The “ACE” Chamber System”......Anybody Tried It?

[orkan]

That's generally a good idea. As you say, experience not theory.

But sometimes the theory is so poor and befuddled that it's not worth the lab time and cost of testing.

I disagree with that mindset. Until the work has been done, you simply do not know how something will turn out. You may think, and you may be proven right, but until that proof exists there is nothing to know. The testing may surprise you. Innovators deserve that much at least, before getting mobbed like in the benchrest.com thread.

Testing is valuable. Theories not so much.

I know nothing of this invention, but I know it should be given proper consideration. As should many new things which get attacked upon release.

 

[Hohn]

There's a difference between being respectfully skeptical, vs being aggressively opposing.

Besides, what proof could he possibly provide, that would be accepted?

I guess it's too much to ask that people actually have experience with the product they are bashing.

I have no idea if this ACE idea holds water, but I'm not stupid enough to think I'm so smart that I don't need to have tested it first hand, to have my opinion on it be worth anything at all.

There are lots of things that work in theory but not in practice. But there are very few things that work in practice for which a valid theory can't be derived. If the ACE setup works, it is *in spite* of the offered theory, not because of it.

And in my world, we have to prove at least a plausible theory to justify the cost of testing. That's why we spend some much money on computer modeling. The computer model saying it's OK doesn't mean it's OK. But if the computer says it's bad, it's almost never good.

 

[300_whisper]

No one said anything bad or negative. The vast majority on this thread were solely speaking from a machining efficiency standpoint and not a “does it work” stand point.

 

[Hohn]

I disagree with that mindset. Until the work has been done, you simply do not know how something will turn out. You may think, and you may be proven right, but until that proof exists there is nothing to know. The testing may surprise you. Innovators deserve that much at least, before getting mobbed like in the benchrest.com thread.

Testing is valuable. Theories not so much.

I know nothing of this invention, but I know it should be given proper consideration. As should many new things which get attacked upon release.

I'm sympathetic to your approach. I'm skeptical and firmly believe in testing. (I'm an engineer by trade). You've likely heard the old saw "one test is worth a thousand expert opinions."

But testing is often inconclusive, too. There are uncertainties in test methodology, noise in the data. So while I share your desire for hard data, I'm experience enough to know that the test data is often very grey and relies on the same kind of tea-leaf reading that we do when we assess groups on a page that all are similar size but different shape.

You might test the ACE setup and believe it is better only to find it's no different at all once your sample gets larger. Or the other way around.

I've seen many times where something based on invalid theory was tested and "the data showed it was good" only to find that it wasn't in fact good-- it's that the test wasn't sufficiently capable to show it.

At some point, the data requires human interpretation. And we interpret it based on our own paradigms. Theories, if you will.

ETA: I really hope to someday be a good enough shooter with an accurate enough rifle and load that I could even detect the difference between ACE vs traditional reamer. But since traditional reamers are shooting in the zeroes, I don't see that day arriving in my lifetime.

 

[Hohn]

I'm sympathetic to your approach. I'm skeptical and firmly believe in testing. (I'm an engineer by trade). You've likely heard the old saw "one test is worth a thousand expert opinions."

But testing is often inconclusive, too. There are uncertainties in test methodology, noise in the data. So while I share your desire for hard data, I'm experience enough to know that the test data is often very grey and relies on the same kind of tea-leaf reading that we do when we assess groups on a page that all are similar size but different shape.

You might test the ACE setup and believe it is better only to find it's no different at all once your sample gets larger. Or the other way around.

I've seen many times where something based on invalid theory was tested and "the data showed it was good" only to find that it wasn't in fact good-- it's that the test wasn't sufficiently capable to show it.

At some point, the data requires human interpretation. And we interpret it based on our own paradigms. Theories, if you will.

ETA: I really hope to someday be a good enough shooter with an accurate enough rifle and load that I could even detect the difference between ACE vs traditional reamer. But since traditional reamers are shooting in the zeroes, I don't see that day arriving in my lifetime.

An example of testing uncertainty:

Imagine you wanted to collect data how "what is the fuel flow through here". Here's what you get:



So? What is the fuel flow?

 

[Will Henry]

I read through quite a bit of the thread before I skipped to the end but I missed Jackie's description of his ACE install.
Ultimately, I think this is another example of "that can work too".
I usually look through barrels while they are spinning in the lathe and one can see a pretty minor amount of wander in the bore. I have looked through exactly one barrel, in the last 45 years, which appeared to be perfectly straight over 28 inches. I have looked through a few which were exceptionally good and most are damn straight for the first ten inches or so.
Naturally, straight barrels are easier to work with while those which wander waste a lot of the gunsmith's time in setting them up to try and get the best result. I don't see the ACE as being the ultimate answer but it is one company's answer.
In the end, they are able to have a chamber which does not change. However, the fitting of the barrel to the chamber extension would still be just as critical as fitting a barrel conventionally. Co-axial alignment would still have to be maintained. WH

 

[orkan]

No one said anything bad or negative. The vast majority on this thread were solely speaking from a machining efficiency standpoint and not a “does it work” stand point.

I'm not focusing solely on this thread, but that thread on benchrest.com too.

Things need to be given at least a fighting chance to work, is all I'm saying. I've personally gone through what that gentleman at wolf precision is going through. It's dehumanizing and not fun at all. Especially if you're later proven correct. So perhaps my own negative experiences getting mistreated by the "forum mob" cause me to empathize with him... but I do. It's not a fun experience. I don't know if he's correct in his claim of "best," but I was, and that is continually proven. Yet it doesn't stop people with no experience with my product from continuing to bash it, even to this day. It's frustrating to say the least. So maybe I caught a case of the feels as I read that benchrest.com thread and became empathetic with the guy.

I don't know the man personally. I've bought one or two BAT Tactical actions from Jamie. He's been straight with me in all our dealings. Seems genuine, and that's as much as I know. Regarding this new idea... I think the benefits he's stated of being able to work with material that is super hard, that reamers don't like... might end up being of benefit in certain applications. I'm sure there would be a few other benefits that could be argued as well. I personally see no harm in withholding my thoughts to the contrary until after I've had some experience with his product.

I think, in general, there is a bit too much "criticism" of new products from those that haven't used them. That's all I'm really trying to say. There's a person behind this, and it's not fun to be criticized by people that won't even give your idea some hands-on time before condemning it as a waste of effort.

Hohn, I can't argue for or against the accuracy claims. However, the other "potential" benefits of not having to use a reamer seem somewhat exciting in their own right. I think Jamie was led into defending the least defensible aspect of his invention. Just like barrel cleaning or land/groove configurations... people on forums love arguing the things that are least able to be quantified. The ability to produce chambers/barrels very quickly, and out of more exotic materials... would seem the most exciting part of the discussion. That's what I'd like to hear more about. I agree with you regarding the accuracy aspect. Super hard argument to make when quite a few smiths can produce sub-1/4 moa rifles on the regular right now. However, there could be things that we're missing there also. Things that actual testing would reveal, perhaps.

 

[300_whisper]

@orkan that makes sense. I didn’t read the bench rest thread, just watched the video. So I didn’t know about the negativity over there.

I’m going to need about 100k rounds out of your .22 before I believe it’s accurate, btw.

 

[orkan]

@orkan that makes sense. I didn’t read the bench rest thread, just watched the video. So I didn’t know about the negativity over there.

I’m going to need about 100k rounds out of your .22 before I believe it’s accurate, btw.

I’m working on it!!!

 

[Hohn]

Orkan,

I think there are potential merits to the concept. It is absolutely preferable to single point cut a chamber instead of ream it. As you mention, a SP cut tool can cut harder materials a reamer can't. It doesn't follow the bore. The most precise equipment in the world is cut via single point. (google single point diamond turning).

I appreciate your acknowledgment that you might be sympathetic to anyone getting blasted by the web mafia. Lord knows the forum mobs in many places are just brutal. (I've got a story about a run in I had on a diesel truck forum in the early 2000s--guy showed up at my house!). Shame on me if I've been needlessly combative or offensive in the process of analyzing the ACE.

I am not a smith nor a talented shooter. I do have the habit of learning by challenging claims and assumptions. It has both served me well and at times embarassed me. I hope this isn't the latter.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

So, who is going to buy one to give it a try? Id sure give one a good test if i had one. Gotta get em out there somehow- over the past 4-5yrs its been out i still havent seen one at a match nor heard of one in use.

 

[orkan]

So, who is going to buy one to give it a try? Id sure give one a good test if i had one. Gotta get em out there somehow- over the past 4-5yrs its been out i still havent seen one at a match nor heard of one in use.

Call him up! Maybe he'd like to find a PRS/NRL shooter to show one off for a while. I can't speak for him, but what could a phone call hurt? Work a deal. If I wasn't already aligned with a close friend that builds rifles for me, I'd buy one on my dime and hammer it out this summer. Maybe he already has testers. Maybe he's looking for some. Can't hurt to inquire.

It's time for someone to put some skin in the game though.

 

[INTJ]

I'm not focusing solely on this thread, but that thread on benchrest.com too.

Things need to be given at least a fighting chance to work, is all I'm saying. I've personally gone through what that gentleman at wolf precision is going through. It's dehumanizing and not fun at all. Especially if you're later proven correct. So perhaps my own negative experiences getting mistreated by the "forum mob" cause me to empathize with him... but I do. It's not a fun experience. I don't know if he's correct in his claim of "best," but I was, and that is continually proven. Yet it doesn't stop people with no experience with my product from continuing to bash it, even to this day. It's frustrating to say the least. So maybe I caught a case of the feels as I read that benchrest.com thread and became empathetic with the guy.

I don't know the man personally. I've bought one or two BAT Tactical actions from Jamie. He's been straight with me in all our dealings. Seems genuine, and that's as much as I know. Regarding this new idea... I think the benefits he's stated of being able to work with material that is super hard, that reamers don't like... might end up being of benefit in certain applications. I'm sure there would be a few other benefits that could be argued as well. I personally see no harm in withholding my thoughts to the contrary until after I've had some experience with his product.

I think, in general, there is a bit too much "criticism" of new products from those that haven't used them. That's all I'm really trying to say. There's a person behind this, and it's not fun to be criticized by people that won't even give your idea some hands-on time before condemning it as a waste of effort.

Hohn, I can't argue for or against the accuracy claims. However, the other "potential" benefits of not having to use a reamer seem somewhat exciting in their own right. I think Jamie was led into defending the least defensible aspect of his invention. Just like barrel cleaning or land/groove configurations... people on forums love arguing the things that are least able to be quantified. The ability to produce chambers/barrels very quickly, and out of more exotic materials... would seem the most exciting part of the discussion. That's what I'd like to hear more about. I agree with you regarding the accuracy aspect. Super hard argument to make when quite a few smiths can produce sub-1/4 moa rifles on the regular right now. However, there could be things that we're missing there also. Things that actual testing would reveal, perhaps.

Forum mobs do suck. I don't see that here. Forum mobs usually criticize a person. The criticism here and on BR Central has been on the merits of the idea. Most of the criticism of the idea has come from those of us who have chambered barrels, from novice barrel chamberers to experts like @DaveTooley and others. We even have an engineer, @Hohn, scrutinizing this.

After three years the ACE chambering method is not in widespread use among BR and F-Class gunsmiths. I can promise you if it was the best way to do it, many BR and F-Class competitors would insist it be done on their rifles.

Compare that to AutoTricker and AutoThrow, the AMP machine (for those who like to anneal), the set true chuck, etc. These are all innovative ideas that have rapidly caught on because they work very well. Any criticism of them was quickly overwhelmed by people using them. People tried them because the theory was sound and the their experience showed they worked.

 

[Shrek]

After watching that video it’s obvious that the ACE system is not really producing a straighter chamber to bore alignment than is currently being produced by competent gunsmiths every day and just adds a bunch of work. Good smiths are already aligning the chamber and throat with the bore where the bullet enters the bore not where the barrel started. You’re still going to have to zero out the bore to thread the barrel to fit the ACE and there’s the issue of a second threaded joint to stack tolerance. I encourage those with time and money to burn to test the system but it sure won’t be my time and money.
I could see some use for the system in applications where you burn through a bunch of barrels. Cut the ACE and then when replacing barrels you would still need to cut that “straightest” belled first inch of barrel off and then dial the bore in. It would be quicker and easier since it would be right there at the back for direct indication. Dial it in , face it perfectly square , cut a little bit of neck and the throat , and then cut and thread the tennon for the ACE. It would skip the need to prebore the chamber and do the counter bore and headspace. I don’t think that second joint at the ACE to barrel would do accuracy any favors. Putting the joint in the neck would address the erosion problem at the ACE to barrel joint.
The guy doing the presentation reminds me of every bad infomercial I’ve ever seen. 1800’s technology and the whole first inch of the bore bs would be laughable if ignorant people wouldn’t believe that hyperbole. Almost all rifle buyers have no knowledge of how their rifle is built so he seems credible. I certainly would have thought him credible just a few years ago.

 

[Tim Singleton]

Wonder if there is a way to prevent average joe from screwing his .223 barrel on his .308 chamber
Guess that having half the neck in the barrel would be the only stopping a bad outcome

 

[Tim Singleton]

I listened again he says the lead into throat
is all that is cut into the barrel

 

[geo.ulrich]

That's an interesting point Tim. what if its reversed and a 7mm barrel is screwed on to a .308 chamber

 

[Shrek]

I listened again he says the lead into throat
is all that is cut into the barrel

I think it is jackieschmidt that said he did a chamber like the ACE but cut part of the neck into the barrel side to prevent erosion. If you don’t do that the erosion would make the ACE good for only one use. Then the ACE would really be a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Tim Singleton]

It’s hard enough to keep Joe from blowing himself up as it

 

[coldboreshot]

We discussed that at length in the thread on Benchrest.com. We came up with the solution of extending 2/3 of the neck into the barrel, 1/3 in the chamber portion. This allowed the neck to seal the pressure.

I took it apart after I tested it, everything looked good. But that was only after about 50 rounds. I still do not know how Wolfplace addresses this.

Cool, thanks for the response and the info.