Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
More reloading issues
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Trickymissfit" data-source="post: 647571" data-attributes="member: 25383"><p>I was brought up in the school of thought that used gauge lines to setup deminsions of parts with tapers and even angles. I would usually just CAD them out and setup a gauge line deminsion from there. A good CAD system will get you numbers in the .0001" range without any serious problems, and this can be taken down to arc seconds if you wanta go nuts</p><p> </p><p>One of the major problems with tapers and angles is that virtually all pieces of equipment these days uses a fanuc control. This controll is known to have a floating point decimal error built into it. Now you can work this down to where the error don't mean squat. Then you add into the equation that the machine doing the work will have a little built in error, and you now know why parts don't perfectly fit. It's virtually a lost art in using a master to make duplicates off of when it comes to long tapers, and I seriously dount there are twelve people in the firearms business that can do it right. We've literally lost that piece of "black art", and the folks can are close to being dead. Thus in this day and age we're learning to use the term "close enough." You make a die body with .0005" error in the taper and maybe .00075" in the shoulder concentricity, then you size a case and put it in a chamber that is within .0015". Now you have the miss match we've been cussing (probably even worse). But on the otherhand we probably couldn't afford anything that was close to perfect as well.</p><p>gary</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Trickymissfit, post: 647571, member: 25383"] I was brought up in the school of thought that used gauge lines to setup deminsions of parts with tapers and even angles. I would usually just CAD them out and setup a gauge line deminsion from there. A good CAD system will get you numbers in the .0001" range without any serious problems, and this can be taken down to arc seconds if you wanta go nuts One of the major problems with tapers and angles is that virtually all pieces of equipment these days uses a fanuc control. This controll is known to have a floating point decimal error built into it. Now you can work this down to where the error don't mean squat. Then you add into the equation that the machine doing the work will have a little built in error, and you now know why parts don't perfectly fit. It's virtually a lost art in using a master to make duplicates off of when it comes to long tapers, and I seriously dount there are twelve people in the firearms business that can do it right. We've literally lost that piece of "black art", and the folks can are close to being dead. Thus in this day and age we're learning to use the term "close enough." You make a die body with .0005" error in the taper and maybe .00075" in the shoulder concentricity, then you size a case and put it in a chamber that is within .0015". Now you have the miss match we've been cussing (probably even worse). But on the otherhand we probably couldn't afford anything that was close to perfect as well. gary [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
More reloading issues
Top