the first and best indicator that the source of information is biased. There are certainly reasons for not sharing some experiences and I'm not judgmental about others' choices in this regard. But I find myself encouraging others to share - likely for the selfish reason that I appreciate the knowledge that can be used to my own advantage.
Statistics don't guarantee a known future result. If applied improperly, they can be contrived to lead to false conclusions. Same with percentages. The devil is in the details. However when applied fairly, statistics can improve the odds of choices leading to the preferred result.
I agree. People need to see both good and bad reports on a forum like this. The reason they frequent these forums is to gather and hopefully share information. Bad reports from a company ought to make that company try harder or get left behind. All good reports do nothing good for those that got crappy products from said company. That's why there are ratings and feedback left for products all over the internet. It helps people judge for their self weather or not to buy a product.
The companies should share info as well to help inform potential customers if nothing else. It doesn't necessarily have to be a sales pitch just information. Frank Green from Bartlein post quite frequently on Snipers Hide with a lot of useful information without being pushy about buying their barrels. As a customer that says a lot about a company to me. Let your product speak for itself but share as much knowledge with the customer base as you can. Sometimes even the companies can learn from the customers, even if all it amounts to is a preference for a certain product. That is useful information for future planning if nothing else.
The companies should share info as well to help inform potential customers if nothing else. It doesn't necessarily have to be a sales pitch just information. Frank Green from Bartlein post quite frequently on Snipers Hide with a lot of useful information without being pushy about buying their barrels. As a customer that says a lot about a company to me. Let your product speak for itself but share as much knowledge with the customer base as you can. Sometimes even the companies can learn from the customers, even if all it amounts to is a preference for a certain product. That is useful information for future planning if nothing else.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
In a perfect world this would be nice, but It is not a perfect world and there is always two sides to every story. To people like you and I the internet is a great learning tool. To others it is a used as a weapon and can slander a great company or its product simply because there is little or no repercussions to their post or comments or they have an ulterior motive.
I was taught that If you cant say anything good about someone, don't say anything. this philosophy
has served me well. I tend to believe nothing I read on the internet and only half of what I see until I try or prove it. (This is the reason I test everything before I decide if it is good or bad).
If a product is bad, it will catch up with the manufacture and will not be long for this world, If it is a good product it will stand the test of time.
I have the luxury of demanding quality because I don't smith for a living, I enjoy the work and do it for myself and a few friends. I have no stock in any company's and get no special treatment, but I communicate my requirements and quality in a professional manor and expect no less from the vendor. If I feel he will not honor his commitment, I simply decline his product.
Just a few more comments
J E CUSTOM
rpierce
Official LRH Sponsor
I have no bias towards particular companies. I am in the business of winning and making the most accurate rifle possible. I worked at Brux a few years ago while I was getting my business going. I have seen how they make barrels. I used their stuff before I worked for them. Some of my customers that work at other barrel companies have told me that Brux consistently makes the straightest barrels out there. So that is in addition to what I have seen. If Brux starts slipping I will be the first one to let them know and if they don't take care of it I will post it on the internet. I returned a barrel to Krieger over the summer since it was crooked. Took 2 months to get a new one and it wasn't much better. I will call people out on stuff if they don't take care of a problem. This is helpful because we as rifle builders see and know things that 99.9% of our customers don't. I am getting a barrel in from a relatively new manufacturer for my new fclass rifle I am building in 284 shehane. If it meets my standards of straightness, quality of lapping, accuracy etc I have no problem pushing my customers to use that brand and I will use it in the big matches. As some of you know I also have a line of fclass stocks I sell. They are sought after by some big name shooters. I am discontinuing them. I have tested a different manufacturers stock, X Ring rifle stocks, and like it more than mine due to the tracking etc. He has some techniques in the building process that make a superior product IMO. My stock guy wanted to copy it and I said no. Like I said I am in the business of winning and manufacturing rifles capable of setting world records. Brand loyalty means nothing to me if its not a superior product.
Ryan Pierce
www.piercisionrifles.com
Ryan Pierce
www.piercisionrifles.com
I don't think that tells you much beyond what barrels they were using. If they had all been using the brand you had a problem with, how would their scores have changed?
rpierce
Official LRH Sponsor
Edd,
F-class is a sport where if your equipment won't hold half minute vertical at 600 yds or better for 20 shots you might as well go home cause you won't win. These 20 shots will be shot in 3-4 minutes most of the time. The winning guns will consistently shoot 1/4 moa groups or better for 5 shots. It is the drag racing of precision shooting. So with the hundreds of shooters out there that went to the nationals and not one is using that barrel wouldn't it be safe to say that shooters feel they don't consistently cut the snuff. I just looked at the equipment list for the 600yd benchrest nationals and there wasn't one used there either. Brux dominated that followed by Krieger then Bartlein. So out of roughly 300 shooters for all the nationals none used it. That's an obvious trend. I use the same load in all my 284 win barrels. No adjusting whatsoever for individual barrels. They all shoot 1" at 600. David Gosnell won the long range fclass nationals with mind boggling scores. He tied his 1000 yd national record he set a month before that. 200-17x at 1000. That's 17 out of 20 into a 5" circle with all 20 inside the 10" 10 ring at 1000 yds. He told me he should have had a 200-19 easily but had a brain fart, lol. He had multiple other 200s with high x counts. He has another barrel he said that shoots just as good. Guess what he's using? BRUX. Shooters use what works. I for one won't spend thousands to go to nationals if I feel my equipment isn't capable of world class accuracy as is the same with all the other top level shooters. Im not trying to convince you or other people to use Brux as that only increases the time I have to wait to get them. Im just laying out what the winners are using. Its up to you to take that information for what its worth. Have a good one and Merry Christmas.
Ryan Pierce
www.piercisionrifles.com
F-class is a sport where if your equipment won't hold half minute vertical at 600 yds or better for 20 shots you might as well go home cause you won't win. These 20 shots will be shot in 3-4 minutes most of the time. The winning guns will consistently shoot 1/4 moa groups or better for 5 shots. It is the drag racing of precision shooting. So with the hundreds of shooters out there that went to the nationals and not one is using that barrel wouldn't it be safe to say that shooters feel they don't consistently cut the snuff. I just looked at the equipment list for the 600yd benchrest nationals and there wasn't one used there either. Brux dominated that followed by Krieger then Bartlein. So out of roughly 300 shooters for all the nationals none used it. That's an obvious trend. I use the same load in all my 284 win barrels. No adjusting whatsoever for individual barrels. They all shoot 1" at 600. David Gosnell won the long range fclass nationals with mind boggling scores. He tied his 1000 yd national record he set a month before that. 200-17x at 1000. That's 17 out of 20 into a 5" circle with all 20 inside the 10" 10 ring at 1000 yds. He told me he should have had a 200-19 easily but had a brain fart, lol. He had multiple other 200s with high x counts. He has another barrel he said that shoots just as good. Guess what he's using? BRUX. Shooters use what works. I for one won't spend thousands to go to nationals if I feel my equipment isn't capable of world class accuracy as is the same with all the other top level shooters. Im not trying to convince you or other people to use Brux as that only increases the time I have to wait to get them. Im just laying out what the winners are using. Its up to you to take that information for what its worth. Have a good one and Merry Christmas.
Ryan Pierce
www.piercisionrifles.com
specweldtom
Well-Known Member
Great thread!
I am a retired weldor. Wouldn't make a pimple on a machinist's butt. I have barreled up a few rifles for myself, family, and a very few friends. I have tried to make up for a lack of machinist's skills by being meticulous at every operation in the barreling process. Not perfection, just the very best me and my lathe can do.
My only "last word" is a BestTest .0005" indicator with a .015" +/- range. I have used at least 1 each of Shilen, Hart, Lilja, Bartlein, Krieger, Brux, Lawton, and Lothar Walther (17-4 ph) barrels.
My method of checking straightness is crude compared to what many of you do.
Chuck (3 jaw with .001" built in runout) on the muzzle end and put the breech on a live center.
Roll away from me with the last word on the breech O.D. Looking for <.001".
Slide over to the middle of the barrel and indicate it the same way. Looking for <.005".
Turn the barrel around and indicate the muzzle over the live center. Looking for <.002"
Reach out again to the middle of the barrel and indicate it. Still looking for <.005".
The most concentric barrels I have measured ended up a tie between the Bartlein and the Lawton.
The most consistent were the 1/2 dozen or so Liljas. All were less than .0025" tir in the middle, and were <.0005" tir breech and muzzle. Some of them just made the needle twitch, no measurable runout. Never had to touch any Lilja, Just set up and run them. The most runout in the middle of any barrel I used was a 32" Brux @ .0075". It went into a .338 Excalibur, and belly shooting at Ft. Bliss with 300gr Smkhp's could hold 3 shots in 4" at 1000 yds.
An explanation of my methods of dealing with barrels with >.001" breech or muzzle runout would be long and laughable to most of you, but they worked.
The Liljas all tended to be tight, and Mr. Manson supplied me with alternate pilot bushings that were .0005" smaller than his standard bushing O.D.s. The Liljas were also slightly faster than other makers and broke in quickly, usually with minimal or no copper fouling.
Stastically, my experience is a very small sample population, but enough for me to prefer Liljas.
I strive for chamber concentricity, thread fit, etc., but am obsessive about headspace, tending toward tight. Also, I only used SAAMI reamers if they were available in the caliber being chambered. I required long well-sized freebore for the boomers.
Obviously I didn't make benchrest rifles, but all of them were moa or better, most 1/2 moa, some 1/4 moa, and a couple of 'teens. Best was a 7-08, 5 shots at 100 yds into .134". My best boomer is a Hart barreled .30 x .378 with 5 shots into .258" at 100 yds. 5 shots pushed it. Too hot to touch after 5 rds. Bad for the throat and bedding. Never did it again.
Good hunting, Tom
I am a retired weldor. Wouldn't make a pimple on a machinist's butt. I have barreled up a few rifles for myself, family, and a very few friends. I have tried to make up for a lack of machinist's skills by being meticulous at every operation in the barreling process. Not perfection, just the very best me and my lathe can do.
My only "last word" is a BestTest .0005" indicator with a .015" +/- range. I have used at least 1 each of Shilen, Hart, Lilja, Bartlein, Krieger, Brux, Lawton, and Lothar Walther (17-4 ph) barrels.
My method of checking straightness is crude compared to what many of you do.
Chuck (3 jaw with .001" built in runout) on the muzzle end and put the breech on a live center.
Roll away from me with the last word on the breech O.D. Looking for <.001".
Slide over to the middle of the barrel and indicate it the same way. Looking for <.005".
Turn the barrel around and indicate the muzzle over the live center. Looking for <.002"
Reach out again to the middle of the barrel and indicate it. Still looking for <.005".
The most concentric barrels I have measured ended up a tie between the Bartlein and the Lawton.
The most consistent were the 1/2 dozen or so Liljas. All were less than .0025" tir in the middle, and were <.0005" tir breech and muzzle. Some of them just made the needle twitch, no measurable runout. Never had to touch any Lilja, Just set up and run them. The most runout in the middle of any barrel I used was a 32" Brux @ .0075". It went into a .338 Excalibur, and belly shooting at Ft. Bliss with 300gr Smkhp's could hold 3 shots in 4" at 1000 yds.
An explanation of my methods of dealing with barrels with >.001" breech or muzzle runout would be long and laughable to most of you, but they worked.
The Liljas all tended to be tight, and Mr. Manson supplied me with alternate pilot bushings that were .0005" smaller than his standard bushing O.D.s. The Liljas were also slightly faster than other makers and broke in quickly, usually with minimal or no copper fouling.
Stastically, my experience is a very small sample population, but enough for me to prefer Liljas.
I strive for chamber concentricity, thread fit, etc., but am obsessive about headspace, tending toward tight. Also, I only used SAAMI reamers if they were available in the caliber being chambered. I required long well-sized freebore for the boomers.
Obviously I didn't make benchrest rifles, but all of them were moa or better, most 1/2 moa, some 1/4 moa, and a couple of 'teens. Best was a 7-08, 5 shots at 100 yds into .134". My best boomer is a Hart barreled .30 x .378 with 5 shots into .258" at 100 yds. 5 shots pushed it. Too hot to touch after 5 rds. Bad for the throat and bedding. Never did it again.
Good hunting, Tom
shortgrass
Well-Known Member
In case we hadn't noticed, people are a lot like sheep..... If the winners' rifle had a Brux barrel, McMillan stock, Jewell trigger and Night Force scope many who didn't land in first place are gonna' go get what the winner has. Forget the notion of any 'skill' involved in the ability to shoot, reload good, consistant ammo, use that scope to its fullest. Components can make a difference, but they're not the only variable. Thankfully, we have many excellent components to choose from today. The ability of the shooter (that 'nut behind the trigger') and the care taken in assembling the components I find to be much more relevent than being just another of the 'sheep' who has just got to have "Brand-X" because thats what the 'winner' of the last match was using.
I don't know anything about F-Class shooting but I have had some experience in Drag Racing. Unless you got free stuff, the parts you said you used used on your race car was based on who had the highest contingency payout not whose parts you actually had on your car. The first thing you did when you got to the track was look at the contingency sheet and make sure you had the correct marking on your car.
rpierce
Official LRH Sponsor
I agree that shooters follow the leader to an extent. I also know quite a few top shooters who don't disclose their secrets either. Some will also intentionally mislead you as to their techniques. Your correct that we are very fortunate to have a very wide array of quality components as this does give us options to choose from. As far as payouts for winning big matches for fclass its a joke. If I win 1st at nationals I won't even win enough to cover the expenses of the trip. Youll win a nightforce scope and a few bullets. Big whoop in the grand scheme of things considering all the money you spent to get there and shoot. Not including all the other matches you shot that year to prepare for it. I got 2nd at the midrange nationals at Camp Perry last year and won a 100 dollars worth of NRA points to spend on the NRA store, . Match entry fees were 250 dollars. The other time I got 2nd at a national championship I got a couple medals and a few hundred bullets. Entry fees were 250 bucks or so at that one as well. Again pretty small potatoes for prizes.
Tom: Were you measuring straightness of the OD then? I was talking about the ID. ID is easily inspected by indicating the breech and muzzle end on the ID. Being careful when tightening down the spider on both sides so as not to bend the barrel and distort results. I then turn the lathe on to 130 rpm. Bore straightness is then easily seen by looking down the barrel. That crooked barrel I received and returned looked like a rainbow inside. It was so bad I actually took a video of it.
Ryan
. Match entry fees were 250 dollars. The other time I got 2nd at a national championship I got a couple medals and a few hundred bullets. Entry fees were 250 bucks or so at that one as well. Again pretty small potatoes for prizes. Tom: Were you measuring straightness of the OD then? I was talking about the ID. ID is easily inspected by indicating the breech and muzzle end on the ID. Being careful when tightening down the spider on both sides so as not to bend the barrel and distort results. I then turn the lathe on to 130 rpm. Bore straightness is then easily seen by looking down the barrel. That crooked barrel I received and returned looked like a rainbow inside. It was so bad I actually took a video of it.
Ryan
specweldtom
Well-Known Member
Ryan, just measuring O.D. runout.... Always figured measuring bore straightness was beyond my ability. I just depended on the barrel maker to deliver a straight barrel/bore.
The only "custom" barrel that I have been disappointed with was the 17-4 Walther, but it had been "Blackstar" electropolished. I believe that process was a fail. It only managed moa with over 20 different loads tried. I'm going to pull it and put the Hart back on.
Thanks for the info on how to see a bent bore. I'll have to think about the setup on my lathe for trying it. Doesn't sound complicated.
I should have said I used SAAMI dimension reamers exclusively when available, not the way I worded it in my post.
Glad I didn't have to make a living barreling rifles!
Good hunting, Tom
The only "custom" barrel that I have been disappointed with was the 17-4 Walther, but it had been "Blackstar" electropolished. I believe that process was a fail. It only managed moa with over 20 different loads tried. I'm going to pull it and put the Hart back on.
Thanks for the info on how to see a bent bore. I'll have to think about the setup on my lathe for trying it. Doesn't sound complicated.
I should have said I used SAAMI dimension reamers exclusively when available, not the way I worded it in my post.
Glad I didn't have to make a living barreling rifles!
Good hunting, Tom
Clark
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 772
In Oct 2010 I had a new PM1236 lathe and wanted to put 7mm Loather Walther barrel on a 7x57 VZ24.
But first I would practice by put a take off 7mmRM Rem700 barrel on a 1908 Braz Mauser.
I dialed in with the Intrepid to 0.0001"
I cut off the Rem threads with a parting tool, but did not deburr the hole.
The 7mmRemMag reamer got off center with the burr and visibly wobbled off center until it headspaced.
I measured the chamber and it was 0.0050".
I took it to the range and shot it anyway, along with the other rifles I did.
The rifle shoots better than I can.
I thought concentricity was important.
That math and testing by A.A. Abbato had to do with ammo concentricity.
Concentricity - How much more accurate? - THR
It turns out that run out in ammo is rotationally randomly inserted, while run out in chamber is consistent, and throws bullets off center in the same direction into the same small group.
It sometimes angers gunsmiths when I point this out.
They wasted their whole lives dialing in barrels.
But it is a one time cost, no harm no foul.
But first I would practice by put a take off 7mmRM Rem700 barrel on a 1908 Braz Mauser.
I dialed in with the Intrepid to 0.0001"
I cut off the Rem threads with a parting tool, but did not deburr the hole.
The 7mmRemMag reamer got off center with the burr and visibly wobbled off center until it headspaced.
I measured the chamber and it was 0.0050".
I took it to the range and shot it anyway, along with the other rifles I did.
The rifle shoots better than I can.
I thought concentricity was important.
That math and testing by A.A. Abbato had to do with ammo concentricity.
Concentricity - How much more accurate? - THR
It turns out that run out in ammo is rotationally randomly inserted, while run out in chamber is consistent, and throws bullets off center in the same direction into the same small group.
It sometimes angers gunsmiths when I point this out.
They wasted their whole lives dialing in barrels.
But it is a one time cost, no harm no foul.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
I 100 % agree with this, It is a combination of good barrel, good workmanship and good ammo.But do not get angered when/if someone tells me it is a waste of time, Because the craftsman in me tells me to do the best job that I can Irregardless of what the task is.
I also believe that Error can accumulate/add up, and have an effect on the end results. like
Specweldtom, I don't have to make a living gun smithing and probably do take more time that professional Gun smiths do to re barrel a rifle.
There have been some very good post with lots of experience and logic and I don't think anyone knows how much precision is to much or even enough. But we all know how much is not enough by the performance of the weapon.
With all of the talk about the equipment precision I had to go back and test it's accuracy. Again, I saw many Videos of people talking about run out and was surprised at the number of people that
though 0.005 thousandths run out on there chuck was close enough/ok (I do not , and never will).
I used a 0.000005 digital dial indicator (Very hard to use because of it's sensitivity) to check mine and it was .0005 (One half thousandth) off
so I went to work truing it. I never did get it perfect (0.00000) and after 3 to 4 hours of trying the best I could do was 0.000015 (one and one half 10 thousandths) I was still not happy but that was the best I could do with the chuck I had.
I also revisited the tail stock alignment and was able to get it dead on (0.00000) with the first 2.5 inches of the quill It moves off after that to 0.000005 to the end of travel (Still having trouble understanding this one) but now I know to use only the first 2.5 inches of the quill if I can.
Will it make a difference ? I think so, If only in confidence that it is well below the norm for the equipment I use. I know that there is more precise equipment that will beat this but most cant afford it.
I am also revisiting my internal inspection process to see if it is accurate or not and if it needs revising. I have in my possession, a premium barrel that was rejected. and did not want the
numbers(on purpose so I would not be influenced with my readings) and wont ask for them until I am finished checking it my self. this should tell me if my method is viable or a waste of time.
I know that there are Professional Gun smiths that have the ability and equipment to do better work than I can so I just have to try harder.
A good shooting rifle is not just a good barrel or good Gun smithing, It is the sum of all components that go into an accurate rifle, So improvements in any area is worth the effort.
I echo the comments that this has been a good post and should be a wakeup call for many of us.
J E CUSTOM
