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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Why not?
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="Dzaw" data-source="post: 144112" data-attributes="member: 7794"><p><strong>Re: machining nightmares</strong></p><p></p><p>Typically, the tolerances for runout and out of square are held to under 5 ten thousanths... rediculously precise, and there is nothing WRONG with this.</p><p></p><p>However, bear in mind that the tolerance applies to the action AND the barrel. In a worst case scenario, that means that a barrel that just makes tolerance fitted to an action that just makes tolerance could add up to 1 one thousanth runout AND one one thousanth out of square!</p><p></p><p>In a one peice setup, with the same tolerance level, the best case scenario is no better, but the worst case scenario is twice as good! What I'm really exploring is the upper end of quality control and consistancy in production.</p><p></p><p>Further, this would be a much stronger setup. Weatherby, for example made great claims about the strength of their "three rings of steel" ensrhouding the head of a cartridge. With good reason, it's a very strong setup. However, it isn't as strong as one ring of steel with a diameter equal to the aggregate diameters of those three, the mechanical joint between reciever and barrel is a weakness in the design that was neccessary only because of older machining capabilities.</p><p></p><p>As far as lapping without cutting off the end, please re-read above a bit more slowly. The bell shaped area where the lap is reversed would be contained in the disposable chamber plug designed for just this purpose, leaving the rifling, chamber, and throat fully intact. As stated above, the lapping plug would be useless after one use. Quite an expensive peice of tooling for a disposable unit! That is just one of the reasons the idea is impractical. The whole reason I came up with it in the first place is because it is the impractical that pushes design forward!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dzaw, post: 144112, member: 7794"] [b]Re: machining nightmares[/b] Typically, the tolerances for runout and out of square are held to under 5 ten thousanths... rediculously precise, and there is nothing WRONG with this. However, bear in mind that the tolerance applies to the action AND the barrel. In a worst case scenario, that means that a barrel that just makes tolerance fitted to an action that just makes tolerance could add up to 1 one thousanth runout AND one one thousanth out of square! In a one peice setup, with the same tolerance level, the best case scenario is no better, but the worst case scenario is twice as good! What I'm really exploring is the upper end of quality control and consistancy in production. Further, this would be a much stronger setup. Weatherby, for example made great claims about the strength of their "three rings of steel" ensrhouding the head of a cartridge. With good reason, it's a very strong setup. However, it isn't as strong as one ring of steel with a diameter equal to the aggregate diameters of those three, the mechanical joint between reciever and barrel is a weakness in the design that was neccessary only because of older machining capabilities. As far as lapping without cutting off the end, please re-read above a bit more slowly. The bell shaped area where the lap is reversed would be contained in the disposable chamber plug designed for just this purpose, leaving the rifling, chamber, and throat fully intact. As stated above, the lapping plug would be useless after one use. Quite an expensive peice of tooling for a disposable unit! That is just one of the reasons the idea is impractical. The whole reason I came up with it in the first place is because it is the impractical that pushes design forward! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Why not?
Top