Vudoo V22S SS BR/F Class Action

[skeetlee]

I am hoping to purchase one. I enjoy building rimfire rifles here in my shop and I have several proven Reamers. I’ll put a benchmark or a Shilen ratchet on one if I purchase.
I don’t own a vudoo repeater. At the time I was interested vudoo wouldn’t sell me just an action. As a smith that prides oneself with the work we produce I couldn’t settle for shooting another mans chamber. I’m glad to see they sell just actions now. I’m looking forward to this action!! I’m sure it will be a grand product.

 

[NV_Dmax]

I just got done reading the Calfee book (actually it's just a collection of his articles). It will be really interesting to see if the things he wrote about barrel/tenon size, sear lockup angles, bedding etc. will keep these actions from achieving the last 1-2% of accuracy. My current Vudoo is a 95.75% accuracy gun. I'd sure like to have a 98%+ gun. I have a 2 groove Benchmark on the way but haven't decided on an action yet. Hopefully as these get released to the genpop the results get posted.

 

[Tony K Harper]

I just got done reading the Calfee book (actually it's just a collection of his articles). It will be really interesting to see if the things he wrote about barrel/tenon size, sear lockup angles, bedding etc. will keep these actions from achieving the last 1-2% of accuracy. My current Vudoo is a 95.75% accuracy gun. I'd sure like to have a 98%+ gun. I have a 2 groove Benchmark on the way but haven't decided on an action yet. Hopefully as these get released to the genpop the results get posted.

NV DMAX

The barrel tenon size is more of a common sense thing.

The front ring of the action supports the barrel. The barrel hangs out there counter levered.

The strength needs to be in the support, not the supported.

Removing more metal than you have to from the action ring doesn't serve a purpose.

TKH

 

[RAVAGE88]

NV DMAX

The barrel tenon size is more of a common sense thing.

The front ring of the action supports the barrel. The barrel hangs out there counter levered.

The strength needs to be in the support, not the supported.

Removing more metal than you have to from the action ring doesn't serve a purpose.

TKH

TKH,
If all this is true, let’s look at the yield strength of chosen materials and calculate the hoop strength of the annulus; one at .750” and one at 1.062”, and compare the numbers. I believe the results will be highly enlightening....

MB

 

[Tony K Harper]

TKH,
If all this is true, let’s look at the yield strength of chosen materials and calculate the hoop strength of the annulus; one at .750” and one at 1.062”, and compare the numbers. I believe the results will be highly enlightening....

MB

Are we talking about actions made from the same metal?

If so there are charts everywhere that tells thicker metal is stronger than thinner metal of the same type.

TKH

 

[RAVAGE88]

Are we talking about actions made from the same metal?

If so there are charts everywhere that tells thicker metal is stronger than thinner metal of the same type.

TKH

While that assumption can be reasonably made, there’s more to it than that. Again, this is about yield based on specified parameters as it relates specifically to hoop strength, as that has been the argument of one tenon size vs another. I’ve done these calculations on hundreds of configurations on actions as large as something chambered in .50 cal and what is thought to be the case isn’t always the case.

MB

 

[Tony K Harper]

"While that assumption can be reasonably made, there’s more to it than that." No, there isn't. There is no assumption, it is a fact.

"Again, this is about yield based on specified parameters as it relates specifically to hoop strength, as that has been the argument of one tenon size vs another. I’ve done these calculations on hundreds of configurations on actions as large as something chambered in .50 cal and what is thought to be the case isn’t always the case". Wrong! Show me any caliber where you proved the thinner front action ring was stronger than a thicker front action ring. The key words here are: stronger, action, and ring.

Be that as it may, strength alone is not the only reason most makers of rimfire BR actions choose to use tenons smaller than 1.062.
If I provide that reason I'm sure it will be like a "defund the police in the middle of a crime wave argument, so I'm going to spare myself that.

If it is not proprietary, explain the advantages of the 1.062 action tenon over a smaller action tenon.

Mike, I am so happy you have taken an interest in RFBR. We should all gain from it.

I want this new action to succeed. RFBR needs more choices.

But sometimes, someone, has to tell the Emperor he has no clothes.

TKH

 

[RAVAGE88]

"While that assumption can be reasonably made, there’s more to it than that." No, there isn't. There is no assumption, it is a fact.

"Again, this is about yield based on specified parameters as it relates specifically to hoop strength, as that has been the argument of one tenon size vs another. I’ve done these calculations on hundreds of configurations on actions as large as something chambered in .50 cal and what is thought to be the case isn’t always the case". Wrong! Show me any caliber where you proved the thinner front action ring was stronger than a thicker front action ring. The key words here are: stronger, action, and ring.

Be that as it may, strength alone is not the only reason most makers of rimfire BR actions choose to use tenons smaller than 1.062.
If I provide that reason I'm sure it will be like a "defund the police in the middle of a crime wave argument, so I'm going to spare myself that.

If it is not proprietary, explain the advantages of the 1.062 action tenon over a smaller action tenon.

Mike, I am so happy you have taken an interest in RFBR. We should all gain from it.

I want this new action to succeed. RFBR needs more choices.

But sometimes, someone, has to tell the King he has no clothes.

TKH

Tony, what means have you actually used to be able to say there isn’t? Can you also tell me what factors are used to calculate hoop strength? If you’re just considering the “type of metal” as you termed it earlier, you’re not working with relevant information. If you’re stating actual fact then you have to know how much it takes to yield each annulus....let’s use real numbers here if you have them.

I can show you many, but unless you’re able to openly understand what I show you, it’s truly a waste of time. As I mentioned earlier, the numbers will be enlightening.

Thanks,
MB

 

[Tony K Harper]

Mike, I'm not saying there isn't a reason. I know a reason, perhaps even your reason, but I could be wrong.

I asked you to provide your reasoning, in your words, so I and others, could understand your thinking without making assumptions.

Again we are not dealing with hoop strength, we are not dealing with spring strength, we are dealing with the front ring of a rifle action.

We know an action ring 1.350 dia. or there about, with a 1.062 hole is getting pretty thin, but is strong enough for rimfire. We also know an action ring of 1.350 dia. or there about, with a .750 hole in it is stronger.

But none of this is the point. We simply got off on a tangent.

Are you willing to provide your reasoning behind the 1.062 tenon? If not, let's move on.



TKH

 

[VLNBYR]

I don't think any maker needs to justify his designs, each one has his own ideas and preferences. What works works and what doesn't doesn't. Heck if the Suhl was RBLP with it's great trigger and action screw placement we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[RAVAGE88]

Mike, I'm not saying there isn't a reason. I know a reason, perhaps even your reason, but I could be wrong.

I asked you to provide your reasoning, in your words, so I and others, could understand your thinking without making assumptions.

Again we are not dealing with hoop strength, we are not dealing with spring strength, we are dealing with the front ring of a rifle action.

We know an action ring 1.350 dia. or there about, with a 1.062 hole is getting pretty thin, but is strong enough for rimfire. We also know an action ring of 1.350 dia. or there about, with a .750 hole in it is stronger.

But none of this is the point. We simply got off on a tangent.

Are you willing to provide your reasoning behind the 1.062 tenon? If not, let's move on.

When I order my action (s) I don't want you to tell the shipping department to hold my stuff.

TKH

Tony, with all due respect, the problem across these forums is, many that aren’t qualified to discuss engineering principals/practices really like to argue about engineering principals/practices. The front “ring” is referred to as an annulus in the engineering world and the strength of that annulus is based on what is termed as “hoop strength.” At this point, I’ll pause long enough for you to Google “hoop strength” so we can at least get a little closer to speaking the same language. If you Google annulus, you’ll see it’s defined as a “ring.”

The reason I’ve not shared numbers is because you’re not yet in a place to be willing to understand what I’m trying to share which typically has proven to be a waste of my time and energy. As someone that designs and develops this stuff for a living, I truly have nothing to prove. At the same time, I’m not just repeating anecdotal lore told to me by someone that has no capacity to understand what all this really means.

Thanks again Tony and please take what I’m saying as me trying to openly share from a good place.

MB

 

[RAVAGE88]

I don't think any maker needs to justify his designs, each one has his own ideas and preferences. What works works and what doesn't doesn't. Heck if the Suhl was RBLP with it's great trigger and action screw placement we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Highly sound John and I appreciate your perspective. If we take a hard look at tenon diameters, neither are wrong and I happen to know the smaller tenon isn’t “stronger” than the larger tenon. However, there are some cool advantages to the smaller tenon. I don’t use it for various reasons, but I’d not steer anyone away from using it if certain parameters existed. If the V-22S had a more confined area of use, I’d be using the smaller tenon....but again, not because it’s “stronger.”

MB

 

[Tony K Harper]

OK, John is right you don't need to justify your own ideas or preferences.

TKH

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Ok so I understand, having this area as shown in the picture, thinner doesn't matter as it pertains to that part of a action's receiver's strength?
I am sure a lot of guys reading the past few post are scratching their heads like I am as logic would say thicker would be stronger given if the same material used.

Lee

 

[RAVAGE88]

OK, John is right you don't need to justify your own ideas or preferences.

TKH

Tony, I don’t mind sharing inside what can easily be considered a normal conversation. But when I’m told that I’m wrong in bold print with an exclamation point and you strongly declare what you’re saying is fact without an ability to provide substantive supporting basis, then why should I share when what I’m sharing with you can’t possibly be understood? Especially when what I have to share is supported by substantive engineering/mathematical equations using actual material properties.

MB

 

[RAVAGE88]

Ok so I understand, having this area as shown in the picture, thinner doesn't matter as it pertains to that part of a action's receiver's strength?
I am sure a lot of guys reading the past few post are scratching their heads like I am as logic would say thicker would be stronger given ifView attachment 1191932 the same material used.

Lee

Lee,
That’s looking at one part of the total equation, so I see how this can be confusing.

MB

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Lee,
That’s looking at one part of the total equation, so I see how this can be confusing.

MB

That is why I am having a hard time trying to understand. I am looking at it as a singular dimension and I think you are looking at it as a whole. if that makes any sense

Lee

 

[RAVAGE88]

That is why I am having a hard time trying to understand. I am looking at it as a singular dimension and I think you are looking at it as a whole. if that makes any sense

Lee

It makes perfect sense Mister and it’s why I mentioned above that there’s more to it than that....

MB

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

It makes perfect sense Mister and it’s why I mentioned above that there’s more to it than that....

MB

Ok, just as I thought

Lee

 

[Tony K Harper]

Tony, I don’t mind sharing inside what can easily be considered a normal conversation. But when I’m told that I’m wrong in bold print with an exclamation point and you strongly declare what you’re saying is fact without an ability to provide substantive supporting basis, then why should I share when what I’m sharing with you can’t possibly be understood? Especially when what I have to share is supported by substantive engineering/mathematical equations using actual material properties.

MB

Mike we have tried to communicate before without success. So I doubt we ever will.

You and I both understand exactly why you will not answer direct questions about your action design.

But as said before you don't need to. Let it go at that.

TKH