Blueprinting and accuracy improvement - any proof?

[BoydAllen]

Typical non defective is an oxymoron, when speaking of most "factory" actions. I have a job for you. Go to as many registered, short range, group Benchrest matches as you like. Find one successful competitor that is shooting an unmodified factory action. Do your research for you? Why? Good research is just a lot of hard work. Oh, and by the way, your inquiry has one major flaw that people often fall into. You seem to assume that people who create documents know more than those who don't.....in a field like this, that is a really bad assumption. The best are mostly too busy doing it to be bothered with writing it. Obviously I am not talking about myself.

 

[Ackman]

I am not saying that a gunsmith should not charge as much for taking smaller cuts. My point was that I don't believe them when they say that no factory actions are true and I believe they probably are afraid to tell people they spent a lot to make almost no change.

You're right, no reason to believe those guys. I wouldn't want to be you, but if I were you I wouldn't bother having work done by a riflebuilder....they're just a bunch of crooks. And seeing how you are, if I were a riflebuilder and you asked to have some work done, I'd tell you to shove it.

 

[rsilvers]

... My point was that I don't believe them when they say that no factory actions are true...

You're right, no reason to believe those guys...

So you believe that no factory actions are true and think I am incorrect to believe that some factory actions are true?

Do your research for you? Why? Good research is just a lot of hard work.

I get it. On the entire internet you cannot find one example that proves blueprinting improves an action's accuracy. Without such proof, you have to resort to personal attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[BoydAllen]

On the contrary, I seriously disagree with your idea of what constitutes proof, and I was trying to stir you up a little, and get you thinking. Sometimes, when you start from the wrong place, you can't get there from here. In a sense, I guess that I am agreeing with you. There is no way to prove what you are asking about based on published reports, on the internet, or anywhere else. Now, you prove that wrong if you like;-) What I think that I have learned about, has come over many years and experiences, and as many conversations as I could manage to to have by the best in the field of accuracy gunsmithing. Very few of these guys have taken the time to put what they know into print. On the other hand, I can only think of one professional gun writer who I think is qualified to write about the bleeding edge of accuracy theory, Jim Carmichael. He has competed, and made respectable showings in a variety of accuracy venues, including Benchrest. The trouble is that near that edge, the body of readers that would actually understand the finer points is so small that writing to that market would be economically unproductive for a news stand magazine, that lives off of adds for non-custom products. Getting back to the original subject, I have personal experience with enough situations where tightening and straightening actions has increased accuracy that it is beyond doubt...for me, and whatever any one else writes or believes is fine. The real question that I would like you to answer, that we need to know the answer to to have a sensible discussion, is what are your accuracy expectations, and goals. If groups that are reliably under 3/4" are the standard, then indeed, singlepointing the threads may be a waste of money. On the other hand, if you are building a rifle to get everything out of a BR or PPC with the very best of barrels, then it is money well spent, with one exception. It may be more economical to start with one of the Remington Clones (assuming that a full house custom action is not in the cards) when you add up the cost of a stock action and add to it the cost of modification by someone who does the very best work.

 

[Ackman]

So you believe that no factory actions are true and think I am incorrect to believe that some factory actions are true?

I don't know if no factory actions are true, or if some of them are. Neither do you.....how many have you pulled apart to check? You really don't know much. I do know you've shown yourself to be pretty much of a moron.

 

[holstil]

Would you lap your lugs to ensure equal contact, but not want to true the rest, if you had the option at no cost? Is the defintion of worth---.100"? To some or most it is piece of mind.
If it only took ten minutes to recut the threads and or true any portion, would you want to do it?
The problem is the time and effort it takes to quantify the process.
I bought my own lathe to do such things. I don't know if everything I do is for the better, but I think it is. If I took the time to make a mandrel and set up an action, I'm going to try to make it better, need it or not.
From my limited experience, I feel it is necessary to have the action and bolt face true and the bolt fitting the race. I have no documentation, but between my inquiries to people in the know and my actual hands on machining, I believe it is worth it.
That is not to say that some things are not warranted, most of us rely on a floating reamer holder. Would single point cutting a chamber be better or feasible?
I would read the results of your findings. I like to question also, however I think if you had your own lathe you would do all these things to. You tell me is it worth it?
Jim

 

[Snowwolfe]

On the contrary, I seriously disagree with your idea of what constitutes proof, and I was trying to stir you up a little, and get you thinking. Sometimes, when you start from the wrong place, you can't get there from here.

If you cant get there from here where do you start from? LOL! It all starts where you are at.

 

[rsilvers]

If groups that are reliably under 3/4" are the standard, then indeed, singlepointing the threads may be a waste of money

I would like documentation as to what degree, if any, precision improves from blueprinting. If a typical improvement is 0.05 MOA, I would like to know. If it is 0.20 MOA, I would like to know. After that, each person could decide if it was worth the expense.

 

[rsilvers]

Would you lap your lugs to ensure equal contact, but not want to true the rest, if you had the option at no cost? Is the defintion of worth---.100"? To some or most it is piece of mind.
If it only took ten minutes to recut the threads and or true any portion, would you want to do it?

I would not want a gunsmith to recut the threads because then they would be out of spec from the factory drawing, and would no longer accept standard barrels. If the factory threads, upon examination, seemed out of spec - I would ask the manufacturer to replace the receiver. If the threads simply had 0.002 of runout, I don't see how that could have an effect, since the bolt face is a plane parallel to the barrel mating surface.

I would want to reface the mating surface if it would improve perpendicularity - but I would be surprised if most needed it. Same for the bolt face - if it was not parallel to the locking lug mating surfaces.

 

[PHINPAD]

Although not Blueprinting, you may be interested in what this guy does to his Rem 700 SPS. Through the course of his videos you can see a marked improvement over the bog standard rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdUhYz0q30o

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, I have not read all the posts on this subject.

 

[BoydAllen]

You have answered my question about what level of accuracy you are concerned with...factory barrels. As to getting the manufacturer to replace a receiver because it is not to spec., done that a lot have you? IMO you won't have much success with that. If you are absolutely not going to change thread diameter, You were wasting everyone's time by asking the initial question. You can have a lot of fun playing with factory rifles, and if you get lucky, shoot some remarkable groups, but they are built with economic and liability limits that keep them from the best performance levels. One new, but expensive alternative that you might like is the new action that Shilen is selling. It is very straight and correct, and takes any of the aftermarket barrels that are made to upgrade Savages. You can mount these without a lathe, and you can get barrels of high quality with good chambers.

 

[Ackman]

1) I would not want a gunsmith to recut the threads because then they would be out of spec from the factory drawing, and would no longer accept standard barrels.

2)If the factory threads, upon examination, seemed out of spec - I would ask the manufacturer to replace the receiver.

3)If the threads simply had 0.002 of runout, I don't see how that could have an effect, since the bolt face is a plane parallel to the barrel mating surface.

4)I would want to reface the mating surface if it would improve perpendicularity - but I would be surprised if most needed it. Same for the bolt face - if it was not parallel to the locking lug mating surfaces.

This is someone unclear on the concept.....completely in a fog.

1) Gosh. One of the reasons for rebarrelling is to have something much better than factory.

2) Absolutely. Dismantle your Remingtons, if you have any, and have a gunsmith - one who can be trusted that is - check them for trueness. If they're not completely true, send them suckers back to Remington and demand replacement. Be real firm about it.

3) The bolt face plane is parallel to the barrel mating surface. You know that for certain do you? We're talking about real life now.

4) You're clueless about this stuff.

 

[rsilvers]

4) You're clueless about this stuff.

Alright. Give an example of why my #4 response was not correct. What is the +- 2-standard-deviation (95% of the receivers) from square range of the perpendicularity of this area.

 

[dcalloway]

Does anyone feel the need to pull the hook from their lip?

 

[BoydAllen]

About your #4, how many actions have you measured? To be correct, the threads should be concentric with the CL of the bolt raceway, and the action face perpendicular to that. In the example that I gave earlier about my friend's .204 Ruger, at first, he squared the action face to the CL of the bolt raceway, the problem was that the action threads were both out of square and off center. IMO having expectations with no corroborating information is naive, and expounding on those expectations a waste of listeners' time.

 

[Tozguy]

I do believe we are being 'put on', must be cabin fever, time for me to go to the range.

 

[Rust]

Quantifiable results. For each minor item.

It would take months to do one rifle and cost far more doing it one thing at a time than having it all done at once. And you want someone else to do it for you. And the results would be valid only for that particular rifle.

Good luck with that.

 

[skeetlee]

You good gentlemen are wasting your time with this dude!! For the kind of money i spend on this Hobie of mine another 150 bucks is nothing!!! I trust my smith, as he is also my friend and thats the best documentation anyone could have!!! Piece!! Lee

 

[Ackman]

I do believe we are being 'put on', must be cabin fever, time for me to go to the range.

You're probably right. He can't be as stupid as he seems. (?)

 

[rsilvers]

I think it is time to say again that some of these operations may help - and they are sure fun to do as a hobby, but it would be nice to know how much they help independent of a barrel change.

I will go on record though as saying that I do not believe a specialized barrel-break-in procedure helps.