Gunsmith pictures

[Pathfinder76]

With the wait time/gunsmith thread, I thought I would post a few photos of some action work that you don't often get to see. This is why some of this stuff takes a long time and can cost allot of money. This is from an American gunsmith. I was doing a bit of research before purchasing and an owner of one of his rifles graciously sent me these.

[Pathfinder76]

[gopher]

Gunsmiths use these tools.

[32-40win]

This one is a bit more on the upper end, but, illustrates a lot of points about building a gun. The work on the action and barrel and stock involve a lot of the same steps on a bolt action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj1k2jMYhuc

[leo]

Thanks for the post chuck. Some of these people are true artisans of a dying art, and some are hacks too.

[roger]

right you are chuck.
In my opinion, there are three basic levels of the build, and that build determines its application.it seems the more customized it gets the more specialized it becomes. the term custom really doesnt reflect what most gun 'assemblers' who modify factory machines.
No offence to the them, but it is just easier and therefore more cost effective for everyone. this is much the same as with vehicles, choppers or homes.
to me three levels would include:
factory, would be to take readily commercially available components and developing a shooting system. a one stop shopping experience to create a general use machine.

modified, changing out the componentry with improved versions of same, stock, trigger group, beanfeild or ultralite sheep guns are here.

full custom, 1000 yard, ipsc, or CQB. built with one task in mind. special calibers, usually these demands are reflected in associated increased costs, availability and time.

At the end of the day, if we are talking bolt action hunting rifles with some sort of synthetic stock, "custom" rifles are just the sum of some manufactured parts. It's what they do with those parts during the assembly phase that ultimately matters.

[QUOTE=chuck;1479658]With the wait time/gunsmith thread, I thought I would post a few photos of some action work that you don't often get to see. This is why some of this stuff takes a long time and can cost allot of money. This is from an American gunsmith. I was doing a bit of research before purchasing and an owner of one of his rifles graciously sent me these.
/QUOTE]


Too bad the receiver was not ground on bolt bore center. This would ensure the top front receiver and rear receiver are concentric with the bolt raceway centerline. Most receivers are also warped so grinding on bolt raceway center ensures the scope is parallel if the barrel if the receiver is properly machined to the bolt raceway center.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

At the end of the day, if we are talking bolt action hunting rifles with some sort of synthetic stock, "custom" rifles are just the sum of some manufactured parts. It's what they do with those parts during the assembly phase that ultimately matters.

There is no question that proper assembly is critical, even more so when a factory rifle is accurized.

IF you have poor parts no matter how you assemble them they will produce a poor assembly.

The benefit of a properly made custom action is that everything should be properly made to start with; with no production cost savings which would ultimately impact negatively on a rifle needing to be repetitive in accuracy .... not just an odd good group.

[Pathfinder76]

[QUOTE=Precisionshooter;1480738]

Originally Posted by chuck

With the wait time/gunsmith thread, I thought I would post a few photos of some action work that you don't often get to see. This is why some of this stuff takes a long time and can cost allot of money. This is from an American gunsmith. I was doing a bit of research before purchasing and an owner of one of his rifles graciously sent me these.
/QUOTE]


Too bad the receiver was not ground on bolt bore center. This would ensure the top front receiver and rear receiver are concentric with the bolt raceway centerline. Most receivers are also warped so grinding on bolt raceway center ensures the scope is parallel if the barrel if the receiver is properly machined to the bolt raceway center.

Chuck is there something you don't understand?

[Leeper]

There is no real reason to suppose the grinding of the receiver bridge is not aligned with the bore. In a job like this, the receiver threads are re-cut first. A threaded mandrel is inserted and all subsequent machining is oriented off that mandrel.
A careful observer will note that those pictures are of two different actions. One appears to be a 1950's era Model 70 on which the tang is slightly modified while the other is a pre-war Model 70 which has had the receiver bridge modified.
Quite often, gunsmiths who are, shall we say, accuracy oriented, have the idea that gunsmiths who make fine sporting rifles lack an understanding of what precision work is. Nothing could be further from the truth. While many custom gunmakers appear to concentrate on the artistic, this does not mean they ignore performance or that they don't understand alignment. Tom Burgess, for instance, was a tool and diemaker. Tool and die makers usually have a pretty good handle on machining techniques.
Frequently, this sort of condescending attitude toward the more artistic makers is held by benchrest 'smiths of limited experience. After twenty years or so, they will be capable of admitting that others have skills with which they had not been credited.
In actual fact, it takes a few months, at most, to learn to assemble competitive benchrest rifles. It takes a few years and some natural ability to learn to build top level custom sporting rifles. Few are truly able to achieve the top levels of technical knowledge in combination with artistic ability to be in the top echelon of custom builders. Those of us who are not able to achieve this level of expertise can keep trying or we can resign ourselves to being assemblers and do that as well as we can. Either way, we'll be providing a service to the shooting public and I hope, achieving a level of satisfaction in what we do. Leeper

Originally Posted by Leeper

There is no real reason to suppose the grinding of the receiver bridge is not aligned with the bore. In a job like this, the receiver threads are re-cut first. A threaded mandrel is inserted and all subsequent machining is oriented off that mandrel.

*** Not at all Bill. The photo is very clear no supposition required. In the gun industry alignment isn't that well understood. Reciever threads should be cut based on the raceway centerline As would squaring of critical faces, ideally one operation. Bridges modified while maintaining this alignment (if possible) would be considered premium quality work. Without knowing the full story or picture (pun intended) we can guess the smith is making someone happy.

Originally Posted by Leeper

A careful observer will note that those pictures are of two different actions. One appears to be a 1950's era Model 70 on which the tang is slightly modified while the other is a pre-war Model 70 which has had the receiver bridge modified.

Now Bill - careful? I think a blind man could see the difference... but you might be right.

Originally Posted by Leeper

Quite often, gunsmiths who are, shall we say, accuracy oriented, have the idea that gunsmiths who make fine sporting rifles lack an understanding of what precision work is.

Not sure what your point is. It remains a possibility and your statement is a general assumption assuming much.

Originally Posted by Leeper

Nothing could be further from the truth. While many custom gunmakers appear to concentrate on the artistic, this does not mean they ignore performance or that they don't understand alignment.

That might well be and certainly no one is questioning that statement as rare as it might be. Individuals who can overlap precision and artistry abilities are and few between. I don't know of any. I wish I had spent more time with Ralph Olsen an instructing in Manitoba from many years gone by.

Originally Posted by Leeper

Tom Burgess, for instance, was a tool and diemaker. Tool and die makers usually have a pretty good handle on machining techniques.

That might well be the case but certainly is not a hard fast rule Bill.

Originally Posted by Leeper

Frequently, this sort of condescending attitude toward the more artistic makers is held by benchrest 'smiths of limited experience.

Condescending? Bill I don't get what you are stating here. I feel I would be correct in saying that the number of artistic makers are indeed limited and those who fully understand the the "rifle assembly" are even fewer. I think anyone having a condescending attitude towards some artistry work is probably well founded.

[Pathfinder76]

I was going to keep my Yap shut on who the smith was but I can't help it any more. It is work by J. Mark Penrod. Precisionshooter should know who he is, but if he doesn't, maybe google will help. Here is a comment from someone on his work.

"The best custom gunsmith I know who specializes in machine work is Mark Penrod. You may call him at 260-982-8385. He does superb custom gun work and has literally trued and rebarreled hundreds if not thousands of guns. He is one of THE top gunsmiths serious Bench Rest competitors use when they want a rifle."

But maybe Precisionshooter should call him up and help him figure out how to put a rifle together. His number is above and i'm sure he'd appreciate the call.

[Bushrat]

[QUOTE=chuck;1482995] He is one of THE top gunsmiths serious Bench Rest competitors use when they want a rifle."

[QUOTE]

Interesting, have never heard or seen his name as builder/gunsmith on any equipment list of any major benchrest competition such as the US Nationals, Supershoot or the Worlds benchrest competition etc. Or did the guy you quoted mean that Mark is the guy benchrest shooters call if they want one of the finest walnut and blued steel sporting rifles built. I've seen tons of pictures of his work on sporting rifles, beautiful work. I didn't know he dabbled in benchrest rigs??

[Pathfinder76]

He's a benchrest shooter and builds precision rifles as well as sporting rifles.

[joshcat]

[QUOTE=chuck;1482995]I was going to keep my Yap shut on who the smith was but I can't help it any more. It is work by J. Mark Penrod. Precisionshooter should know who he is, but if he doesn't, maybe google will help.


hmmm did a google search not much there!

[Pathfinder76]

He is hardly a mystery.

Originally Posted by chuck

But maybe Precisionshooter should call him up and help him figure out how to put a rifle together. His number is above and i'm sure he'd appreciate the call.

Chuck, I still stand behind my statement on the photos you presented and no little to nothing about. Furthe the quote above is just to priceless to even comment, in short OMG!

[Leeper]

Penrod at one time worked with Bob Sherer who was making some of the better cut rifled barrels at that time. His barrels made some inroads into the equipment lists in the early eighties. I recall some Portland , Oregon shooters who used Sherer's barrels with some success. This was well before Krieger and the lists were dominated by buttoned barrels and a cut barrel was an oddity. Penrod at that time was building quite a few BR rifles and may still be doing so but mostly he is doing more specialized metalwork; as evidenced by the photos. The truth is, benchrest rifle building is gunsmithing/machining at it's most basic but taken to extremes. "Smiths like Penrod take the knowledge of basic machining techniques they learned in the BR arena and expand on them to perform work as shown.
Joe,
You don't know what steps may or may not have been taken to align the receiver so you jump to the conclusion that such alignment was of no concern to the person who set it up. (By the way, the raceway is the passageway for the locking lug. The centerline is the bore centerline.) To say that the gunsmith is simply making someone happy is is a statment out of arrogance with little foundation.
What basis do you have for thinking that he did not cut the threads to be concentric and co-axial with the bore centerline? After all, we've been doing this for more years than I've been around.
I have, for as long as I have been gunsmithing, carefully avoided criticism of work unless such was truly warranted. Your criticism of Penrod's work, in this instance, is petty at best and does little to increase your stature. Instead of stating that it was too bad the grinding was not done concentric to the bore centerline you might better have questioned how such alignment was achieved since you have no clue as to whether it was, was not, or if it was, how. Asking such questions and seeking the answers is an important part of the learning process. Chuck was kind enough to post Penrod's phone number so you call and either (a) ask how he aligns a receiver to grind the bridge or (b) tell him what a bonehead he is for not knowing about bolt action alignment requirements.
If you prefer, maybe you can just explain to me how he set it up so that it was misaligned and what steps he should have taken and did not, to ensure alignment. I have not been able to ascertain this from the pictures shown and you can, perhaps, help me there. For all I know, he did take steps to properly align the receiver with the bore centerline before grinding the bridge but as I said, I can't tell for sure. Plainly, you can. Leeper

Bill, had the receiver been set up in a jig we would know wouldn't we. As shown it is doubtful it was paramount in the setup. I guess you have more confidence in multiple setups and changing reference points with hopes of maintaining what is considered important in some accuracy smiths eyes. I should mention, the degree of alignment is another factor you haven't stated in your winded dissertation and clearly you might have given that some thought. The photos do not demonstrate that this has been done to the highest level; consequently I feel it is a safe assumption. I doubt the demonstration of this point was the intent of the photo.

Bill as this seems to be a soft personal spot for you I guess it makes little sense to ask not to blow things out of proportion. Clearly your thoughts are opposite of mine and obviously I tend be a little more critical then you presented with the images posted. My input has been focused on the photos as opposed to the individual. If you want to extrapolate the criticism to the individual do so on your own observation and please refrain from making it personal and all encompassing.

I suspect you have been around long enough to know how accurate alignment could be achieved.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Leeper

Penrod at one time worked with Bob Sherer who was making some of the better cut rifled barrels at that time. His barrels made some inroads into the equipment lists in the early eighties. I recall some Portland , Oregon shooters who used Sherer's barrels with some success. This was well before Krieger and the lists were dominated by buttoned barrels and a cut barrel was an oddity. Penrod at that time was building quite a few BR rifles and may still be doing so but mostly he is doing more specialized metalwork; as evidenced by the photos. The truth is, benchrest rifle building is gunsmithing/machining at it's most basic but taken to extremes. "Smiths like Penrod take the knowledge of basic machining techniques they learned in the BR arena and expand on them to perform work as shown.
Leeper

Bill, thanks for that info. I didn't know Penrod started out in benchrest. With todays custom benchrest actions there isn't much more required to building a benchrest rifle than chambering, installing a barrel and bedding it into one of the myriad of benchrest stocks available. Not discounting the attention to detail and tolerances it takes to make a winning benchrest rig, but I definately understand why a man of his talents would move on to the artistic side of gunsmithing to build those beautiful classic rifles I find myself drooling over.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Precisionshooter

Chuck, I still stand behind my statement on the photos you presented and no little to nothing about. Furthe the quote above is just to priceless to even comment, in short OMG!

So I post pictures of something that you can't do and to make yourself feel better about it you go on a rant assuming he can't do what you think you can? Which is what? Take an aftermarket action and screw a barrel onto it?

Well done.

[Pathfinder76]

As an aside and only because my back is now up, D'Arcy Echols & Co. has Mark true many of the actions that go into their custom builds. Why? Because they feel that NO ONE in the continental USA does it better. PERIOD.

[Zip]

Hey Chuck...after reading through this thread i just had to sneak in and say...i know nothing about gunsmithing,or building rifles...but i just wanted to say thanks for posting the pics and even giving out the guys name who does the work...awesome! Now comes the part that i do know about...if a guy has nothing better to do than try his best to make a mockery of your photo's for no good apparent reason other than just looking for attention then maybe he should turn off the computor for awhile and go do some dishes,laundry,sweep the floors...at least that would be more productive than what was said here...
Nice of you Chuck to share that with those of us who just admire a person who can do that type of work...Done now...i think!

[wally338]

Originally Posted by Zip

Hey Chuck...after reading through this thread i just had to sneak in and say...i know nothing about gunsmithing,or building rifles...but i just wanted to say thanks for posting the pics and even giving out the guys name who does the work...awesome! Now comes the part that i do know about...if a guy has nothing better to do than try his best to make a mockery of your photo's for no good apparent reason other than just looking for attention then maybe he should turn off the computor for awhile and go do some dishes,laundry,sweep the floors...at least that would be more productive than what was said here...
Nice of you Chuck to share that with those of us who just admire a person who can do that type of work...Done now...i think!

Yep X2.

[Leeper]

Everybody comes at things from a different direction. In some cases a person's interest is in selling top quality components; another's interest may lie in producing the best work he can regardless of the starting point.
Right here, I want to say this; Just because a person's interest is in the assembly of accurate rifles from component parts this does not mean he is unaware of aesthetic values. Many accuracy builders also make strikingly attractive rifles.
I'm going to speak briefly about machine set-ups. Even if the best system of jigs and fixtures is used, Alignment has to be verified during set-up. Assuming a jig will produce reliably accurate work is an invitation to error. Now, I can't tell you exactly how Penrod set up these actions but I can tell how it might have been done.
First, the receiver face, the internal threads and locking lug seats would have been recut. This is something which is commonplace and which is done to assure co-axial alignment of the threads and squareness of the seats and face. Subsequent to this, the receiver is set up and th bottom surface is re-machined so that it is perfectly aligned with the bore. At the same time, the contact (rear) surface of the recoil lug is re-machined so that it is truly square to the bore. From this point onward, any of these surfaces may be used as a reference. If the receiver is set up on the grinder on a magnetic chuck, alignment and orientation can be verified before grinding commences. Regardless of the type of work holding fixture being used, verification of alignment is the most critical operation.
It is often considered preferable to do as much in one set-up as possible and this is truly the easiest way to ensure consistent set-up. There are times though that this is not possible and in these situations one establishes a reference from whence all subsequent work is measured. The old "if (a) = (b) and (c)= (a) then (b) = (c) sort of applies here. If surface "a" is perpendicular to the bore and surface "b" is parallel to "a" then "b" must also be perpendicular to the bore. If "c" is parallel to the bore then "b" is perpendicular to "c". The degree to which this is so is dependent upon the requirments of the worker and the degree to which he or she adheres to these requirments.
Ultimately, it matters not how something is accomplished; it is the accomplishment itself which is important. Without knowing, in detail, the steps taken, it is impossible to determine the degree to which the goal was accomplished. This is why I don't say, "He did it wrong". Instead, I ask, "How did he do it?" Given that knowledge I can then say, "he did it the hard way" or I can say, "That was clever". Unless I have the work in hand and it's crooked as a dog's hind leg, I can never say, " He did it wrong". Leeper

[dero338]

Hi chuck
tanks for sharing
I hope you will just ignore the nonconstructive critics and show more

[purgatory.sv]

I like the pictures I can only dream.
As for precisionshooter your comments are not productive. If anything you appear to be fishing, if you need answers you were given the contact information.

Originally Posted by Leeper

First, the receiver face, the internal threads and locking lug seats would have been recut. This is something which is commonplace and which is done to assure co-axial alignment of the threads and squareness of the seats and face. Leeper

Bill, recut in relation to what might I ask?

Common place sure... but you can do it a number of different ways and do it wrong. I suppose in reality alignment really is subjective. You could be out a degree of two or three and still technically be aligned .... that is within less then say 5 or 10 degrees. In addition to angular misalignment you could have an offset.

Bill, your often provide such detailed responses I am surprised you didn't mention another helpful tip which is to verify all machining operations on completion. Strangely you didn't mention this point; probably an oversight but maybe your experience has told you it isn't a necessary step, hence your detailed explanation ignoring it.

To minimize errors machine operations should ideally been done from one setup without moving parts which could and often does introduce possible errors.

We all have minds and I think we should start using them instead of waiting to be spoon fed. I know we all want to have the answer or reason (God knows if you don’t supply it your not credible but really…). If you want the particulars there are multiple sources of useful information on the market to educate oneself in detail. I would recommend starting with Greg Tannel’s videos on action accurizing. Mr. Tannel has gone into considerable detail pointing out problems and how he feels a smith can obtain the best job possible. Of course Greg charges for the video’s and rightfully so. After all time is money. Don’t forget builders do have proprietary techniques which they chose to keep confidential for a reason.