Gunsmith pictures

[fletcher]

Thanks precision shooter those photos meant diddly sqat to me till you chimed in

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by Precisionshooter

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.

Ok, shoot you talk a talk, Bill's out in the open about who he is. I would love to know who the hell you are. I've seen "wag, wag, wag...".
What are you building these days that would show us you can actually put a dog in this fight. Knowledge is ability, and if you know what your doing, tell us what you've built?

Bill has happened to post some long "dissertations" that says something. Yours is saying "blah, blah, blah" up to this point. Knows enough to get into trouble, not enough to get out is what most here are reading.

[Wrongside]

Originally Posted by rem338win

Ok, shoot you talk a talk, Bill's out in the open about who he is. I would love to know who the hell you are. I've seen "wag, wag, wag...".

Ah, good ol' Joe from RPS. Some folks'll never learn...

Thanks for the pics from Penrod's bench, Chuck.

[Leeper]

Joe,
If you have to ask "re-cut in relation to what?", it is unlikely you would understand the response. However it might also mean I was less than clear in what I wrote. I should have written "co-axial alignment of the threads to the bore". I thought this was self evident and indeed, it probably was to most of those who read it.
If you are not able to consistently set up a piece for machining you will also be unable to set it up so that verification of the step has any meaning. Setting up to measure is, in many respects, the same as setting up to machine. Still, quality control of machining operations is, of course important. I hasten to add, I'm not writing a text book here and there are likely to be some omissions and even errors!
Alignment is NOT subjective. It is measurable and quantifiable. If something is misaligned in any direction it cannot be described as co-axial.
Greg Tannel's methodology is just fine and machine shops have been using such techniques since before I or my father were born. I was using a fixture similar in design and principle to Tannel's thirty years ago and I sure as hell didn't invent it.
Now, most machinists and gunsmiths are likely to make some changes in methology over time; especially if they are open to the concept of improving their results or making the desired result more easily achievable. As it happens, most machinists, if working with conventional equipment and tooling, are likely to come up with strikingly similar ways of doing things; even if there is no contact between them. The big changes are in the area of new technologies. Nonetheless, the development and potential application of new technologies is no reason to denigrate the abilities of skilled craftsmen employing established techniques to produce a good product. I'm not entirely able to understand your reason for doing so. As I said before, your comments often seem petty and do little to increase your stature. Leeper

Originally Posted by Leeper

Joe,
If you have to ask "re-cut in relation to what?", it is unlikely you would understand the response.

Bill you slay me! I think you mean SOME machine shops and for starters…please feel free to post the material they used so readers can improve their abilities by following along. At the risk of sounding arrogant I know I would not have any trouble understanding anything you can logically write or think, but if you honestly think that I couldn’t, I’m guessing you must have banged your head or you have become delusional with age. After all Bill, I didn’t have to ask for clarification (I just did what you suggested earlier) but since you did miss a vital detail I thought I would try to make you happy and ask a question, but clearly making Bill happy isn’t too likely.

I suspect many people think they are doing the best they can when in fact there are not and this is due largely because they fail to endeavour to keep learning. My grandpa….?#@*&^@..! I think it would be good for you to take a dose of your own medicine, focus and be clear and concise before jumping onto the podium boosting incomplete instructions/information and denouncing anyone who doesn’t go into a level of detail you would like them to.

Originally Posted by Leeper

However it might also mean I was less than clear in what I wrote. I should have written "co-axial alignment of the threads to the bore". I thought this was self evident and indeed, it probably was to most of those who read it.

Might Bill?...less then clear (understatement!)...that is just priceless! Bill, bad recovery attempt on a rather HUGE blunder.

Originally Posted by Leeper

If you are not able to consistently set up a piece for machining you will also be unable to set it up so that verification of the step has any meaning. Setting up to measure is, in many respects, the same as setting up to machine. Still, quality control of machining operations is, of course important. I hasten to add, I'm not writing a text book here and there are likely to be some omissions and even errors!

Bill it is a free forum. You get what you pay for and if anyone ran off to their machine to accurize their action following "Bill's" "incomplete" instructions that would be unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Leeper

Alignment is NOT subjective. It is measurable and quantifiable. If something is misaligned in any direction it cannot be described as co-axial.

We don't have to argue this point but what I am saying there are allowable ranges and yes it is subjective since alignment is only as good as the devices being used to measure and is govern by the application for which it is intended! Clearly you just don't get it.

Originally Posted by Leeper

Greg Tannel's methodology is just fine and machine shops have been using such techniques since before I or my father were born.

Greg's video in which he outlines his methodology and tools is recorded and available to anyone who wants to buy it. As such it offers an excellent learning opportunity to help people achieve the best possible work. The beauty of the video is it shows a correct way to accurize an action. It is detailed and relatively current. I provided this information in this post so people can see and learn a proven and documented technique as opposed to ramblings on this forum.

Originally Posted by Leeper

I was using a fixture similar in design and principle to Tannel's thirty years ago and I sure as hell didn't invent it.

That is pretty obvious Bill, please lets move past the age issue you keep eluding to.

I am not in anyway trying to prove anything to anyone other than to provide information which will make people think a little and give an avenue to learn someting. I have no clue what you are really thinking or why you are as defensive as you are, and to be honest, I don’t care!

The internet age provides access to valuable resources for individuals which can enhance and speed their learning curve and increase their awareness.

The post started with unnamed, undetailed photos and for some reason you want to make a bigger issue of it. Last I recall we were free to post our observations right or wrong and your posturing isn't going to make a difference.

[Marlin07]

[gitrdun]

I believe that I have an understanding of the alignment issues that both Bill and Joe are discussing. So, I'll put this forth, more as a question rather than taking sides. If a part such as the actionr is clamped and secured in the vice, it should be properly supported as to not allow any deflection in order to maintain proper alignment. Thus all subsequent machining or grinding process will remain parallel or squared. However, some machining process will require the action to be removed from the initial vice and be moved to another. This is where in my understanding that I feel that Joe has a concern. The trueness that completing the machining/grinding is lost due to re-clamping in another vice, in another machine. However, accurate dial indicators will allow this part to be clamped, levelled and squared within tolerances of the initial machining process. In my view, it is best to complete all required maching and grinding with a single set-up. But sometimes, the desired results may not allow it. Fine, as long as the setup is kept to whatever tolerance as been defined prior to the job.

Although I've personally never machined any gun components, I do know (as I've done it) that I can move a machined part from one vice to another and maintain concentricity and squareness to within a tenth of a thou given time and the right equipment and measuring tools. I've machined and assembled parts for both steam and gas fired turbines which require very accurate tolerances compared to those required for precision shooting gear, at least to my understanding.

[Chet]

Mods, I think this thread should be in the fishing forum.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by Chet

Mods, I think this thread should be in the fishing forum.

Wrong...I find it very informative, from all accounts.

[Robmcleod82]

Joe I'm really starting to think YOU don't get it you speak like your rudementry understanding of alignment is the gospel. I've spent years of my life doing alignments there's always as you stated a tolerance, but stating that fact to make yourself sound smarter does the complete opposite. I the same as gitrdun have machined parts with tollerances in the .0001 to .00005 range. I'm guessing Leeper has been doing this stuff since you were sucking on your mommas teet and I'm pretty confident he knows what he is talking about so maybe you should give up trying to pick apart everything he says, know body wants to hear it.

[Dean2]

I too find this thread VERY informative, but for probably a very different reason. Based on what I have read, if I were choosing custom work to be done Leeper absolutely, Precision Shooter, not a chance in hell. True colors and knowledge have been clearly displayed in this thread and I find that EXTREMEly valuable for my next custom build.

Chuck - I don't always agree with your perspectives, even as another lefty, particularly of late, but this one you hit bang on the money. Thanks for doing it.

Leeper, excellent responses and AMAZING restraint and professionalism in your replies, despite some pretty heavy provocation. You and I will be doing some business in the near future.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I agree with alot of what Dean2 has said....certain people carry themselves well in times of disagreement....some others not so much....

LC

[gitrdun]

Sooooo, we're all in agreement that we should all be shooting Savages with a floating bolt head, thus none of this is an issue......right?

[Wanted]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

Sooooo, we're all in agreement that we should all be shooting Savages with a floating bolt head, thus none of this is an issue......right?

The most entertaining post in the whole thread, and I totally agree with lefty! A heated debate can truly show ones colors.

[Leeper]

I don't know about the "shooting Savages" part. I have one and I have had considerable difficulty doing well with it. Part of the reason for this is that I feel a need to put bag over my head to hide my identity when ever I am shooting it! I thought about marking "Winchester" on the side but don't know if I could get that past anyone.
My rifle's bolt head doesn't float enough to make up for anything at all.
Joe and I disagree on many subjects and, in some cases, our positions are taken not out of ignorance, as in this case, but just out of philisophical differences. That's OK and discussions may entertain as well as inform. As for detailed action truing procedures, Joe, if I ever finish the darn thing, you can buy the book! I'll put in some pictures. Leeper

[Robmcleod82]

I don't know about the "shooting Savages" part. I have one and I have had considerable difficulty doing well with it. Part of the reason for this is that I feel a need to put bag over my head to hide my identity when ever I am shooting it!

Thats funny I have the same problem

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

Sooooo, we're all in agreement that we should all be shooting Savages with a floating bolt head, thus none of this is an issue......right?

Well as long as the bolt face is perpindicular to the back of the bolt lugs, the lug seats in the receiver are square, the recevier threads are square to the seats, the receiver face is square to the barrel shoulder, the barrel threads aren't crooked, and the chamber is square to all those, providing you don't cross thread the barrel nut the thing should at least be able to get the bullet out of the barrel in one piece..... though I would advise using a cotter pin and a couple lock washers to hold it all together...........

[Mekanik]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Well as long as the bolt face is perpindicular to the back of the bolt lugs, the lug seats in the receiver are square, the recevier threads are square to the seats, the receiver face is square to the barrel shoulder, the barrel threads aren't crooked, and the chamber is square to all those, providing you don't cross thread the barrel nut the thing should at least be able to get the bullet out of the barrel in one piece..... though I would advise using a cotter pin and a couple lock washers to hold it all together...........

don't forget the locktite and duct tape.

PS and Leeper, thanks for the posts, this newbie learned a little bit, even if it was hard on the head and required many re-reads and cross referencing to understand.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by Mekanik

don't forget the locktite and duct tape.

PS and Leeper, thanks for the posts, this newbie learned a little bit, even if it was hard on the head and required many re-reads and cross referencing to understand.

here, this is easier on the mellon

http://www.savagearms.com/news/article/?id=2K5nTzegQ

[Mekanik]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

here, this is easier on the mellon

http://www.savagearms.com/news/article/?id=2K5nTzegQ

I am a newb and the first new rifle I bought myself was a savage in 17. Pretty basic but It's a good learning gun. I like it even though it's not as finely made as some others. I am getting better at punching the holes closer together thanks to it.

Originally Posted by gitrdun

I believe that I have an understanding of the alignment issues that both Bill and Joe are discussing. So, I'll put this forth, more as a question rather than taking sides. If a part such as the actionr is clamped and secured in the vice, it should be properly supported as to not allow any deflection in order to maintain proper alignment. Thus all subsequent machining or grinding process will remain parallel or squared.

gitrdun – I think it is important to remember that a factory action isn’t perfect and pending machining operations by the manufacturer and the timing of them, the imperfections are not corrected due largely to costs. Most mass produced actions are left as is after heat treating so most mass produced actions are no longer straight / square. Never mind the uncontrolled polishing that takes place afterwards to potentially make things worst. The Savage action (and some others in varying degrees) is a different beast since Savage has made allowances for these issues. Getting back to our situation, there is a need to true them (if you want the maximum performance. To simplify the point, it is sort of like starting with a perfect cylinder and ending up with a steel shaped banana after heat treat and leaving it that way ready for polish or bead blast. Now this is a bit of an exaggeration, but I think you will agree trying to hold a banana in a vice etc. is a bit of a challenge. I take your situation as different since you are typically holding something that is machined perfectly straight/parallel etc. I will rattle this info off quickly so I hope it isn’t too poorly written.
I think I am safe to say that the action/receiver bolt raceway bore centerline is the primary reference point as is the bore of the barrel when doing any precision work. Ideally all modifications done to the receiver which are intended to be parallel or aligned need to some how be tied into this axis.
I haven't seen a mass produced action that did not have some degree of warpage after heat treat. Of course now nothing is straight with what is deemed important; I.E. the bolt. I suppose there are a number of different ways to correct this issue and I prefer to start working from the bore of the action. This hole can be straightened out by reaming which leaves it oversize, but straight. The remaining external action surfaces remain out of parallel or square in relation to the new freshly reamed bore. Now simply clamping the receiver into a vise can now cause the bore to be distorted since the clamping surfaces (they have issues too) are straight and the exterior action surfaces are not. The vice tends to straighten the action exterior out based on its profile as clamping forces are increased. Not a desirable thing. The use of a magnetic supports/plates or magnetic vice can reduce this possibility. The trick is how do you hold the receiver when the exterior is less then perfect? Again a number of ways are possible.
Surface grinding is one way to ensure the action exterior is brought back into spec. in relation to the bolt raceway. In the case of the photos, on an action with a flat on the bottom, the bottom needs to be ground flat and parallel to the bolt raceway with the scope mount holes 90 degrees to the flat surface (and they too may need to be redone). From the supplied photos, we do not how the bottom was set up prior to grinding the bottom of the receiver. If this detail was missed, any surface grinding of the bridges using the bottom as a support (reference) without additional correction will likely no longer achieve what we set out to do. In the photo, is the bore parallel to the mag plate it is sitting on? I would hope so and in this setup we cannot tell.

As most people know, the bore of receiver raceway is typically oversized to overcome receiver distortion (due to heat treat) and to ensure smooth operation under most conditions when exposed to varying degrees of contaminants.

I hope this helps a bit.

Originally Posted by Leeper

Joe, if I ever finish the darn thing, you can buy the book! I'll put in some pictures. Leeper

Bill I would hope you would be kind enough to send me an autographed hard covered copy! LOL I don't read much material that references historical information so it should be a good read anyway. All reference material is good even if it isn't likley to be perfect.

[MK2750]

Mr Leeper,

I make a living selling and installing fairly high tech equipment that most of my customers have little understanding of. Like me (and the majority of others here) my customers have little interest in how to build a clock, they simple need to know what time it is.

We have to rely on the experts to deliver to us a quality product that fits our individual needs. When bad things happen, as they sometimes do, we have to trust the expert to make things right and not try to baffle us with BS.

Every rifle in the house shoots better than I do so I won't pretend to know anything about precision shooting. I do however know a thing or two about honesty and integrity and your responses in this thread display a fine example of both.

I enjoy your posts and you could do work for me anytime.

[Woodbeef]

Originally Posted by Precisionshooter

Bill I would hope you would be kind enough to send me an autographed hard covered copy! LOL I don't read much material that references historical information so it should be a good read anyway. All reference material is good even if it isn't likley to be perfect.

Remember though...............Those that don't learn from history,keep on making the same mistakes. I hope Bill puts in lots of detailed pictures for you.

[Leeper]

And here we have gone full circle, Joe. Your assertion was that the bottom of the receiver had not been machined to be parallel to the bore prior to grinding the bridge. You made this assertion with no evidence to support it. Instead, you assumed that the operator had no understanding of precision alignment. An assumption based on ignorance. What puzzles me is your purpose in attempting to denigrate the skills of the machinist doing the work. Perhaps it was an attempt to suggest that only you knew the secrets of straight and square and that information from any other source was suspect at best. Possibly, you were, in a somewhat back handed manner, just trying to advocate for the custom actions which you import and sell (all excellent actions, by the way). Whatever your intent, I'm not sure your approach was entirely successful. Still, this is just your way, I suppose. As a co-worker of mine once said of a man whose manner we found abrasive, "I think that's just his natural way of bein'. I don't think we should hold that against him". Wise words, indeed. Leeper

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by MK2750

Mr Leeper,

I make a living selling and installing fairly high tech equipment that most of my customers have little understanding of. Like me (and the majority of others here) my customers have little interest in how to build a clock, they simple need to know what time it is.

We have to rely on the experts to deliver to us a quality product that fits our individual needs. When bad things happen, as they sometimes do, we have to trust the expert to make things right and not try to baffle us with BS.

Every rifle in the house shoots better than I do so I won't pretend to know anything about precision shooting. I do however know a thing or two about honesty and integrity and your responses in this thread display a fine example of both.

I enjoy your posts and you could do work for me anytime.

Truer words never spoken.

I have been fortunate enough to own a rifle built by Bill and hope to own another in the future sometime. I can tell you that true colours really shine in this thread from the posters...

Originally Posted by Leeper

And here we have gone full circle, Joe. Your assertion was that the bottom of the receiver had not been machined to be parallel to the bore prior to grinding the bridge. You made this assertion with no evidence to support it. Instead, you assumed that the operator had no understanding of precision alignment. An assumption based on ignorance.

No evidence…? Bill, from the photo I think you can agree and even be 100% confident that the bridge was being ground while the action was sitting on its flat bottom. The support is relatively clean and looks in good condition, we will assume that the machine was properly set up. What we cannot tell is if it the receiver base was ground at all (never mind if it was ground correctly) or if it sat on the original as supplied base. What am I missing? My initial statement was a fair assumption since there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. Had the receiver been set up differently, say on mandrel on centers etc the concern would have been lessoned. If you can recall (you might have to read back), Chuck did not post any details at the time.

Honestly Bill, do you really think EVERYONE who modifies a factory receiver (and takes pictures) goes into the thought process discussed here? Are you suggesting that the act of just tossing a receiver on a surface grinder or other machine without any consideration to what was discussed doesn’t happen? Christ Bill if you do, you sure are naive for a person your age but I doubt that is likely and therefore it must be something else.

Originally Posted by Leeper

What puzzles me is your purpose in attempting to denigrate the skills of the machinist doing the work. Perhaps it was an attempt to suggest that only you knew the secrets of straight and square and that information from any other source was suspect at best. Possibly, you were, in a somewhat back handed manner, just trying to advocate for the custom actions which you import and sell (all excellent actions, by the way). Whatever your intent, I'm not sure your approach was entirely successful. Still, this is just your way, I suppose. As a co-worker of mine once said of a man whose manner we found abrasive, "I think that's just his natural way of bein'. I don't think we should hold that against him". Wise words, indeed. Leeper

Bill you will be puzzled for a long time given the degree of thought you are applying. Honestly Bill you gave the brief initial post far more credit with the gross assumption you just made above. There were absolutely no ulterior motives. Do you think you can handle that? What is interesting is the level of defensiveness you have demonstrated over a brief and realistic comment about some simple pictures.

[Leeper]

I think we're done here, Joe. You made your observations which I think were baseless and there we are. I'm sure your assertions have had the effect you hoped for and you will undoubtedly see an upturn in your business as a result. Take care. Regards, Bill

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by Leeper

I don't know about the "shooting Savages" part. I have one and I have had considerable difficulty doing well with it. Part of the reason for this is that I feel a need to put bag over my head to hide my identity when ever I am shooting it!

[purgatory.sv]

Just what I suspected he’s not that busy so he went trolling.